Managing the university campus; Information to support real estate decisions

See on Scoop.itDual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

This book summarizes the results of ten years of research on a wide range of topics on campus management: from generating references for planning purposes – like current replacement costs and new space standards for the changing academic workplace – to strategies for the sustainable campus and new models that merge the campus and the knowledge city. The book includes profiles of fourteen Dutch campuses and forty campus projects to illustrate trends. The content of this book combines insights from theory – adding to new real estate management theories and the required management information for real estate decisions – and lessons for practice. The book can support the decisions of policy makers, architects, campus and facility managers about the campus of the future.





1 Introduction, research questions and methodology
2 About Dutch universities: data, history and context
3 Conceptual framework



4 Assessing the current campus
5 Exploring changing demand
6 Generating future models for the campus
7 Defining projects to transform the campus



8 Management information for campus decisions
9 Strategic choices for the campus of the future
10 Reflections and epilogue



Appendix I – Dutch university campuses (14)
Appendix II – Dutch university projects (39)
Appendix III – Dutch higher education system, funding and student enrolment
Appendix IV – International associations and networks
Appendix V – Future models for campus and city
Appendix VI – Project BK city – background, facts & figures
Appendix VII – Abbreviations and definitions
Appendix VIII – Related research, methodology and results



Information to support real estate decisionsAlexandra den HeijerISBN: 9789059724877EBURON, 2011Pages: 432 ;
See on

European Universities And The Challenge Of The Market; A Comparative Analysis

See on Scoop.itDual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university


This book offers an analysis of the increasing influence of external demands on the dynamics of European higher education systems and institutions. It focuses on the growing openness of higher education to its external environment and suggests that a market logic has emerged in higher education institutions. In addition, the book addresses a number of crucial drivers of change , like the massification of higher education, the emergence of the knowledge economy and the Bologna Process. And it studies the roles and interests of various stakeholders. This book should be of interest to all those who are involved in higher education, whether as internal actors in institutions of higher education, or as its external clients and policy makers. It provides a relevant perspective on the current developments in European higher education and at the same time offers the conceptual tools to critically analyze these developments. Frans van Vught, President of the European Center for Strategic Management of Universities (Esmu) and former president of the University of Twente, the Netherlands


The book presents exciting comparative perspectives: how Italian scholars perceive and assess links between higher education and the economy. In-depth information is provided on issues not well documented in the past, e.g. the involvement of external actors in curriculum design, career services for students and links between governance and funding. The Milano-based team of scholars convincingly interpret the opportunities and problems of higher education reforms aiming to position higher education in the knowledge society. Ulrich Teichler, University of Kassel, Germany


European Universities and the Challenge of the Market by Marino Regini offers a timely, refreshing and well-researched account of one of the most important changes in European (and other) higher education the rise of competition and the market as key policy drivers. This is a global template whose diffusion and domestications are hugely important for higher education policy research and Regini s book begins lucidly and insightfully to fill in longstanding gaps for us. Just as crucially the book provides valuable material on both the convergences and divergences we find increasingly between globally-situated higher education states. Roger King, Open University and London School of Economics, UK


UK academics are frequently exhorted to integrate a European (and global) perspective into their syllabuses, especially where their students are drawn from a wide variety of national backgrounds. But this is difficult when there is a dearth of detailed, accessible contemporary accounts of national practices elsewhere. This edited book goes a very long way to help them. It offers detailed, rigorously researched descriptions of the nature and effects on higher education of its marketisation descriptions rooted in robust theoretical and conceptual frameworks which help the reader situate the descriptions in their own context. Paul Trowler, Lancaster University, UK


Introduction: European Universities Meet the Market
Marino Regini

1. Redesigning Curricula: The Involvement of Economic Actors
Gabriele Ballarino

2. The Reorganization of Research
Sabrina Colombo

3. Student Services and the Labour Market
Renata Semenza

4. Funding, Assessment and Governance
Loris Perotti

5. The Challenge of the Market
Marino Regini

6. UK: The University as Economic Actor
Sabrina Colombo

7. The Netherlands: A Difficult Marketization
Loris Perotti

8. Germany: Change through Continuity
Gabriele Ballarino

9. Investing in Change: The Uneven Outcomes of French Higher Education
Renata Semenza

10. Italy: Gradual Changes and an Uncertain Autonomy
Gabriele Ballarino and Loris Perotti

11. Spain: Major Reforms and Mixed Performance
Loris Perotti

Conclusions: Where are European Universities Going?
Marino Regini




European Universities And The Challenge Of The Market

A Comparative Analysis

Marino Regini

Marino Regini, University of Milan, Italy

 2011 256 pp Hardback 978 1 84980 403 5 ebook isbn 978 1 84980 863 7
See on

The engaged university – towards new roles for universities for economic development

