Knowledge transfer between Centers of Entrepreneurship and SMEs

Knowledge transfer between Centers of Entrepreneurship and SMEs

Small Business and Entrepreneurship Faculty of Economics and Business

Supervisor: Dr. L. Maruster Co-assessor: Dr. C.H.M. Lutz

ABSTRACT

‘”In onderwijs moet ondernemerschap doordringen van top tot koffiejuffrouw” Een ondernemende geest is bij scholieren en studenten ver te zoeken. Twee ministeries willen daar iets aan doen.1’ (Het Financieele Dagblad, 16-04-2008)

This article is one of the reasons why this thesis has been written. The government has recognized that our country has (too) low levels of enterprising spirit on an international scale and this could influence our economic position (Ministry of Economics, 2006). In 2000 all countries of the European Union agreed to the Lisbon Strategy (http://europa.eu). One of its aims is to make the EU the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010. Therefore the partnership ‘Leren Ondernemen’ has been founded in the Netherlands. They give out subsidies and in 2007 they started a program for universities which should increase entrepreneurship. Universities could apply for a subsidy for a Center of Entrepreneurship (CoE). One of the main goals of these centers is to stimulate the exchange of knowledge between educational institutions and the industry surrounding them.

Knowledge and entrepreneurship are key concepts in the Dutch economy and the government is trying to direct the economy to a knowledge-based economy. One way to do this is through universities. Universities have taken on a third mission besides teaching and research, namely the commercialization of research (or capitalization of knowledge). The industry also looks more at universities as external sources of knowledge (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1998).

The relationship between SMEs (Small and Medium Enterprises) and universities is interesting to look at in the Netherlands, because there is a very high level of SMEs (99,7% of all firms in 2007; www.mkb.nl) where 40% of these having between 10-99 employees.

The focus of this paper is the knowledge transfer between CoEs and SMEs. We will try and answer the following main question:

What knowledge transfer activities exist between CoEs and SMEs and how can knowledge transfer activities be stimulated?

1

For the data collection two different databases supplied by SenterNovem are used. Also we asked people from the CoEs to supply us with names of SMEs that they work with. We interview these key persons from the CoEs as well. The total sample size comes to 463 firms (126+311+26) and six interviews. The final sample resulted in 406 firms which got the questionnaire.

There are a lot of benefits that come from university-industry relations: i) access to higher educated students and professors, ii) access to new technologies, iii) access to financial resources, and iv) access to university facilities are mentioned by the industry as key drivers for a partnership with universities (Santoro & Gopalakrishnan, 2000).

However, there are also problems within university-industry relations. Fransman (2008) states that SMEs suffer from information and incentive problems. Also it is stated that one of the knowledge transfer problems could be that there are not enough higher educated employees working in SMEs (AWT, 2005). Other problems mentioned are ‘not speaking the same language’, knowledge is not directly applicable and it takes universities too much time to come up with certain knowledge (AWT, 2005).

Knowledge transfer in the Netherlands is relatively low compared to the OECD countries. Knowledge transfer can occur in different forms in university-industry relations. Some knowledge transfer activities are cited by Santoro and Gopalakrishnan (2000): i) joint curriculum development, ii) personnel exchanges, iii) resource sharing, and iv) collaboration on joint research projects.

Higher social connectedness should lead to more and easier knowledge transfer (Santoro & Bierly, 2006). Due to the tacit nature of the knowledge that needs to be transferred between CoEs and SMEs proximity to a university should improve knowledge transfer as well. Higher trust levels should also lead to more use of different knowledge transfer activities.

Results

From the interviews can be gathered that there are numerous educational initiatives aimed at the development of more entrepreneurial curriculums. Initiatives named are: i) the entrepreneur in the classroom, ii) round tables, iii) graduating on a student company, and iv) attention for female entrepreneurship and international entrepreneurship.

SMEs. They believe they have more expertise and have more opportunities to ‘lend’ personnel to the university.

To get the Netherlands more entrepreneurial everybody believes that entrepreneurship and education should be integrated in the whole educational system.

From the questionnaires some interesting results came back as well. In total 97 SMEs returned the questionnaire. The largest respondent group was of micro SMEs (1-9 employees). The largest sector was the automation sector. Almost 70% of the respondents claim to have a relationship with a university.

It turns out that most firms have 80% or more employees that are higher educated. This means there should be enough connections between universities and SMEs. However our proposition does not get supported statistically.

Of the mentioned benefits access to higher educated students and professors and access to new technologies have the strongest relationship with frequency of contacts. Least mentioned is access to financial means. This has a weak positive relation with frequency of contacts.

Having a personal contact within a university and participating in a network with knowledge institutions are measures for an information problem. Both have a statistical significant positive relationship with the frequency of contacts.

Universities do seem to have an incentive problem for a relationship with an SME. This is because they believe research at universities should be mainly scientific. However, most universities have a business park or something similar. They do cooperate actively when it comes to incubators and spin offs. There is a willingness to work with SMEs; they are valued for their knowledge and experience.

To answer the main question, knowledge transfer activities are all mentioned. However, there may be many more ways of exchanging knowledge between firms and universities that we not thought of. Also the results do not exactly mirror the Dutch situation so in future research larger samples should be taken to get a better picture of the situation.

PREFACE

In high school I had my first encounter with one of the innovations in education, the ‘Tweede Fase’ (second phase). In the past few months I have learned about many more innovations in education, mainly carried out by SenterNovem. I cannot help but to think ‘I wish I had some of these things during my education.’ These initiatives make it just that more interesting and at the same time you learn about the ‘real world’ as well.

During my search for a topic I came across the partnership ‘Leren Ondernemen’. Their goal is to increase the enterprising spirit in the Netherlands and they believe this should be done through education. They just started with the Centers of Entrepreneurship and this seemed a particular interesting topic for me since I’m a university student and graduate on the topic of SMEs. So I applied for an internship.

The team of ‘Leren Ondernemen’ has supported me along the way and came up with their own ideas as well. I would like to thank them here for their support, thoughts and expertise. A special thank you goes to Eline Beemsterboer who was my direct supervisor at SenterNovem. Also I would like to thank Koen de Pater, manager of International and Human Capital at SenterNovem. He opened a lot of doors for me.

