Abstract and keywords
Abstract (English):
Introduction. Modern universities must fulfill the so-called “third mission” and become entrepreneurial (University 3.0). To go through this strategic transformation, universities need new theoretical approaches to strategizing. The research objective was to identify the strategic opportunities of creating an entrepreneurial university in the Kemerovo Region, i.e. interests of its stakeholders, mission, strategic priorities, competitive advantages, etc. Study objects and methods. The research featured the Kemerovo State University as the leading university in the region. It relied on the strategizing theory and methodology developed by V.L. Kvint, Foreign Member of the Russian Academy of Science. It involved an analysis of interests and values, an OTSW analysis, the method of strategic priorities and competitive advantages, etc. Results and discussion. The strategic development of the Kemerovo State University as an entrepreneurial university on its way to University 4.0 proved to be possible and expedient. The interests of the main stakeholders coincided in the field of R&D commercialization and the development of the entrepreneurial ecosystem of the university. Global, national, and regional trends determined the potential and expediency of “the third mission” of the Kemerovo State University. The strategizing strengths included a ready-made entrepreneurial training system, innovative infrastructure, competencies, and experience in start-ups, while the low level of entrepreneurial culture appeared to be the most obvious weakness. The article introduces the mission of the Kemerovo State University as an entrepreneurial university. The authors identified five strategic priorities, four of which demonstrated competitive advantages, as well as clear strategic contours and goals. Conclusion. The study can be of interest to management departments of universities that plan their strategic development as entrepreneurial universities.

strategy theory, strategy methodology, entrepreneurial university, stakeholders, global trends, mission, strategic priorities, competitive advantages
Publication text (PDF): Read Download

1. Golovko NV, Zinevich OV, Ruzankina EA. Third generation university: B. Clark and J. Wissema. Higher Education in Russia. 2016;(8–9):40–47. (In Russ.)

2. Kvint VL. The concept of strategizing. Kemerovo: Kemerovo State University; 2020. 170 p. (In Russ.)

3. Kvint VL. Global emerging market: Strategic management and economics. M.: Biznes Atlas, 2012. 626 s. (In Russ.)

4. Kvint VL. Theoretical basis and methodology of strategizing of the private and public sectors of the Kuzbass region as a medial subsystem of the national economy. Russian Journal of Industrial Economics. 2020;13(3):290–299. (In Russ.)

5. Kvint VL, Khvorostyanaya AS, Sasaev NI. Advanced technologies in strategizing. Economics and Mana­gement. 2020;26(11):1170–1179. (In Russ.)

6. Klark BR. Sozdanie predprinimatelʹskikh universitetov: organizatsionnye napravleniya transformatsii [Starting business universities: organizational directions for the transformation]. Moscow: Higher School of Economics; 2011. 240 p. (In Russ.)

7. Korchagina IV, Korchagin RL, Sychyeva-Peredero OV. Assessment of the regional research reserve in the context of economic diversification on technological entrepreneurship basis. Actual Problems of Economics and Management. 2019;24(4):56–67. (In Russ.)

8. Mkrtychyan GA, Isaeva OM. The emergence of the entrepreneurial university: The clash of values and resistance to change. Journal University Management: Practice and Analysis. 2017;21(2):76–85. (In Russ.)

9. Prosekov AYu. Concept for the southern campus of the Network University of the Kuzbass research and education center. Journal University Management: Practice and Analysis. 2021;25(2):49–58. (In Russ.)

10. Altbach P, Reisberg L. The pursuit of international students in a commercialized world. International Higher Education. 2013;73.

11. Audretsch DB, Belitski M. Three-ring entrepreneurial university: in search of a new business model. Studies in Higher Education. 2021;46(5):977–987.

12. Deering D, Sá CM. Financial management of Canadian universities: adaptive strategies to fiscal constraints. Tertiary Education and Management. 2014;20(3):207–224.

13. Lombardi R, Massaro M, Dumay J, Nappo F. Entrepre­neurial universities and strategy: the case of the University of Bari. Management Decision. 2019;57(12):3387–3405.

14. Pickernell D, Ishizaka A, Huang S, Senyard J. Entrepreneurial university strategies in the UK context: towards a research agenda. Management Decision. 2019;57(12):3426–3446.

15. Etzkowitz H. Anatomy of the entrepreneurial university. Social Science Information. 2013;52(3):486–511.

16. Centobelli P, Cerchione R, Esposito E, Shashi. Exploration and exploitation in the development of more entrepreneurial universities: a twisting learning path model of ambidexterity. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2019;141:172–194.

17. Feola R, Parente R, Cucino V. The entrepreneurial university: How to develop the entrepreneurial orientation of academia. Journal of the Knowledge Economy. 2021;12(4):1787–1808.

18. Khieng S, Dahles H. Commercialization in the non-profit sector: the emergence of social enterprise in Cambodia. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship. 2015;6(2):218–243.

19. Liu S, van der Sijde PC. Towards the entrepreneurial University 2.0: Reaffirming the responsibility of universities in the era of accountability. Sustainability. 2021;13(6).

20. Martínez-Martínez SL, Ventura R. Entrepreneurial profiles at the university: a competence approach. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020;11.

21. Mason PR. The community interest company. Social Business. 2020;10(1):65–84.

22. Rane NT. Privatization and commercialization higher education in India and future aspects. Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research. 2019;6(3):78–84.

23. Saha N, Sáha T, Sáha P. Entrepreneurial universities perception and regional innovation system: Do they really create an environment for regional economic development? Journal of Entrepreneurship Education. 2020;23(2).

24. Sejersen N, Hansen J. From a means to an end: patenting in the 1999 Danish “Act on Inventions” and its effect on research practice. Minerva. 2018;56(3):261–281.

25. Horner S, Jayawarna D, Giordano B, Jones O. Strategic choice in universities: Managerial agency and effective technology transfer. Research Policy. 2019;48(5):1297–1309.

26. Svensson P, Klofsten M, Etzkowitz H. An entrepreneurial university strategy for renewing a declining industrial city: The Norrköping way. European Planning Studies. 2012;20(4):505–525.

27. Taylor M. What is good university financial management? Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education. 2013;17(4):141–147.

28. Terlyga A, Balk I. Use of machine learning methods to classify Universities based on the income structure. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2017;913(1).

29. Pugh R, Lamine W, Jack S, Hamilton E. The entre­preneurial university and the region: what role for entrepreneurship departments? European Planning Studies. 2018;26(9):1835–1855.

30. Valero A, van Reenen J. The economic impact of universities: Evidence from across the globe. Economics of Education Review. 2019;68:53–67.

31. Williams D, Kluev A. The entrepreneurial university: evidence of the changing role of universities in modern Russia. Industry and Higher Education. 2014;28(4):271–280.

32. Wissema JG. The new learning. Journal Univer­sity Management: Practice and Analysis. 2018;22(2):11–16.

33. Wissema JG, Djarova JG. A new look at in novation policy: Twelve recommendations. In: Yülek M, editor. Economic planning and industrial policy in the globalizing economy. Cham: Springer; 2015. pp. 269–287.

Login or Create
* Forgot password?