An integrated model of Entrepreneurship and Intrapreneurship

A Ward, Department of Electronics, University of York

Abstract
This paper reports on one of the outcomes of a broad ranging research project, funded by the
White Rose Centre for Enterprise, aimed at investigating the potential for the assessment of
entrepreneurial ability in undergraduate students. The underpinning principle, which is accepted
as not being universally held, being that if a subject is to be taught it should be possible to assess
the student educational added value. In the case of entrepreneurship, a complex meta-
competence comprising both technical and non-technical components, the ability to assess
becomes more a question of what can be assessed rather than attempting to produce any single
metric and the assessment tool being more a profile than a unitary measure. The study started
with an initial literature review investigation of the various definitions of entrepreneurship and
intrapreneurship and how the definitions have evolved over time within each perspective.

Introduction
The White Rose Centre for Enterprise (WRCE) is a collaboration of the Universities of Leeds,
Sheffield and York in the area of enterprise. The collaboration resulted from a successful bid for
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) Science and Enterprise Challenge funding to embed
enterprise in all aspects of the teaching and learning in the Science, Engineering and Technology
(SET) disciplines. Additional sub-agendas within the programme are business exploitation,
research and dissemination of findings. In its central objective, that of embedding enterprise into
core teaching and learning activities across the SET subject areas, over 200 learning resources
have been developed and can be accessed from the WRCE web site. The learning resources
range in complexity from single case studies to full on-line modules. The research agenda is
progressed through funded projects, seminars and workshops that are rotated around the three
institutions. One of the funded projects is an investigation into the scope for the assessment of
enterprise as a meta-competence.

Methodology
According to Liverpool John Moores University the top five entrepreneurs are Richard Branson,
Chris Evans, Bill Gates, Anita Roddick, Tom Bloxham and Jane Cohen (Yorke, 1997). Whether
you agree or disagree with the list is not the issue, the issue is what makes an entrepreneur and
can we assess entrepreneurship skill or competence?

Why do we need to assess entrepreneurial competence? Given that we are trying to educate
learners and develop in them knowledge, understanding and skills, assessment is an integral and
key component of the education system. If we cannot measure something how can we know
whether we are actually adding value to the learner? The hypothesis of the research project is
that assessment of enterprise ‘skill’ is achievable. The Liverpool John Moores University finding
clearly indicates that any assessment and any measure will be complex if achievable and with this
complexity comes difficulties of reliability and validity and a high cost.

The part of the project reported herein is the result of an investigation into the definition of
enterprise. This project has used, as its sources of information, the definitions of enterprise
offered within the literature on the three commonly encountered perspectives of enterprise and
from the competence requirements as emerging from the training community. The information
from these sources has been combined into a single holistic model embracing entrepreneurship
and intrapreneurship.
The key proposition, for the purposes of this aspect of the project, is that a single model can be
formed that embraces the technical and behavioural skills as well as the psychological, social and
environmental influencing factors in what it takes to make an entretrepreneur / intrapreneur or
‘x’trepreneur’.

The initial literature review has followed conventional lines in considering entrepreneurship from
an economic perspective, a social perspective and a psychological perspective. Componential
theory has been used to improve the understanding of each perspective and to identify
commonalities and interdependencies. The key components have also identified areas of further
review. All factors, which have been shown to have an impact on entrepreneurial tendency, have
been arranged using a process metaphor into a single model. The model includes ‘stages’ and
‘gates’. The ‘stages’ are processes through which an individual can pass as part of intentional or
unintentional enterprise training. The ‘gates’ are decision points that the individual takes
consciously to decide whether to progress to the next process stage, i.e. take the next step towards
becoming an ‘x’trepreneur’.

One of the educational conclusions drawn from the model is that the entrepreneur, especially the
small business owner/manager entrepreneur requires skills in three broad areas, ‘domain-related’
skills, the knowledge and skills related to the specific product or service area; ‘technical’ skills,
the business skills and knowledge of how to form companies, select the appropriate company
form and means of promotion, etc.; and ‘behavioural’ skills, skills of personal effectiveness,
negotiation, communications, etc. It is argued that the need for domain specific skills and
technical skills can be better accomplished in an educational model wherein the enterprise content
is embedded in the core domain-relevant material rather than as separate, isolated modules.