Thanks goes to my supervisor at the RuG as well, dr. Laura Maruster. Through discussions and comments she motivated me throughout the process. Her expertise in knowledge management also was one of the reasons my topic came down to knowledge transfer and she was always able to send me in the right direction. A thanks also goes to my second assessor Dr. C.H.M. Lutz.

The interviewees at the Centers and SMEs that took the time to fill out my questionnaire deserve a big thank you as well.

Finally I wish to thank my family and friends for all the supportive emails, telephone calls, and discussions during my internship.

The Hague, September 2008

INDEX

ABSTRACT ... 2 PREFACE ... 5 1 INTRODUCTION ... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

1.1CENTERS OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP ... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

1.2BACKGROUND UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY RELATIONS ... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

1.3KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER ... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

1.4RELEVANCE... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. 2 PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RESEARCH METHOD ... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

2.1MAIN QUESTION ... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

2.2RESEARCH QUESTIONS ... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

2.3SAMPLE AND DATA COLLECTION ... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

2.4STRUCTURE ... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. 3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

3.1CENTERS OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP ... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

3.2UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY RELATIONS ... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. 3.2.1 Triple Helix in the Dutch context ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.2.2 Economic growth ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.2.3 Benefits ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.2.4 Problems ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.3KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER ACTIVITIES ... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

3.4KNOWLEDGE-BASED VIEW ... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. 3.4.1 Social connectedness ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.4.2 Trust ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.4.3 Localization ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.5STIMULATION OF KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER ... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

3.6MEASURES ... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. 3.6.1 University-industry relations ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.6.2 Knowledge transfer ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.6.3 Benefits ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.6.4 Problems ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.7CONCEPTUAL MODEL ... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

4.1INTERVIEW RESULTS ... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. 4.1.1 Educational initiatives ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.1.2 Cooperation with industry ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.1.3 Benefits of being a CoE ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.1.4 How to get the Netherlands more entrepreneurial ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.1.5 Conclusion ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.2QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS ... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. 4.2.1 Higher educated employees ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.2 Size of SMEs ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.3 Benefits for SMEs ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.4 Information problems ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.5 Incentive problems ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.6 Knowledge transfer activities ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.7 Social connectedness, trust and localization ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

5.1WHAT BENEFITS AND PROBLEMS CAN ARISE FROM UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY RELATIONS? ... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

5.3WHAT CAN BE DONE TO STIMULATE KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER ACTIVITIES? ...ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

5.4MAIN QUESTION ... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

5.5LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

REFERENCES ... 43

APPENDIX A CENTERS OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP ... 45

APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRE SMES ... 46

APPENDIX E CONCEPTUAL MODEL ... 50

APPENDIX G TABLES ... 51

Figure 1 Conceptual Model ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 1 Percentage higher educated employees ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 2 Cross tabulation # of employees and existing relationship with university ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3 Heard of CoE and existing relationship with university ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 4 Other knowledge institutions ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Tabel 5 Spearman percentage higher educated employees and contact moments ... 51

Table 6 Spearman # of employees and contact moments ... 51

Table 7 Chi Square test P3 ... 51

Table 8 Chi-Square and Cramér’s V P4 ... 51

Table 9 Spearman's rho P6 ... 51

Table 10 Chi-Square and Cramér's V P7a ... 52

Table 11 Chi-Square and Cramér’s V P7b ... 52

Tabel 12 Aantal medewerkers ... 52

Tabel 13 Sectoren ... 53

Tabel 14 Redenen voor relatie met universiteit... 53

Tabel 15 Informatiebronnen ... 54

Table 16 Aantal contactmomenten ... 54

Tabel 17 Manier van contact ... 54

Tabel 18 Kruistabel grootte en manier van contact ... 54

Tabel 19 Mate van betrokkenheid bij onderwijsactiviteiten ... 55

Tabel 20 Stages aangeboden voor studenten ... 55

Tabel 21 Aangenomen afgestudeerden ... 55

Tabel 22 Uitwisseling personeel ... 56

Tabel 23 Ondernemer voor de klas ... 56

Tabel 24 Hulp bij opzetten casestudies ... 56

Tabel 25 Hulp bij start ups ... 57

Tabel 26 Hulp bij ondernemerschapswedstrijden ... 57

Tabel 27 Mate van vertrouwen ... 57

Tabel 28 Kruistabel Contactmomenten kennisuitwisselingsactiviteiten ... 58

Tabel 29 Kruistabel Contactmomenten kennisuitwisselingsactiviteiten ... 59

Tabel 30 Kennisuitwisselingsactiviteiten ... 60

1 INTRODUCTION

‘”In onderwijs moet ondernemerschap doordringen van top tot koffiejuffrouw” Een ondernemende geest is bij scholieren en studenten ver te zoeken. Twee ministeries willen daar iets aan doen.2’ (Het Financieele Dagblad, 16-04-2008)

This title of an article from the newspaper shows exactly what is ‘wrong’ in the Dutch economy. Knowledge and entrepreneurship are key concepts in the Dutch economy and the government is trying to direct the economy to a knowledge-based economy. They do this by targeting certain regions to be the front line of innovation and knowledge sharing (e.g. Brainport at Eindhoven or Energy Valley at Groningen). The government has recognized that our country has (too) low levels of enterprising spirit on an international scale and this could influence our economic position (Ministry of Economics, 2006).

One of the reasons for low levels of enterprising spirit is that entrepreneurship is not integrated in the curriculums of educational institutions. In 2005 the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sciences founded the partnership ‘Leren Ondernemen’ to create a focus for education and entrepreneurship. Goal of this partnership is to stimulate and embed entrepreneurship in all educational systems. They do this by promoting all sorts of activities aimed at combining efforts of industry and education. Examples are the Business Match at the Hanzehogeschool Groningen which is an entrepreneurial contest aimed at education of entrepreneurship for students; vignettes from ‘Leren Ondernemen’ to stimulate entrepreneurship in curriculums of all educational institutions; and prices for schools with the most entrepreneurial spirit and best entrepreneurial ideas/projects. It is very important, they say, that every young person in the Netherlands has learned about entrepreneurship. They believe that the entrepreneurial spirit will come back into our society and make the Netherlands more competitive and knowledge intensive (www.lerenondernemen.nl).