See on Scoop.itDual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university


Universities play a unique role in society, providing a community of experimentation and innovation. Even so, leaders around the world have had to push for university primacy to retain competitiveness in the global economy. This paper examines efforts taken by universities in the United States to evaluate their contribution to economic development. An emerging role for universities is one of active neighborhood involvement, in which they are engaged in projects with local communities. These projects include providing assistance to local firms and policy advice to state and local government, and getting involved in community outreach. In this role and in an unprecedented manner, universities are engaging on a wide range of topics with local communities, using these communities as labs to test new ideas and find better ways to achieve social and economic goals. This is precisely why it is important to consider the larger role of universities’ in economic and social development.



The engaged university
Shiri M. Breznitz, Maryann P. Feldman
The Journal of Technology Transfer
2012, Volume 37, Issue 2, pp 139-157

DOI: 10.1007/s10961-010-9183-6

See on

Pathways to impact and the strategic role of universities: new evidence on the breadth and depth of university knowledge exchange in the UK and the factors constraining its development

See on Scoop.itDual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university


There has been an increasing focus on the strategic role of universities in stimulating innovation and economic growth, primarily though the transfer of technology. This paper interrogates some of the key aspects of much of the conventional wisdom concerning the transfer of technology and the knowledge exchange process in general. It analyses the results from two unique surveys: a survey of the UK academic community that generated more than 22,000 responses; and a stratified survey of businesses that generated more than 2,500 responses. The results suggest that much of the conventional wisdom concerning knowledge exchange involving academia is too narrowly confined or is misinformed. First, there is an excessive focus in much of the academic and policy discourse on commercialisation and technology transfer—there are many knowledge exchange mechanisms used by academics—these include commercialisation processes but also many other ‘hidden’ connections. Second, the focus on the science base ignores that knowledge exchange involves academics from all disciplines. Third, the preoccupation with improving innovation and business performance tends to ignore that knowledge exchange involves partners from the public and third (not for profit) sectors as well as private sector businesses. Fourth, the main constraints that hinder or limit the knowledge exchange process include a lack of time, insufficient internal capability to manage relationships and insufficient information to identify partners. Problems concerning cultural differences between academics and business, and disputes concerning intellectual property are not prominent. Overall, the paper suggests that the notion of an academic ‘ivory tower’ seems to be a myth as far as the UK is concerned. It also suggests that a strategic focus on strengthening connections between academia and the rest of society may generate long-term benefits, but it will also face challenges and should not distort or divert from the wider foundations of scholarship on which the success of universities are built.



Pathways to impact and the strategic role of universities: new evidence on the breadth and depth of university knowledge exchange in the UK and the factors constraining its development.

Alan Hughes and Michael Kitson

Camb. J. Econ. (2012) 36 (3): 723-750.

doi: 10.1093/cje/bes017

See on

The “third mission” of universities and the region: comparing the UK, Sweden and Austria

See on Scoop.itDual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

University Third Mission 2012-12-28_23-38-49Abstract
The literature on university “third mission” transformations and their relationships to regional development is relatively broad and diverse. This paper reviews four approaches to university “third mission” processes and uses them as an exploratory lens for understanding the interactions between national policy imperatives, characteristics of the university population, and country attributes that have shaped university third function transformations in the UK, Sweden and Austria. In the first approach, the university third mission is seen as an entrepreneurial process of economic autonomy and knowledge transfer to industry. In the second, the university is viewed as an actor in a regional innovation system contributing to knowledge generation and regional innovation – enhancing interactions. The third approach sees the university as transforming its processes to ‘mode 2’ knowledge production, and in the fourth, as adapting to regional societal needs. This paper finds that the UK has the longest tradition of the university third mission role, but has the least well mandated regional role. In the UK national policies have resulted in all four models of the third mission. Sweden has examples of the entrepreneurial university and RIS universities. In Austria the model is primarily one of RIS universities, with some evidence of Mode 2 within the full-scale university population

See on

Between Impactelligent Universities and Global Markets: Centre for Commercialization of Research (CCR) accelerates the valorization of publicly funded research

See on Scoop.itDual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

The Centre for Commercialization of Research (CCR) accelerates the commercialization of publicly funded research in Canada and enables the growth of Canadian early-stage companies by providing an entrepreneur what they need exactly when they need it – from start-up to established firm.