The project started at the most generic level with a review of some well known entrepreneurs
(including Richard Branson, Chris Evans, Bill Gates, Anita Roddick, ...) and some less known
entrepreneurs. At the generic level what do these individuals have in common that might
constitute a unitary measure of the quality of their entrepreneurship? The most obvious measure
is 'success' in their endeavor. Whilst this is a unitary measure and is 'simple' in principle to
understand, it suffers some drawbacks, most notably:

• It is a post-intervention measure with a potentially long time lag between intervention

and result which can be assessed. Such a measure would, according to classical control
theory, potentially lead to an unstable control system.
• Success in the enterprise context is a subjective term lacking in clear definition and/or
clear benchmarks.
• There is no direct causal link between the intervention and the attainment. Indeed there
are a number of idiosyncratic and sociological factors which play significantly on the
overall model.

As far as Higher Education (HE) is concerned its most common unitary measure is the award of a
degree and, as a sub-division of the overall unitary measure, the class of distinction of the award.
If one considers this a starting point, that at least aligns with the current practices within HE, the
notion of a degree in 'entrepreneurship' or 'enterprise' emerges. Such a degree would mean that
the holder is 'qualified' to be an entrepreneur. Qualified in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED)
is defined as: "Endowed with qualities, or possessed of accomplishments, which fit one for a
certain end, office, or function; fit, competent." The OED goes so far as to list “perfect” among
the synonyms for “qualified.” Properly speaking then, “qualified” is an absolute, not subject to
qualifications like “minimally” or “highly.” Yet a national debate continues to rage in the US
among educators as to the exact meaning of the word “qualified”—as well as its various
qualifications, especially as it applies to teachers in the No Child Left Behind Act." (Urbanski,
2004)
Even if such debates could be effectively bottomed and agreements reached, the fundamental
question remains, is a qualification in entrepreneurship (or enterprise) a necessary and sufficient
condition for an individual to be a successful entrepreneur? Would a prospective investor part
with their capital to an applicant just on the basis of a first class honours degree in
entrepreneurship, even from the most prestigious of institutions? Clearly current practice shows
this is not the case, nor are there very many courses that offer such a qualification. The true
picture of entrepreneurship as a measureable entity is considerably more complex.

Definition of Entrepreneur
Definitions of the term entrepreneur have been abundant from its early usage in the French
language as ‘one who takes between’. There are three key perspectives from which the
entrepreneur has been viewed:

• Economic perspective – which considers the role of the entrepreneur in the economic
development of a nation, region or locality.
• Sociological perspective – which sees the entrepreneur as a member of a social system
and who both is influenced by and, through their entrepreneurial activities influences, the
social environment and the personality traits that the sociological system engenders. The
sociological perspective is taken to include the spectrum of society from the family unit
outwards.
• Idiosyncratic perspective – which focuses on the entrepreneur as an individual with a
unique combination of personal characteristics and beliefs.
As would be expected some literature spans combinations of these perspectives. This section
reviews some key literature as a means of extracting component competences and behaviours of
the entrepreneur, starting with dictionary definitions.

Dictionary definitions
Dictionaries vary in the breadth and depth of definitions. The term itself is used in reference to
the individual or the function. The term entrepreneur is variously defined as:

• “A person who organizes, operates, and assumes the risk for a business venture.” (The
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition)
• “One who creates a product on his own account; whoever undertakes on his own account
an industrial enterprise in which workmen are employed.”(Webster's Revised Unabridged
Dictionary )
• “A person who undertakes the risks of starting a new business. Most often involves a new
product or new service. Usually carries the connotation of creativity, vision, self-starting
or venturesome. The founder of a business.” (Dictionary of small business)
• “One who undertakes an enterprise; one who owns and manages a business; a person who
takes the risk of profit or loss.” (Oxford English Dictionary – Political, Economical)

These definitions, crudely, yield characteristics of risk assumer, creator, employer of others,
innovator, self-starter, one able to generate a profit (or loss).

Economic perspective
The economic perspective of the entrepreneur dates back to Cantillon (1755) who first recognised
the crucial role entrepreneurs played on economic development. His early definition was founded
on the importance of intellectual property rights and, by implication, the need to be creative. Say
(1803) advanced the notion to one that is pivotal in the economy and one that acted as a catalyst
for change.

Kirzner (1973), through “one alert to profitable opportunities for exchange” added breadth to the
definition by introducing a competitive environment boundary scanning dimension, open to
opportunities but also possessing the skills to identify suppliers and customers who whom they
could act as intermediary. Modern management techniques, in particular just-in-time
management has added the need to apply business rounded quality metrics to these relationships
thereby elevating the competence set required to identify and establish effective customer /
supplier relationship management.

Kirzner also recognised the imperfect nature of knowledge in the market place and the
opportunities that can ensue from this. The entrepreneur, according to Kirzner is the person who
possesses information that is unknown to other parties and thereby adds value to the intermediary
role. Clearly to achieve this the entrepreneur must be creative and often uses or exploits new
technological opportunities as they arise.

Cole (1959) adopts the economic historian perspective with a focus on the role of the actors and
their behaviours to change and economic growth through history. He offers a definition of
entrepreneurship as “The purposeful activity (including an integrated sequence of decisions) of an
individual or group of associated individuals, undertaken to initiate, maintain or aggrandise a
profit-orientated business unit for the production or distribution of economic goods and
services.” (Cole, 1959) A variant on this definition, with a more idiosyncratic orientation is
offered by Harbison and Myers (both institutional economists but with strong behavioural
analysis interests) when they defined the entrepreneurial function as, “The task of directing
production so that a given effort may be most effective in supplying human wants is so difficult
under complex conditions of modern life, that it has to be broken up and given into the hands of a
specialised body of employees, or to use a general term, of businessmen; who ‘adventure’ or
‘undertake’ its risks; who bring together the capital and labour required for the work; who
arrange or ‘engineer’ its general plan, and who superintend its minor details.” (Harbinger and
Myers, 1959)

Whilst both of these definitions see the entrepreneurship function as being a group rather than
individual activity there is a recognition of the need for management and leadership and hence a
focal entrepreneur. Under a general umbrella of making a profit, the skills that emerge from
these definitions are: having a purpose (strategic vision), innovation (and creativity), activity
planning and management (project management), decision making, directing others, division of
activities and delegation. Harbison and Myers also recognised the impact the entrepreneur has on
society through a ‘catalytic agent in the process of industrialisation’.

Schumpter’s (1934) definition of the entrepreneur included one who ‘carries out new
combinations’ only whilst they are actually performing the action of enterprise, thus clearly
focussing on the action rather than the person as the more important (reported in Harbinger and
Myers, 1959). For the purposes of definition herein, this fineness of distinction is of lesser
importance.

Knight (1942) sees the entrepreneur as the calculated risk taker where reward ensues from
bearing uncertainty. Knights’ contribution is interesting from the integrated model point of view
because it introduces the distinction between risk and uncertainty. For the purposes of the model,
risk is the quantifiable probability that an adverse event will occur. This risk can generally be
passed on to another through some form of insurance premium. Uncertainty is that part which
cannot be quantified or determined and hence cannot be passed on. Arguably the entrepreneur is
one who is prepared to accept uncertainty.

Casson (2003) recognised the importance of judgement in resource deployment and hence the
need for the entrepreneur to have control over the immediate society around the venture. Casson
noted that the economy impacts how well entrepreneurs flourish, not only at the National level
but at the regional and sub-regional levels. A particular point he noted was that availability of
personal equity is important.

Sociological perspective
The sociological perspective focuses on the role society plays in shaping entrepreneurs and on the
impact entrepreneurs have on society. For the purposes of this study the former is more
important.