1.1 Centers of Entrepreneurship

In 2000 all countries of the European Union agreed to the Lisbon Strategy (http://europa.eu). One of its aims is to make the EU the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010.

2

Since January 2008 six Centers of Entrepreneurship (CoEs) have been started up throughout the Netherlands and are subsidized by the government as an answer to the Lisbon Strategy. These centers are located at different universities in Arnhem/Nijmegen, Rotterdam/Leiden/Delft, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Utrecht and Wageningen (see appendix A for descriptions). The term university is used throughout this thesis for two different educational institutions. One institution is more research oriented and the other one is more oriented towards applied science. Both are considered higher education institutions in the Netherlands and therefore there will be no distinction made between the two.

The goal of these centers is to increase the entrepreneurial spirit of students and to stimulate an entrepreneurial attitude of students (www.lerenondernemen.nl). This way the Netherlands can create a more innovative workforce and encourage students to become (more) entrepreneurial.

1.2 Background university-industry relations

Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (1998) state that the relations between universities and industry already exist since the 1980s; they are seen as a factor in economic growth. These relations started to accumulate because government subsidies were limited and so universities needed other forms of financing for their research. This has lead to a normative change in science, which has been named the capitalization of knowledge; research is done not primarily as an end to itself, but it is instructed by the industry and the market. It is also called the third mission of universities besides teaching and research. Knowledge creation is necessary to push economic growth and to maintain or expand the position on the world market. This is also known as the transition from the endless frontier to the endless transition which means that research is linked to utilization.

1.3 Knowledge transfer

help academics with their research too. This type of knowledge sharing is only a small part of this research.

In this context we speak about knowledge process. It is about the transfer of knowledge in a certain way. In this thesis we will look at how knowledge is transferred rather than which knowledge is transferred. We can look at the different means of transferring knowledge, like meetings, conferences, involvement in curriculums, etcetera.

Knowledge transfer can occur through various channels. University and industry can meet each other informally through personal contacts and formally in meetings and conferences. Also the industry can commission a university to perform research or give out advice. A third channel is the creation of physical facilities by universities, such as spin-offs, campus laboratories, incubators and cooperative research centers. Training can be given at universities for employees of firms or for PhD students. The last group of channels mentioned is joint research (very formal) (D’Este & Patel, 2007).

1.4 Relevance

In this thesis a closer look is taken at the relationship between the six CoEs and the surrounding SMEs. The initial idea for this research came from SenterNovem, an agency of the Ministry of Economic Affairs. The objects of research are SMEs surrounding the centers to see how and if the knowledge transfer functions. At the end of the research it should be clear how the knowledge exchange proceeds between universities and SMEs and also how this can be improved and stimulated.

The relationship between SMEs and universities is interesting to look at in the Netherlands, because we have a very high level of SMEs (99,7% of all firms in the Netherlands in 2007; www.mkb.nl) where 40% of these having between 10-99 employees. In 2007 almost 60% of the labor force worked in an SME.3 And, as already stated, the government wants the economy to move toward a more knowledge-based economy.

In a report on knowledge utilization of SMEs in the Netherlands (AWT, 2005) it has been noted that SMEs make more use of applied science oriented institutions (HBO) than the research-oriented institutions. Reasons mentioned are ‘not speaking the same language’, knowledge is not directly applicable and it takes universities too much time to come up with certain knowledge. This makes it for some of the CoEs an extra challenge to provide SMEs with their knowledge and help, so it is interesting to find out what SMEs and universities expect of this relationship.

3

2 PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RESEARCH METHOD

In this chapter the main question and research questions are formulated. Then a description of the research method is given.

2.1 Main question

What knowledge transfer activities exist between CoEs and SMEs and how can knowledge transfer activities be stimulated?

2.2 Research questions

1. What benefits and problems can arise from university-industry relations? 2. What knowledge transfer activities (should) exist between centers and SMEs? 3. What can be done to stimulate knowledge transfer activities?

To find answers to these questions the research method is described below.

2.3 Sample and data collection

The population consists of two target groups. The first group consists of the six Centers of Entrepreneurship. They will be represented by one person of each center who has been directly involved in the set up of the center. We can assume that these key figures are the ones that have the most valuable information since they are closely involved with the organization and the process of setting up. Also, most of them have taken part in the writing of the project plan.

The other group consists of SMEs in the municipalities of the CoEs. We choose municipalities because this indicated that the SMEs are in the direct environment of the CoE. Since it is about municipalities and not the whole of the Netherlands cluster sampling will be used. The Netherlands are naturally divided in municipalities (clusters) and we took a sample from different municipalities. To determine from which cluster we could take a sample, we decided to only use municipalities where a CoE is located. For reasons of proximity it would be reasonable to assume that SMEs located in the same municipality as the CoE have a greater chance of coming into contact with this university. Also for resource and time constraints of the researcher this seems to be a suitable definition of the clusters.

We use three different data sources:

2. A database that feeds on the databases of the Chambers of Commerce; 3. A list of SMEs supplied by the CoEs.

1. The first is a database used by SenterNovem which contains information about the applicants of issued innovation vouchers. SMEs have applied for an innovation voucher because they needed money for an innovative project. They could cash these vouchers at universities and other knowledge institutions. These innovative firms are interesting for this research because there is a chance that they would meet with the CoEs for some sort of arrangement. When we would use all SMEs situated in a municipality, these would include hairdressers, supermarkets and other retailers that are less interesting in this context. These are not firms which would need knowledge transfer from universities necessarily. That is why we choose to use a database with only (more or less) innovative firms. In this database all sorts of innovative firms are available, in total 214 who have supplied an email address or for which we looked up an email address (For privacy reasons these are not included in the appendix. They are available on request.). In total we used 126 firms of this database.

2. The second data source is another database supplied by SenterNovem. This database contains all firms in the Netherlands and feeds on the databases of the Chambers of Commerce. By using a selective method in determining which companies are usable for this research we selected firms based on the following criteria: i) size (1-250 employees), ii) municipality, iii) availability of an email address and iv) certain branches (ICT, automation, mineral extracting, printers and publishers, chemical industry, etcetera.). The branches are selected on the basis that these are considered innovative. These are for example high tech firms, knowledge intensive firms or firms that are in turbulent environments. From this database a sample size of 792 firms can be generated. After this we let the database make a random list of the companies and took a random sample. From this list we selected the first 311 firms. We did not use all the firms because early results showed a low response rate (probably because of the time of year, the summer holidays). When we would use a larger sample then there would be a chance that the response rate would be too low (below 20%).

We used the selection criterion of an email address because we want to send the questionnaire through email with a webpage link. This way it is easier for respondents to answer because it takes less effort. This is to ensure as high as possible response rate within the boundaries of our time and resource constraints.

centers. Otherwise chances are that very little SMEs in the sample have a relationship with a center. For this reason we choose to use purposive sampling. The purpose is that we want to find out what differences there are between firms that do have a relation with a university and firms that do not.

Within purposive sampling there are numerous possibilities of sampling methods. One of these is quota sampling. This sampling method can be divided in proportional and nonproportional quota sampling. The goal of proportional quota sampling is to represent the major characteristics of the population by sampling a proportional amount of each. You keep on sampling until you meet the predefined quota. This is a rather time consuming method of sampling. The other possibility is nonproportional quota sampling. Here the sample does not represent the whole population. There is a pre-set quota that is needed for a certain research. However, this method of sampling does not take proportions of the population into account. It is a way of being able to talk about small groups in the population.

We use nonproportional, because proportional cannot be executed within the time and resource constraints. Besides that we use this because we want to have a general view of the university-industry relation. We will pick five firms per center. We ask the interviewees of the centers to help us with names of SMEs they work with. These firms are already in contact with a CoE and therefore chances are greater that they will respond to the questionnaire. In total we ended up with 26 firms with which the CoEs have a relationship. This results into a total sample size of 463 firms (126+311+26). However, some of the email addresses were not correct or firms were not able to cooperate. This results into a final sample size of 406 firms which got the questionnaire.

easiness of filling out the form. For the questionnaire see appendix C and for interviewees contact information is available on request.

2.4 Structure

3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The first part of this chapter is a description of the Centers of Entrepreneurship to create a better understanding on the subject. The theory about university-industry relations in general (U-I relations) and what they consist of is also discussed. Then we will apply the Triple Helix model to the Dutch context. At the end of each paragraph propositions will be formulated which can be tested later on.

3.1 Centers of Entrepreneurship

In 2000 all countries of the European Union agreed to the Lisbon Strategy (http://europa.eu). Its aim is to make the EU the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion, and respect for the environment by 2010. This strategy has been translated to the Dutch situation by the government. The government wishes to increase the entrepreneurial spirit in the Netherlands and move forward to a knowledge-based economy.

For this reason the partnership of ‘Leren Ondernemen’ has been founded by the Ministry of Economics and the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sciences. They developed a program to increase the entrepreneurial spirit. One of these main instruments of this program is a subsidy for universities. The goal of this subsidy is to embed entrepreneurial capabilities in the curriculum of educational institutions. This is done by founding a limited number of Centers of Entrepreneurship among higher education institutions. A center focuses on directing, organizing and facilitating multi disciplinary education in the whole institution with the goal to stimulate entrepreneurship within the university and between different universities and between universities and industry.

existing entrepreneurial activities, and vii) the project facilitates cooperation between students, lecturers and scientists of different fields.

In the second phase (from May 2007 to October 2007) the thirteen (of 25) projects ranked highest in the first phase were assessed on their more elaborate project plans. Since there was a limited budget for subsidies, the advice council used criteria to rank the thirteen different projects that have been submitted. These were i) an existing infrastructure by which a basis was already formed so that entrepreneurship could be fitted in the curriculum, ii) the quality of the project plan and the project organization was higher than the others and iii) the project adds more innovation and creativity. The maximum duration of the projects is four years.

One of the main goals of a CoE is to stimulate and embed entrepreneurship in the curriculums of educational institutions as to increase entrepreneurial spirit in the Netherlands. The six universities which received the subsidy for a Center of Entrepreneurship all have certain goals they wish to achieve in the next four years. Examples are:

Stimulating entrepreneurial spirit among teachers and students.

Broadening and renewing education and activities by giving access to all students to entrepreneurial education. Or by including the work field (eg entrepreneurs) in the curriculum.

Belonging to the top of expertise in Europe when it comes to entrepreneurship.

Reduce the knowledge gap between universities and industry. This gap could be closed for example by working together on the curriculum.

3.2 University-industry relations

Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (1998) have recognized since the 1980s that university-industry relations are a factor of growth for the economy. The university has taken on a third mission besides teaching and research, namely the commercialization of research (or capitalization of knowledge). The industry looks more at universities as external sources of knowledge. Also universities have spin offs, science parks and intermediary offices to stimulate the capitalization of knowledge. These initiatives are stimulated by the government as well. There is a growing awareness that the government has an important role to play in science and technology policy making.

universities should also be targeted at utilization (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1998). Especially for SMEs this could be useful. Since they do not have the resources to perform their own research they need access to applicable research available at universities. This could be reached by having a location in the proximity of a university, by taking on students for internships and by employing higher educated employees.

3.2.1 Triple Helix in the Dutch context

Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (1996) also developed the Triple Helix model. This describes that the world has moved on from bilateral relationships (e.g. government-industry and universities-industry) to trilateral relationships. This is because of the shift from labor intensive economies to knowledge intensive economies. The economy is driven by innovations and universities are playing a key role in this shift nowadays. This is what is going on at the moment in the Netherlands; the government subsidizes universities which in turn share their knowledge and research with the industry (and vice versa).

In this model the roles of the government, industry and universities are more and more interwoven. For example, universities perform research in science parks to stimulate utilization of knowledge and therefore economic growth; the industry collaborates with universities through contract research or has attracted scientists of their own; the government often has their own research centers for (inter)national use and stimulates university-industry relations through subsidies.

In an attempt of applying the Triple Helix to the Dutch context a number of players in the field can be termed. The government plays an important role in stimulating entrepreneurship in the Netherlands. They provide all sorts of subsidies and programs for the industry as well as for educational systems. Examples are innovation vouchers for SMEs which can be cashed in at different knowledge institutions. Smaller companies can benefit from the knowledge of large institutions and innovate more. Another example is BiB (Beroepsonderwijs in Bedrijf)4, a program that provides a better linkage between vocational training and the SMEs. The last example is social internships (www.senternovem.nl).

Another example are the CoEs. In this case the government is represented by the agency SenterNovem with the department ‘Leren Ondernemen’. An independent advice council has decided which universities could get a subsidy based on their project plan.

4

The universities identified for this model are the six universities which have been subsidized to become a Center of Entrepreneurship. Students are an important target group when stimulating entrepreneurship. It has been shown that one of the problems with SMEs is that there are not enough higher educated employees working there and that they do not know where to look for certain knowledge (AWT, 2005). This may hinder transfer of knowledge and innovation.

The industry consists of all the firms in the Netherlands. With a high percentage of SMEs (99,7%) it is reasonable to take a look at this group. Most of the SMEs are in the sectors business services (31%), retail and wholesale (21%) and industry (12%). The largest group of SMEs consists of 10-99 employees (40% in 2007; www.mkb.nl). It is suggested that firms of this size do not have enough resources to perform their own research and that is why it is interesting to look at this group in this thesis. Differences (in the areas of knowledge transfer activities, higher educated employees, having a relationship with a university, etcetera) between large and small SMEs should be identified if they exist. The following propositions can be stated:

P1 A higher percentage of higher educated employees in SMEs leads to a higher frequency of contacts with universities.

P2 Small and medium firms (≥10 employees) have more frequent contacts with a university than micro firms (<10 employees).

3.2.2 Economic growth

Mueller (2006) recognizes that knowledge spillovers affect the economic growth in a positive manner. This has to do with R&D activities of firms; the more activities they perform, the higher their absorptive capacity (‘the ability of a firm to recognize the value of new, external information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends’ (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990)) and the greater the knowledge pool. Also it has been shown that some innovations would not have happened if universities had not researched it.

Another mechanism proposed is university-industry relationships (Mueller, 2006). The more they are developed, the more knowledge gets spread around, the more innovations are executed and thus there is a higher economic growth. This means that countries with a higher rate of entrepreneurial activities and more university-industry relationships should have greater economic performance. We have stated that the Netherlands suffer from low entrepreneurial spirit and with the set up of the CoEs this should get better. Therefore this is good for the economic growth of the country.

3.2.3 Benefits

There are a lot of benefits that come from industry-university relations. For universities a partnership can mean:

More additional research activities
Publications and patents

Access to industrial technical expertise

Exposure of students and faculty to practical problems
Employment opportunities for graduates

Industry contacts

Impact on teaching for future purposes (Heidrick et al., 2005; Santoro & Gopalakrishnan, 2000).

The industry can benefit from a partnership because it can lead to:
Access to higher educated students and professors

Access to new technologies
Proximity to financial resources
Access to university facilities

These benefits are mentioned by the industry as key drivers for a partnership with universities (Santoro & Gopalakrishnan, 2000). All these activities are reasons to meet with each other. Content and terms of the activities need to be discussed for example. So we can state that:

P3a Access to higher educated students and professors leads to more frequent contacts between SMEs and universities.

P3c Access to financial resources leads to more frequent contacts between SMEs and universities.

P3d Access to university facilities leads to more frequent contacts between SMEs and universities.

3.2.4 Problems

It seems that SMEs do not have as much relations with universities as we would think. Because of their size and resource constraints one would think they could use the universities to perform (some) R&D for them. However, this does not hold. Fransman (2008) states that there are two major causes why SMEs do not often take part in university-industry relationships, namely because of information and incentive problems.

Information problems exist because SMEs simply do not have access to or cannot find the right sources of information (e.g. databases, journals, books, experts). Most of the time SMEs are not plugged into networks with universities. This raises the transaction costs significantly, because it costs more time to find the right information. Large companies (>250 employees) do not have this problem since they have departments which are specialized in these networks, formal and informal. Also, larger firms have more higher educated personnel and therefore more opportunities for connections with a university. It is easier for them to tap into the knowledge base of a network. And since they specialize in finding knowledge, it is easier to find the right knowledge. They have a lot of connections with knowledge networks (like universities) and know the right persons. These are all things that SMEs do not have the resources for. One way to limit this problem for SMEs is through localization of knowledge around universities: the closer firms are to knowledge institutions the bigger the chance that they will meet and use each others knowledge (Mueller, 2006).

field. All of this makes it harder for SMEs to establish a long term link with universities (Fransman, 2008).

All of these factors (no knowledge network, not knowing the right person, not enough money, time restraints and no knowledge base) lead to problems that are hard to overcome by SMEs. The following propositions can be made:

P4 Having a personal contact at a university and participating in networks with knowledge institutions lead to more frequent contacts with universities.

P5 CoEs have an incentive problem for working with SMEs.

3.3 Knowledge transfer activities

Knowledge transfer in the Netherlands is relatively low compared to the OECD countries. The business R&D intensity is low compared to other countries and the proportion of the Dutch population with tertiary education is below the OECD average (Hessels et al., 2008).

Knowledge transfer can occur in different forms in university-industry relations. Some knowledge transfer activities are cited by Santoro and Gopalakrishnan (2000): i) joint curriculum development, ii) personnel exchanges, iii) resource sharing, and iv) collaboration on joint research projects. These are all activities that could, and should, be performed by a CoE. We look at joint curriculum development and personnel exchanges specifically in this research. These activities are specific for the CoE-SME relation because one of the goals is to embed entrepreneurship in the curriculum. Joint curriculum development can be found when entrepreneurs bring in business problems as cases. Students are asked to solve these cases and then discuss them with each other and entrepreneurs. Personnel exchanges is looked at because in the Netherlands it is quite common for universities to have their own research park, spin offs and incubators, where a combination of university personnel and students is used.

Furthermore we look at the exchange of students as a knowledge transfer activity. Both students (in the form of internships) and graduates are considered to be a potential information source for SMEs and therefore included here. More knowledge transfer activities should lead to more frequent contacts between universities and SMEs.

that they can actively put their students on certain research projects to increase entrepreneurship. So we hypothesize that:

P6a Joint curriculum development leads to more frequent contacts. P6b Internships lead to more frequent contacts.

P6c Hiring graduates lead to more frequent contacts. P6d Personnel exchanges lead to more frequent contacts.

3.4 Knowledge-based view

The knowledge-based view recognizes two different types of knowledge, tacit and explicit knowledge. Polanyi (1967) introduced the concept of tacit knowledge defining it as: “Tacit knowledge is knowledge that people carry in their minds and is, therefore, difficult to access. Often, people are not aware of the knowledge they possess or how it can be valuable to others. Tacit knowledge is considered more valuable because it provides context for people, places, ideas, and experiences. Effective transfer of tacit knowledge generally requires extensive personal contact and trust.” On the other hand, explicit knowledge is codified knowledge, for example in manuals, documents and programs.

The expectation is that there is more tacit knowledge to be transferred than explicit knowledge in the CoE-SME relation because it is about entrepreneurial skills mostly. The CoEs wish for their students to become more entrepreneurial. Being entrepreneurial is about both soft and hard skills. The soft skills (e.g. flexibility, market orientation, willingness to take risks (www.ondernemerstest.nl)) are hard to transfer but are an important part of being an entrepreneur. This is where the challenge is for both universities and entrepreneurs/SMEs. Santoro and Bierly (2006) tested a few hypotheses concerning the exchange of these types of knowledge and in which ways this could be facilitated. In this research three of these facilitators are relevant, namely social connectedness, trust and localization.

3.4.1 Social connectedness

It has been acknowledged that (personal) relations between universities and firms facilitate knowledge transfer. Tacit knowledge is more like a process and therefore harder to transfer to other people, explicit knowledge is easier to transfer because of codification.

transfer (Santoro & Bierly, 2006). These relationships can be formed by scientists moving to the industry, incubator firms, science parks, graduates, start ups, etcetera. When we speak about higher social connectedness we mean that there are more frequent contacts.

P7a Higher social connectedness between SMEs and universities lead to more knowledge transfer activities.

3.4.2 Trust

When two parties trust each other there will be more open communication and therefore lower transaction costs. Also when an organization is being seen as trustworthy this could enhance the competitive advantage of the organization (Santoro & Bierly, 2006). Trust is also an advantage when dealing with tacit knowledge, because there is more open communication and cooperation. This is needed to transfer tacit knowledge (Santoro & Bierly, 2006).

P7b A high level of trust between SMEs and a university leads to more knowledge transfer activities.

3.4.3 Localization

Localization is closely related to social connectedness. Due to the tacit nature of the knowledge that needs to be transferred between CoEs and SMEs proximity to a university should improve knowledge transfer. The knowledge developed at universities can be transferred best through direct, interpersonal contacts. This leads to more and better knowledge transfer (Mueller, 2006). To achieve this SMEs should be close to the CoEs/universities. Therefore it is assumed here that localization of knowledge will be in the municipalities where the CoEs are located.

3.5 Stimulation of knowledge transfer

When students are graduating there are a number of ways in which knowledge transfer can be stimulated. Entrepreneurs could help when students want to start a business. The other way around students could help SMEs through problem solving during an internship or when writing their final thesis. SMEs can deliver their business problems at a university and they will link these with students. With more complex business problems it could be possible to ‘lend’ personnel from the university. It seems that graduating students do not know enough of the ‘real world’. This could be improved when entrepreneurs could help with the compilation of the curriculum. This way students should be better prepared for entrepreneurship.

3.6 Measures

In the survey several concepts are measured. In this section it will be explained how the concepts can be measured and examples of questions will be given.

3.6.1 University-industry relations

This is not a quantifiable measure, but more an establishment of the relationship. It can be determined by asking if a relationship with a university exists and how often there is contact with the university. Also we ask if the SME has heard of a Center of Entrepreneurship to find out if they are already well known. In the interviews we ask the key persons of the CoEs what they consider benefits of a university-industry relation.

3.6.2 Knowledge transfer

This can be measured by asking what knowledge transfer activities are performed. These activities can be stated and then the respondent can answer on a seven point Likert scale. We use a Likert scale because we want to see if higher social connectedness and trust levels lead to more activities. If we want to statistically test this we need an ordinal scale. Also there are questions with a few answer options to choose from. These options are based on the literature that has been found like working together on journal articles, the help of a university with a business problem or cooperation on educational activities. We also ask about commitment to educational activities, internships, hiring graduates and personnel exchanges.

3.6.3 Benefits

3.6.4 Problems

The same goes for the problems mentioned. Information problems are determined by establishing where SMEs find their knowledge; if they tick anything else than the universities more often this could point to an information problem. The incentive problem lies more on the side of the universities so this will be a question directed at them.

The theoretical framework can be summarized in a conceptual model (figure 1). For more information we would like to refer to appendix E.

Figure 1 Conceptual Model

Frequency of University-Industry contacts (CoEs and SMEs)

Number of Knowledge transfer activities

Level of Trust Access to higher educated students and professors Size of (cooperating) firms Amount of higher educated

employees SMEs P7b P1 P3a P5 P2 Participating in networks with knowledge institutions

P4 P3b P3c P3d P6a-d + + + + -

Access to new technologies Access to financial

resources

Access to university facilities

3.7 Conceptual model

In the above model the theoretical framework is visualised. On the arrows the direction of the relation is indicated (e.g. + is a positive relationship).

In P1 we state that the amount of higher educated employees has a positive influence on the frequency of contacts. We think there is a positive connection, because it is likely that higher educated people still have connections with someone at a university. This connection could make it easier to establish a relationship and to transfer knowledge.

The size of firms could determine the frequency of contacts as well (P2). Large SMEs (>10 employees) probably have more higher educated employees for instance. This could mean that there are more contacts between an SME and a university. It is stated that micro firms (<10 employees) do not have enough higher educated employees and therefore not enough relations with universities. The expectation is that a higher percentage of higher educated employees leads to more frequent contacts with universities.

Several benefits are mentioned in the theoretical framework. When these benefits are recognized then there should be more frequent contacts (P3a-d).