Acting as a catalyst, CCR helps these emerging businesses grow to the point where they can attract private investment, and ultimately become sustainable, global competitors. CCR is able to assist these young companies and their management teams in navigating the sometimes tricky waters of business, offering an integrated suite of services that work together to help a business grow: management expertise and guidance; access to domestic and global customers, networks and markets; and early stage financing.

CCR’s core value proposition is its expertise and time, along with that of its partners, as well as access to a vast array of networks. The team and its partners help select the most appropriate resources and create a customized solution for each supported company.

CCR Mission:

To help Canadian entrepreneurs accelerate the commercial introduction of leading edge technologies, goods, services and business models in the priority areas identified by the federal Science and Technology Strategy: health; information and communications technology; environment; and energy and natural resources;To play a key role in building a Canada-wide commercialization network; andTo promote a Canadian culture of entrepreneurship.

Leveraging its national and global reach, CCR connects its client companies to the commercialization community in Canada through the Canadian Commercialization Consortium (C⊃3;) and to international partners and customers through the International Commercialization Alliance (ICA).

CCR is a federally funded member of the Centres of Excellence for Commercialization and Research (CECR) program, under the Networks of Centres of Excellence program, which forges partnerships between universities, industry, government and not-for-profit organizations. Its goal is to turn Canadian research and entrepreneurial talent into economic and social benefits for all Canadians.


CCR helps emerging businesses grow to the point where they can attract private investment, and ultimately become sustainable, global competitors. CCR is able to assist these young companies and their management teams in navigating the sometimes tricky waters of business, offering assistance and advice on issues such as management, marketing, technology (intellectual property) strategy, product development and financing.


Annual report 2011-2012:


See on

Measuring Innovation Enabler Impact: Immediate, Intermediate and Ultimate Impact; the Evidence Network impact assessment in action

See on Scoop.itDual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

The Evidence Network’s performance measurement system measures both mission performance and service performance.  In the following we explain these two measures of innovation enabler performance.

The figure below considers the relationship between innovation enabler missions and services, shown on the left, and firm performance and inputs, shown on the right.  As a class of organizations, innovation enablers share the common mission of enabling firm innovation or success, and perform an overlapping set of services.  But the specific mission of a given innovation enabler will influence the specific services that it provides, as indicated by the downward arrow on the left that connects innovation enabler mission to innovation enabler services.  Similarly, firm inputs influence firm performance, subject to the firm’s capabilities and the business environment, as indicted by the upward arrow on the right. Firm performance is measured in, for example, revenues, valuation, or new products, services, or processes.

Mission performance is the relationship between of innovation enabler mission and firm performance, as indicated by the top horizontal arrow.  It is measured in terms of mission-related results such as increased firm revenues, increased employment, or new patents.  Innovation enablers achieve mission performance indirectly, by providing services that affect firm inputs or the business environment.  These outcomes of innovation enabler services, over time, impact firm performance.

Service performance is the direct and immediate impact of innovation enabler services on firm inputs.  It is depicted by the lower horizontal arrow and reflects the appropriateness and effectiveness of innovation enabler services.


Impact assessment methodology:





See on

Networks of Centres of Excellence; impacting Canada’s global economic competitivenesssince with over 45 networks and centres funded since 1989

See on Scoop.itDual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

Networks of Centres of Excellence are unique partnerships among universities, industry, government and non-governmental organizations aimed at turning Canadian research and entrepreneurial talent into economic and social benefits for all Canadians.


Canada’s global economic competitiveness depends on making new discoveries and transforming them into products, services and processes that improve the lives of Canadians. To meet this challenge, the Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE) offers a suite of programs that mobilize Canada’s best research, development and entrepreneurial expertise and focus it on specific issues and strategic areas. NCE programs meet Canada’s needs to focus a critical mass of research resources on social and economic challenges, commercialize and apply more of its homegrown research breakthroughs, increase private-sector R&D, and train highly qualified people. As economic and social needs change, programs have evolved to address new challenges.


The NCE currently funds 46 networks and centres through its suite of programs, which mobilize Canada’s best research, development and entrepreneurial talent, and focus it on specific issues and strategic areas. This section lists of all active and previously funded networks and centres since the NCE’s creation in 1989.

See on

Metrics can’t replace expert judgment in science assessments, Report by Canadian Expert Panel on Scienc Performance and Research Funding

See on Scoop.itDual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university


There are many quantitative indicators to assess science performance, the report notes. These include not just bibliometric indicators like publications and citation counts, but also patterns and trends in grant applications and research funding, measures of “esteem” such as academic honours and awards, and a host of new internet-based metrics such as the number of article downloads.