A number of entrepreneur typologies have been reported. Examples include Collins (1964):

• “Craftsman” entrepreneurs: Individuals who follow in the footsteps of family relations or

role models who gave them early exposure to the craft they decide to follow as an
entrepreneur.
• “Like father like son” entrepreneurs: Closely aligned to the craftsman entrepreneur, this
type of entrepreneur enters a business with father/mother as role model.
• “Off the farm” entrepreneurs: Individuals who have a fundamental dislike for, or
disagreement with their upbringing or some aspect of it. This engenders a strong desire
to break away from the mould and be different.
• “Opportunistic” entrepreneurs: The opportunistic entrepreneur is one who seizes
opportunities as and when they arise. The opportunities need not necessarily fit any
predetermined strategy and can be diverse and disconnected in nature. The parallel with
the conglomerate management model is possibly a useful one here.
• “Trained” entrepreneurs: Individuals who have undergone training in the component
skills of enterprise such as those offered in some MBA programmes.

A second, simpler typology is offered by Hornaday (1990):

• The “craftsman”: which includes those individuals who provide a product or service
directly to customers and who generally enjoy doing so.
• The “promoter”: this archetype includes the ‘go-between’ or ‘wheeler-dealer’ whose
primary objective is to increase their personal wealth.
• The “professional manager”: the owner manager who, generally, adopts a more
professional or structured approach to building their business, often as a ‘little big
business’.
An extensive set of entrepreneurial typologies is offered by Gray (1987):

• Soloist • Speculator
• Key partner • Turn-about artist
• Grouper • Value manipulator
• Professional • Lifestyle entrepreneur
• Inventor-researcher • Committed manager
• High-tech • Conglomorator
• Workforce builder • Capital aggregator
• Inveterate initiator • Matriarch or patriarch
• Concept multiplier • Going public
• Acquirer • The alternative entrepreneur

The “craftsman” and “like father like son” typologies align with the notion that exposure to role
models during ones formative years can influence the disposition to entrepreneurship
(McClelland, 1967). These typologies provide some clues as to the sociological factors that
encourage an individual to become an entrepreneur. The sociological factors extracted from these
typologies are summarised in Table 1.

Dependency culture
Role model culture
Tradition culture
Failure / Success culture
Societal safety net

Table 1. Societal factors affecting the x’trapreneur

Ideosyncratic perspective
A 19th Century view of the entrepreneur as “the plucky individual who relies on wits, energy and
daring to rise in the world” (Alger, 1990) is an interesting starting point in the development of a
picture of the encountered personality characteristics of the entrepreneur.

McClelland (1967) proposes that proactivity, initiative, assertiveness, a strong achievement

orientation and commitment to others are competencies of successful entrepreneurs. Further he
found that parental influences significantly contribute to the development of need for
achievement although not specifically in any role model sense. Parental influence was also found
to influence “risk taking, confidence in success, desire for independence, energy in persuing goals
and measurement of success by wealth” (McClelland, 1967). Shackle (1970) sees the
entrepreneur as the creative, innovative person able to imagine opportunities from the competitive
environment.

In a summary of the personal characteristics of entrepreneurs, Deakins (1999) suggests they need
to be achievement orientated, calculated risk takers, seekers of high internal locus of control,
innovative, tolerant of ambiguity and visionary. Given Knight’s (1942) view on risk and
uncertainty risk taker is divided into risk taker and accepter/seeker of uncertainty.
Others have added to this list with self-confidence, flexibility, desire for independence and high
energy, emotional stability, conceptual ability and the capacity to inspire (Timmons, 1978). In
summary, the characteristics of the personality of the entrepreneur are shown in Table 2.

There is no implication in this summary that every entrepreneur has high levels of every one of
these characteristics. Small firms and in particular sole traders, can carry out their business
operation with low to zero level of energy, creativity, innovation amongst other characteristics.
However, if high growth is the goal, the need for most, if not all the above characteristics can, at
least by inspection, be viewed as highly desirable.

• Risk tolerance • Self confidence

• Uncertainty tolerance • High energy
• Vision • Achievement orientation
• Capacity to inspire • Proactive
• Creativity & Innovation • Desire for autonomy
• High internal locus of control • Flexibility
• Emotional stability • Initiative
• Resilience & Tenacity • Assertiveness
• Self awareness • Commitment to others

Table 2. The personality characteristics of the entrepreneur

The entrepreneur and management skills

“The entrepreneurial environment of any business, large or small, well-established or newly-
established, is in broad structure the same. Managing a business is essentially the same whether
we are discussing new enterprises or old, big ones or small ones. Certain kinds of problems and
challenges must be met regardless of the size or age of the enterprise. Entrepreneurial tasks
typically involve building or generating new exchange relationships where none existed before
and maintaining or consolidating existing relationships.” (Collins, 1964) This view is in contrast
to Curren and Stanworth (1987) who criticise academia for assuming the small firm is just a
smaller version of the large organisation in their teaching practices.

Drucker’s (1985) definition of an entrepreneur as one who ‘always searches for change, responds
to it, and exploits it as an opportunity’ focuses in the main on aspects of attitude. Whilst the
characteristics he identifies are clearly appropriate if not essential in the small firm they are
desirable but not essential in the large firm.

In summary, the overlap of managerial competencies between the new business creator and the
manager within an established company is clear, the mix of depth and breadth however, is the
area of differentiation. There is also an overlap in behavioural skill requirements. The key
difference is that the entrepreneur must be the ‘doer of all’. The more recent term for this trait
being ‘multitasking’.

The final source of information used to inform the creation of the integrated model is the training
material on starting and growing small businesses. Webb and Webb (2001) start with the
establishment of a mission and company and individual goals, from this the business plan is
constructed. Practical issues of business forms, insurances, premises and associated decision
making, financial, marketing and human resource management matters follow. The handbook
then turns to controlling the business and includes sales and marketing, employment and financial
management. Support for the business in the form of legal and accounting, e-commerce and
personal welfare (time and stress management) are also included. This handbook follows a
common pattern in small business management texts and allow an extraction of the technical
skills required.

The technical skills required of the entrepreneur, i.e. the skills required to establish and manage
the business, excluding the skills of the technical domain within which the business operations
exist are shown in Table 3.

Establishment of the business: Ongoing operation of the business:

• Understanding of small business forms • Marketing
• Intellectual Property Rights and protection • Financial management
• Finance • Strategic management
• Marketing • Human resource management
• Business planning • Production or service provision management
• Strategic planning • Logistics management
• Legal issues including insurance • Quality management
• Logistics management • Customer / Supplier relationship management

Table 3. The technical skills of the entrepreneur

Description of the model

Figure 1 shows the integrated model which is, in form, a process orientated model, an approach
also used by Cunningham and Lischeron (1991) in their definition of entrepreneurship. The
representational centre of the model is the act of ‘x’trapreneurship. This can be, as shown, either
an entrepreneurial action leading to the establishment and management of an enterprise or an
intrapreneurial action leading to innovation within an existing firm. Solid line arrows are used to
show the process style sequence, although, as is commented on below, there is no intended
inference that this is the only or correct flow path. Dotted arrows are used to show influencing or
component factors.
 Entrepreneurial personality
•Risk tolerance •Self confidence
Societal influences
•Uncertainty tolerance •High energy
•Dependency culture •Vision •Achievement orientation
•Role model culture •Capacity to inspire •Proactive
•Tradition culture •Creativity •Desire for autonomy
•Failure / success •High internal locus of •Flexibility
culture control •Ability to learn
Uncertainty in •Societal safety net •Resilience & Tenacity •Commitment to others
market place •Self aware •Emotional stability

Opportunity in Control over

market place Imagine resources & facilities
entrepreneurship Disposition Decision in local environment
Change in opportunity to act to act
market place Access to finance
Ability to build
An alliance
Creative ability

Available resources Act of

& facilities in local ‘x’trapreneurship
environment

Entrepreneurship Intrapreneurship

Establish and Process Product

manage the innovation innovation
enterprise management management

Technical skills
Behavioural skills Technical skills Behavioural skills
Small business forms
Communications Change management Communications
IPR
Judgement IPR Negotiation
Marketing
Negotiation Marketing Judgement
Finance
Creativity Finance Motivation
Business planning
Decision making Business planning Problem solving
Strategic planning
Delegation Legal issues Negotiation
HRM
Customer/Supplier relationship Logistics management Team working
Production management
Motivation Strategic planning Creativity
Legal issues
Problem solving HRM Decision making
Logistics management
Quality management Team working Production management
Quality management

Figure 1. Integrated model of ‘x’trapreneurship

The overall model starts with some form of creative action resulting from a situation in the
competitive market place. This can be uncertainty or a change in market conditions. Creative
ability is required to identify this opportunity which needs to be balanced against available
resources and facilities in the local environment. This later can include the technological state as
to whether the opportunity can be technically exploited as well as whether there is the financial or
human resources available to take the opportunity forward. Creative ability is shown as a
component competence on the assumption that creative ability can be developed in individuals.
Given the imagination of an entrepreneurial opportunity the model enters the more personal, or
‘nascent process’ (Deakins, 1999) which is shown divided into the disposition to act and the
decision to act. The disposition to act is a ‘gate’ through which an individual must pass before
they will take an opportunity forward towards reality. What influences any individual to pass
through this gate are the societal and personality influences previously discussed.

If the individual has the ‘disposition to act’ the process moves on the ‘decision to act’ gate. This
gate is more practically orientated in that it requires the individual to form an association with
others (if necessary) and to gain sufficient control over finance, resources and facilities in their
local environment to enable them to convert the opportunity with their intent to a practicable
business proposition. The output of this gate is the act of ‘x’trapreneurship. The lower half of the
model is divided into actions that are entrepreneurially orientated, with the technical and
behavioural skills shown for each. The intrapreneurial act is recognised to be available in terms
of a process as well as product innovation.

Discussion and application of the model

Undergraduate education is primarily aimed at producing qualified individuals in a focused but
still broad subject field, such as Electronic Engineering or Business Studies. At the postgraduate
level, with the exception of MBA programmes, the technical focus increases. However, in all
cases, the education is generic in that is does not differentiate between students who wish to apply
their knowledge and skills within a company with the desire for them then to be intrapreneurial,
to those who wish to form their own company. Education in this narrow sense is generic and a
graduate should have the knowledge and skills to go down either route. However, academia is
not without its critics. There are those who consider academia has been neglecting the small
business sector by simply treating it as a smaller version of the large business (Curren and
Stanworth, 1987, Collinson, 1999). There are also those who consider that the focus is too
strongly directed towards theoretical skills at the expense of practical skills (Linklater, 1988,
Middelton and Long, 1990).

The above supports the assertion that a generic model should exist that enables the education
system to provide training that is common to both routes but show the placement and
appropriateness of a small firm or a large firm focus. Further it can be used to enhance the
visibility of opportunities for educational interventions within degree programmes and to
highlight the links between what is taught and how much influence it is likely to have on an
individual start to emerge. A generic model will therefore be of potential use to curriculum
planners and, in particular, those who wish to influence curricula planners towards adoption of
enterprise and enterprise related modules. This is an area which is developing in maturity as the
Enterprise and Employability agendas build in significance in higher education institutions
(Rodriguez-Falcon, 2004).

Whilst the overall model is shown as a linear process it should be noted this is for
representational purposes only. The actual process any individual goes through to arrive at the
'decision to act' point is very flexible and will depend on both the individual and on the prevailing
circumstances. One of the reasons for representing it in linear form is to show one way in which
academic interventions can be strategically planned. This is illustrated by the Electronics
Department case study. How the model has been used is shown in 'Use of the model to show
academic interventions' below.

In reality not all students seek an enterprise future, at least through forming their own business,
however with the trend being towards small business employment (Cooper, 1997). The need for
higher education to address this structural shift is becoming essential. In 1999 there were 3.7
million enterprises in the UK. Of these 24,000 were medium sized (50 to 249 employees) and
only 7,000 large firms (250 + employees). SMEs accounted for 38% of National turnover
(Hawkins, 2001). Given that the percentage of SME’s and the number of graduates employed
within them is likely to continue to increase, there is justification for exposing all students to the
components of enterprise skills and to provide those who wish to explore related areas in greater
depth with support and encouragement to do so. This view is held as essential within the WR
consortium and is being supported by HEFCE through the award of funding to establish a Centre
for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) in Enterprise to the consortium.

Electronics Department case study.

The Department of Electronics at the University of York has a strategy for the development of
enterprise (entrepreneurship) competence within its undergraduates. The aim is to introduce
100% of Undergraduates and Postgraduates to the foundations of Entrepreneurship with certain
groups having more in-depth development. The general strategy is an incremental one that
follows the integrated model ‘process’ path by starting with creativity in the first year induction
and group transferable skills course and building through the technical skills required for
x’trapreneurship. The domain specific skills are left to the core subject modules and to link the
enterprise technical skills to the domain skills, the enterprise content is embedded within and
contextualized to the domain courses. The aim is to start in the first year with a general
introduction through an 'experimental' approach. Subsequent years build on this experience with
theory and activities to develop the understanding towards a more refined level. All students are
given the fundamentals and some developmental training.

The overall strategy is shown in figure 2. In year 1 all students (typical cohort size of 100 - 120)
undertake a group project aimed at building a team spirit (the team being the supervision group)
and introduce students to a range of the key skills that support the other courses within the degree
programme. The project is embedded in a course called Transferable skills and Laboratory
Practice, a 1 hour per week course that runs throughout the full academic year. The course
includes an introduction to report writing, public speaking, information searching, creative
problem solving, working in teams, etc. This course was, in 2000, restructured to include an
enterprise content. The group project now includes, as part of its requirement, a Business Plan
for the launch of the product (the main subject of the project). A study guide that takes the student
through the major stages of a small business start-up supports the course.

In the second year, students take a compulsory course in Business Economics and a course in
Engineering Design and Quality. These courses introduce the broader issues of product design
and of the environment within which organisations operate. They support the enterprise strategy
in this broadening out role.

In the third year, students take courses in Marketing, Accounting and Finance, People and
Quality and Information and e-commerce. These courses are designed to be fairly classical in
nature and content and provide theoretical models and frameworks within each discipline that the
students can then use in future enterprise activities. The third year also includes, for Master of
Engineering students, another group project which also has a high degree of small business
orientation. Groups are formed with the objective of developing a significant software
programme. The activity is arranged so that groups establish themselves as small enterprises with
full financial planning and management responsibilities. They are required to collaborate in the
creation of a group-wide specification for the output of their programmes and to trade modules of
code they develop. The Accounting and Finance module has been re-orientated in focus to
include the aspects of small business finance the students need to enable them to manage their
software engineering businesses. This also supports the overall departmental enterprise strategy.
 SESAMEE Managing Change Information
Year 4
Business game & Law & People

Accounting &
Year 3 Introduction to People and Information
Finance
Marketing Quality & commerce
SESAMEE examples

Business Engineering
Year 2
Economics Design & Quality

Year 1 Transferable skills course

(Enterprise project with Business Plan)

Figure 2. Department of Electronics – Enterprise competence development strategy

In year 4 students take more advanced courses in Managing Change and the Manager and the
Law and Information and People. These, together with courses from proceeding years, complete
the management training needed for students to be familiar with the management activities most
closely associated with the role of the technical manager. Upon completion of their degree
programmes, students will have been exposed to the overall process of entrepreneurship to the
creation and presentation of a business plan. They will have been given supportive management
subjects that are generic but with enterprise biases and the opportunity to manage the finances
and inter-company trading activities in their software engineering project module.

Use of the model to show academic interventions.

The objective of the curriculum development component of the WRCE is to embed enterprise
into the core subjects within each academic department. The integrated model has been used to
visually show how the specific aspect of enterprise education being introduced by the
intervention fits into the overall picture of enterprise and thereby supports the overall institutional
and departmental enterprise strategy. This approach has been used with effect, to ‘sell’ the
embedding of enterprise components into other subject areas and convince skeptics of the value
added to their curricula.

Conclusions
An integrated model of x’trapreneurship is presented which has been developed from the
commonly encountered perspectives of enterprise and entrepreneurship and from literature on
training of prospective entrepreneurs. The model has been used with good effect within the
White Rose consortium of universities to show how specific educational interventions can be
placed in an overall model and departmental strategy. It has been used to identify gaps in
provision and to help convince academics of the linkage of components of enterprise competency
to core academic modules. The model has been developed as part of an ongoing project aimed at
developing an assessment framework for enterprise.
References
Alger, H. (1990) Ragged Dick, Street life in New York with the boot-blacks
Cantillon R (1755) Essai sur la nature du commerce en general (ed. H. Higgs) London:
Macmillan (1931)
Casson, M. (2003) The entrepreneur: An economic theory, 2nd edition, Cheltenham, UK: Edward
Elgar
Cole, AH, (1959) “Business Enterprise in its Social Setting”, Harvard University Press
Collins, O.F., Moore, D.G., Unwalle, D.B., (1964), “The Enterprising Man”, Michigan State
University Press
Collinson, E, (1999), “The entrepreneurial curriculum – equipping graduates for a career in the
SME sector”, Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship: Vol 1, No. 1, Fall, pp.
18-23
Cooper, S.Y. (1997) ‘You take the high road and I’ll take the low road: contrasting routes to
entrepreneurship in high technology small firms’, paper presented to IntEnt97, the 7th
International Entrepreneurship Conference, Monterey, California, 25-27 June.
Cunningham, J and Lischeron, J, (1991), Defining Entrepreneurship, Journal of Small Business
Management, 29(1)
Curren, J. and Stanworth, J., (1987) The small firm – a neglected area of management, in Coling,
A. et al.: Behavioural Sciences for Managers, Edward Arnold, 1987
Deakins, D. (1999), Entrepreneurship and small firms, (2nd edition), McGraw Hill
Drucker, P.F. (1985) Innovation and entrepreneurship, Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann
Gray, D., (1987) The entrepreneur’s complete self-assessment guide, Kogan Page
Harbison, F, Myers, CA, (1990) “Management in the Industrial World”, New York, McGraw
Hawkins, L. (2001) Fundamental Productivity Improvement Tools and Techniques for SME.
Loughborough, Pera Knowledge, Number 33.
Hornaday R (1990) Dropping the E-words from small business research, Journal of Small
Business Management, Vol. 28 No.4
Kirzner, I.M., (1973) Competition and entrepreneurship, Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Knight, F.H. (1942) Profit and entrepreneurial fuinctions, The tasks of common history:
supplement to Journal of Economic History, 2, pp. 126-32
Linklater, P. (1988), Education and the world of work, Open University Press
McClelland, D (1967) The achieving society, Van Nostrand
Middleton, B. and Long, G (1990), Marketing skills: Critical issues in marketing education and
training, Journal of Marketing Management, 5, No. 3, pp. 325-342.
Meredith et al
Say, J.B. (1803) A treatise on political economy: or, the production, distribution and consumption
of wealth, New York: Augustus M. Kelley (1964)
Timmons, J.A., (1978) Characteristics and role demands of entrepreneurship, American Journal
of Small Business, Vol 3. pp. 5-17
Rodriguez-Falcon, E. M., Sarmiento, E. and Ward, A.E., (2004) Engineers ascend the
entrepreneurial trail. International Conference on Innovation, Good Practice and Research
in Engineering Education, Wolverhampton, Vol. 3, pp 129-134, 7th - 9t June, 2004. ISBN: 0-
9542116-5-0
Schumpeter, J. (1934) The theory of economic development, Harvard University Press
Shackle, G.L.S. (1970) Expectation, Enterprise and Profit: The theory of the firm, London: Allen
and Unwin.
Urbanski, A, et al. (2004) What Is a Qualified, Capable Teacher?, 2004, National Evaluation
Systems, Inc., Compilation report, www.nesinc.com/PDFs/2004_01Intro.pdf
Webb, P. and Webb, S. (2001), The small business handbook: the entrepreneur’s definitive guide
to starting and growing a business, 2nd edition, London: Pearson Education Ltd.
Yorke, M. (1997) ‘The skills of a graduate - a small enterprise perspective’, Capability, 31, 1,
pp.27-32.