The same goes for the information and incentive problems. We measure these by looking at having a personal contact within a university and being part of networks with knowledge institutions. These are measures that show that the problem is reduced. For example, if the respondents very often indicate to have a personal contact then there are more contacts between SMEs and universities. If these problems do exist with both parties then there will probably be less frequent contacts (P4).

Since SMEs then do not know how to access information generated at universities, there will be no incentive for them to meet with them. And universities believe that it is not feasible to conduct research for SMEs because of limited financial and theoretical impulses (P5).

Propositions 6 a-d state that knowledge transfer activities (joint curriculum development, internships, hiring graduates and personnel exchanges) and frequency of contacts have a positive relation. We believe that the transfer activities lead to more contacts because content and terms should be discussed between parties.

When the frequency of contacts increases than transfer activities can increase as well. In proposition 7a we state that higher social connectedness (operationalized as more contacts) increases the number of knowledge transfer activities. More contact moments may induce new ideas for cooperation. More cooperation asks for more meetings and more discussions.

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this chapter we summarize the results that we obtained from the interviews with the CoEs and the questionnaires send to the SMEs. We start off with results of the interviews. We only selected those answers that are most relevant and most interesting to report.

After this we report about the results of the questionnaire. We use SPSS to infer conclusions about the results.

4.1 Interview results

4.1.1 Educational initiatives

• One initiative is used by all the centers, the entrepreneur in the classroom. Here local entrepreneurs are invited to tell their story in a classroom full of students. This way students get a better idea of what entrepreneurship entails in the real world and that it takes a lot of falling down and standing up again.

• Then there are the round tables; students can work in small groups with an entrepreneur on real life problems. This stimulates the thinking process of students and also their entrepreneurial spirit.

• Some centers also pay attention to their own academics. Not all academics realize the value of knowledge and how the valorization process functions. So there are

valorization workshops for academics and PhD-students to teach them the

importance of the valorization of knowledge.

• All centers offer the possibility of graduating on a student company. Some of them help these companies out with micro credits; others only offer facilities to start the company.

• One of the centers specifically pays attention to female entrepreneurship. They have seen in their incubator firms that the women that have started their own company are very successful. Unfortunately not a lot of women choose to become an entrepreneur and therefore this center wishes to stimulate them.

Furthermore, students get the chance to take part in an exchange with American students. This way both worlds learn from each other. Another example of the international perspective is dispatching students abroad to Third World countries and look at ways they can be helped (e.g. Ghana Moves by Students 4 Sustainability).

Some of these initiatives are new; others have existed for quite some time now. They are examples of the embedment of entrepreneurship in the curriculum and how entrepreneurs themselves can help students to get more entrepreneurial.

4.1.2 Cooperation with industry

The industry surrounding the centers is actively involved with the curriculum and the students. Most of the time they are alumni who became successful in their line of business. They feel connected with the university where the center is localized and because of this connection it is easy to get them to cooperate on for example the curriculum.

Local entrepreneurs are asked to give speeches and lectures. They help out with business plan competitions and with start ups. They help out with financing as well as with their expertise. A lot of the entrepreneurs are from incubator firms, they started their firms from the university. Most of the time the relationship between the industry and the university is described as informal and pleasant by the people from the centers. Everybody can be as involved as they like, obviously the centers only need motivated entrepreneurs who enjoy the sharing of their stories and wish to motivate others to become entrepreneurs as well. This is also one of the reasons they stick to incubator firms and other alumni, they can relate to the students and university better.

The size of the cooperating firms differs across the centers. Some of them mostly work with micro firms (1 or 2 persons) and others mainly work with large companies which have a large database with smaller companies. The centers that work with large companies do this because of the financial help they can offer, but also because of their expertise. They are willing to ‘lend’ their employees to students who wish to start up a company.

4.1.3 Benefits of being a CoE

more effective than when they would do it all separately. Also it is easier for everybody when a centre for entrepreneurship is centralized. Information is easier to find, people can easily be matched with each other and it is more recognizable. Besides that, there is a belief that these centers facilitate the use of knowledge and also the distribution of new knowledge. It is very important that knowledge of universities gets valorized. An interesting observation is that four out of six centers do not perform research on behalf of companies. They still believe in the scientific value of research and that research on practicality (of for instance technical processes) is not something a university should be occupying her self with.

4.1.4 How to get the Netherlands more entrepreneurial

The last question for everyone was their thoughts on how to make the Netherlands more entrepreneurial. Some of them found it hard to express this; they believe it has to do with culture. Since a culture change takes a lot of years to manifest itself it should also take years before the Dutch get more entrepreneurial. However, once upon a time the Dutch people were very entrepreneurial and innovative so there is a belief that history will repeat itself.

First of all there has to be a distinction made between entrepreneurship and being entrepreneurial. Entrepreneurship is when someone registers his company with the Chamber of Commerce. Being entrepreneurial however goes beyond having your own company. It is about seeing opportunities, taking risks and taking initiative. This is what the government wishes to accomplish with the Dutch students.

To reach all these students all the interviewees agree that entrepreneurship and education should be integrated in the whole educational system, from kindergarten to university. Very important here is that not only the youth get educated in being entrepreneurial; attention should be given to the teachers and students being trained to be a teacher as well. It is about a culture change and that is why one cannot start young enough with being entrepreneurial.

4.1.5 Conclusion

4.2 Questionnaire results

4.2.1 Higher educated employees

It was stated that one of the knowledge transfer problems could be that there are not enough higher educated employees in working in SMEs. This would mean that there are not enough connections with higher education institutions and knowledge does not get transferred as easily between the two. However, the sample shows an average of approximately 67% of the employees being higher educated within the SMEs. Also, in 52 of the 97 firms 80% or more of the employees are higher educated (see table 1). This contradicts the earlier statement that there are not enough higher educated employees working in SMEs. This could be explained by the fact that we used firms in the proximity of a university in the sample. As we have seen a lot of incubators and spin offs are situated around a university. These are all with higher educated employees.

Micro Small Medium Total

80% 4 3 0 7

90% 1 6 0 7

95% 0 3 1 4

100% 31 3 0 34

Total 36 15 1 52

Table 1 Percentage higher educated employees

P1 A higher percentage of higher educated employees in SMEs leads to a higher frequency of contacts with universities.

4.2.2 Size of SMEs

In the sample the largest group is at the micro level (1-9 employees) with 58%. After that with 40% comes the group with 10-99 employees. Only two medium sized SMEs send back the questionnaire. These numbers do not exactly reflect the SMEs in the Netherlands, where the small sized SMEs (10-99 employees) represent the largest part (table 12, appendix G).

The automation sector (31%), professional advice agencies (23%) and the remaining industry (18%) are by far the largest sectors represented by the sample. Again this does not completely mirror the actual situation in the Netherlands. An explanation could be that we restricted the number of branches in the data collection. For example we did not look at retail/wholesale specifically and this takes on a large part of the industry in the Netherlands (table 13, appendix G).

P2 Small and medium firms (≥10 employees) have more frequent contacts with a university than micro firms (<10 employees).

Unfortunately there was a very low response rate of large firms (100-250 employees). A possible solution is to differentiate the small and the micro group of firms. The small firms (10-99 employees) can be considered large enough to compare them to the micro firms (1-9 employees).

Slightly more micro firms state to have a relationship with a university with 38% versus 27%. When looking at these figures in a cross tabulation with firms that state to have a relationship with a university, micro firms take the lead with 37 out of 65 firms having one versus 26 small firms out of 65 firms (see table 2)

Yes No Total

Micro 37 19 56

Small 26 13 39

Medium 2 0 2

Total 65 32 97

Table 2 Cross tabulation # of employees and existing relationship with university

(frequency of contacts) decreases as well. So the smaller the firm, the less frequent they meet with a university (or: micro firms meet less frequent with universities than small firms). This would be consistent with our proposition. The test shows a significance level of ,003 (one-tailed) so we reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative. There is strong statistical evidence that our proposition is true.

4.2.3 Benefits for SMEs

In the questionnaire six possible benefits that can come from a relation between an SME and a CoE are stated. Respondents can tick as many boxes as they like. From this can be derived that reason number one for having a relationship with a university is access to higher educated students and academics. The least mentioned is access to financial means (table 14, appendix G).

P3a Access to higher educated students and professors leads to more frequent contacts.

P3b Access to new technologies leads to more frequent contacts. P3c Access to financial resources leads to more frequent contacts. P3d Access to university facilities leads to more frequent contacts.

We test these relationships with the Chi-Square Test where for each proposition H0: χ2=0 and H1: χ2>0 with α= ,05 (see table 7, appendix G). As we can see all variables have a positive relation with the frequency of contacts ranging from a weak to a moderate strong relation. Each independent variable (benefit of a relationship with a university) is statistically highly significant so we reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative. With a confidence level of 99% we can state that our propositions get supported.

4.2.4 Information problems

To detect an information problem we asked the respondents about their ways of finding knowledge in their branch. Eight possible sources for information were mentioned, one of them being ‘other’ (table 15, appendix G). The most used source is professional or scientific journals; 85% of the respondents ticked this option for knowledge gathering. After this networking with similar firms and attending exhibitions and conferences is mostly mentioned as an important knowledge source for their area of expertise. Approximately 60% of respondents give these answers.

extra time and personnel. Firms with a personal contact within a university are mentioned half the time, approximately. This corresponds with the fact that most of the time employees are higher educated and therefore have a contact within a university.

Meeting with each other is considered as a moment where knowledge can be transferred and information can be gathered. So looking at the frequency of contacts we can tell if knowledge gets transferred on a regular basis. When asked how many times they meet with a university most of them say a few times per year (36%) or month (28%). Only 15% of respondents meet a few times a week, which is considered an intensive relationship (table 16, appendix G).

We also asked about the way of meeting, formal or informal (table 17, appendix G). Most firms give the answer of personal meetings as most used way of meeting (71%). This is done more by micro firms than larger SMEs (> 10 employees) (table 18, appendix G). The larger firms (>10 employees) use more formal meetings more often than smaller firms. All this can be linked to the size of a firm, because larger firms are more bureaucratic and have more agendas to juggle. When the frequency of contacts increases then firms more often choose a more formal way of meeting through meetings and conferences. Personal meetings decrease when the frequency of contacts increases. Apparently when firms meet more often with a university a lot of information is exchanged and plans are discussed. Therefore there is a need for a more formal format.

In the proposition we choose having a personal contact within a university and participation in a network with knowledge institutions as measures for information problems. Both indicate a relation with a university.

P4 Having a personal contact within a university and participating in a network of knowledge institutions leads to more frequent contacts with universities.

Participating in a network of knowledge institutions is another indicator for a possible information problem. Universities are part of these networks. Participating in these networks should lead to (more) knowledge transfer and contacts within universities.

For the statistics test we state that H0: χ2=0 and H1: χ2>0 with α= ,05. The Chi-Square Test (see table 8, appendix G) shows a positive relationship between the two independent variables and the dependent variable. Having a personal contact within a university has a moderate strong relationship with the frequency of contacts with a significance level of p< ,001. Participating in a network of knowledge institutions has a weak relation with frequency of contacts with a significance level of ,040. Both independent variables are smaller than α and therefore H0 gets rejected in favor of H1. The result for a having a personal contact is highly significant. Participating in a network with knowledge institutions is also significant. So our proposition gets statistically supported.

4.2.5 Incentive problems

P5 CoEs have an incentive problem for working with SMEs.

It is mentioned by four of the six CoEs that they still believe that research by universities should be mainly scientific. This means a lot of theory and not enough applicable research, long time horizons and not focusing enough on the real life problems which SMEs encounter.

However, most universities have a business park or something similar. They do cooperate actively when it comes to incubators and spin offs. These kinds of SMEs are financially and otherwise supported by universities. When you wish to start a business right after your studies then it is best to see if you can do this with the help of your university. Here there are less incentive problems. These problems seem to occur more when SMEs are located outside university premises.

4.2.6 Knowledge transfer activities

To establish some knowledge transfer activities we came up with eight different propositions. Four of these propose something about the current situation and four are for determining the future interest of these firms in certain activities.