These indicators and assessment approaches “are sufficiently robust” to be used to assess science performance in the aggregate at the national level, the report concludes. However, these indicators “should be used to inform rather than replace expert judgment,” which the expert panel says remains “invaluable.” Examples of expert judgment include peer review and other “deliberative” methods, says the report.


Summary of Methodological Guidelines
Context is critical in determining whether any science indicator or assessment
strategy is appropriate and informative. As a result, it is impossible to provide a list of universally applicable best practices. With respect to assessing scientific research in the NSE at the level of nationally aggregated research fields, however, the following general methodological guidelines may be of assistance.


Assessments of Research Quality
Indicators associated with monitoring research quality often relate to different
aspects of quality or different timeframes. As a result, the best approach relies on a combination of assessment strategies and indicators.

• For an assessment of research quality of a field at the national level, a
balanced combination of deliberative methods and quantitative indicators
is the strongest approach.

• For an assessment of the scientific impact of research in a field at the national level, indicators based on relative, field-normalized citations (e.g., average relative citations) offer the best available metrics. At this level of aggregation, when appropriately normalized by field and based on a sufficiently long citation window, these measures provide a defensible and informative assessment of the impacts of past research in the NSE.

• Quantitative indicators of research quality should always be evaluated by informed expert review because accurate interpretation of data from available indicators can require detailed contextual knowledge of a field.


In addition to methodological guidelines, the Panel developed the following general principles for defining a process for NSE assessment in the context of informing research funding allocation:


• Context matters: Effective use of indicators or assessment strategies, as
applied to research fields in the NSE, is context dependent. Thus any approach should take into account national science and technology objectives as well as the goals and priorities of the organization and funding program.

• Do no harm: Attempts to link funding allocation directly to specific indicators
have the potential to lead to unintended consequences with negative impacts on the research community. Promising strategies identified by the Panel to mitigate this risk include relying on a balanced set of indicators and expert judgment in the assessment process.

• Transparency is critical: Assessment methods and indicators are most effective when fully transparent to the scientific community. Such transparency should include both the assessment methods or indicators (e.g., indicator construction and validation, data sources, criteria, procedures for selecting expert reviewers) and the method or process by which the indicators or assessments inform or influence funding decisions.

• The judgment of scientific experts remains invaluable: Many quantitative indicators are capable of providing useful information in the assessment of discovery research at the national and field level. In the context of informing research funding decisions, however, quantitative indicators are best interpreted by scientific experts with detailed knowledge and experience in the relevant fields of research, and a deep and nuanced understanding of the research funding contexts in question, and the scientific issues, problems, questions, and opportunities at stake.



Council of Canadian Academies.

Expert Panel on Science Performance and Research Funding Informing research choices: indicators and judgment / The Expert Panel on Science Performance and Research Funding.
ISBN 978-1-926558-42-4




See on

The Executive Social Media Gap; disconnect between companies’ understanding of social media and the actions they are taking to apply it to their business, 2012 Stanford Social Media Survey

See on Scoop.itDual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

Less than a third of companies today use social media to support their corporate strategy and risk management practices, according to new research conducted by Stanford University’s Rock Center for Corporate Governance, the Center for Leadership Development and Research at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, and The Conference Board. 

In the report titled “What Do Corporate Directors and Senior Managers Know about Social Media?” the authors detail the results of a survey of more than 180 senior executives and corporate directors of North American public and private companies. The findings reveal a disconnect between companies’ understanding of social media and the actions they are taking to apply it to their business. The report appears in the latest Directors Notes published by The Conference Board.


Key findings include: 

 While 90% of respondents claim to understand the impact that social media can have on their organization, only 32% of their companies monitor social media to detect risks to their business activities and 14% use  metrics from social media to measure corporate performance.   Only 24% of senior managers and 8% of directors surveyed receive reports containing summary information and metrics from social media. Approximately half of the companies do not collect this information at all.   Nearly two-thirds of respondents (65%) use social media for personal purposes, and 63% for business purposes. Of those who use social media, 80% have a LinkedIn account and 68% have a Facebook account, demonstrating that executives and board members are familiar with this medium. Still, only 59% of companies in the survey use social media to interact with customers, 49% to advertise, and 35% to research customers. Approximately 30% use social media to research competitors, research new products and services, or communicate with employees and other stakeholders.
See on

RSS Business School News

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Locations of Site Visitors

Altmetric Related stuf

if(typeof(AltmetricWidget) !== 'undefined'){ window.AltmetricWidget489 = new AltmetricWidget("AltmetricWidget489"); }}

%d bloggers like this: