Creating a corporate entrepreneurial ecosystem: The case of entrepreneurship education in the rtp, USA

Choi, Jong-in; Markham, Stephen K. Article Creating a corporate entrepreneurial ecosystem: The case of entrepreneurship education in the rtp, USA Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity Provided in Cooperation with: Society of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity (SOItmC) Suggested Citation: Choi, Jong-in; Markham, Stephen K. (2019) : Creating a corporate entrepreneurial ecosystem: The case of entrepreneurship education in the rtp, USA, Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, ISSN 2199-8531, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 5, Iss. 3, pp. 1-15, https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc5030062 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/241337 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity Article Creating a Corporate Entrepreneurial Ecosystem: The Case of Entrepreneurship Education in the RTP, USA Jong-in Choi 1,* and Stephen Markham 2,* 1Department of Business and Accounting, Hanbat National University, Daejeon 34158, Korea 2Department of Management, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, CA 27695, USA *Correspondence: [email protected] (J.-i.C.); [email protected] (S.M.) Received: 22 July 2019; Accepted: 22 August 2019; Published: 23 August 2019   Abstract: Today’s dynamic and complex environment means that companies are trying to develop entrepreneurial thinkingas a competitive advantage. Universities around the world are simultaneously increasing entrepreneurial training across a broad array of majors. However, the entrepreneurial training is not heavily connected to industry needs. This paper focuses on how industry and universities can cooperate to prepare students for corporate entrepreneurial thinking. The research is based on extensive literature, reports, and in-depth interviews with 28 people from various parts of the RTP (Research Triangle Park), including companies, government agencies, and numerous programs at multiple universities. The major finding from this study is that the strength of entrepreneurial education in the regional innovation system reinforces the companies’ open innovation capacity and their performance. To be successful at launching campus-wide entrepreneurship education to increase understanding of corporate entrepreneurship, Corporate Entrepreneurship Education (CEE) must include (1) entrepreneurial leadership; (2) faculty champions; (3) student-focused policies; (4) engagement with the community; and (5) a decentralized, autonomous structure of entrepreneurship programs. Keywords: entrepreneurial ecosystem; entrepreneurship education; Research Triangle Park (RTP); triple helix model; faculty champions 1. Introduction In today’s turbulent business environment, companies often seek to develop entrepreneurial thinking. At the same time, universities around the world are increasing entrepreneurial training across a broad array of majors. So far, this training has not been tightly connected to industry needs. This article proposes entrepreneurial education programs and identifies exemplars that positively impact industry performance. Large, mature, capitaland technology-intensive organizations struggle to keep up with global competition, changing demographics, and rapid technology advances. Even more challenging is the ever-increasing complexity of business models, partnerships, value propositions, and a host of other business innovations. Organizational members that are not accustomed to these dynamic developments find it difficult to assimilate this bewildering array of issues to find new competitive directions. These drivers are addressed in entrepreneurial thinking and education [1,2]. Entrepreneurial thinking combines existing resources and methods with new developments and creates new competitive advantages [ 3 ]. By blending assets, capabilities, and the installed base with market and technology trends, as well as the competitive landscape and profound insights J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019,5, 62; doi:10.3390/joitmc5030062 www.mdpi.com/journal/joitmc J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019,5, 62 2 of 15 into customer needs, entrepreneurial thinking generates innovative solutions to the most pressing challenges faced today. To get people to think entrepreneurially, they need be taught. Therefore, how entrepreneurial instruction takes place should be of great importance to SMEs (small and medium enterprises) and large companies [ 4 ]. Few students start new companies right out of college, but they and the companies they go to work for greatly benefit from entrepreneurial thinking. Universities offer a wide array of entrepreneurial programs that range from art entrepreneurship to non-profit companies, as well as family-owned businesses. These are all worthy approaches to entrepreneurial education, but they do not prepare people for entrepreneurial activity in large companies. Entrepreneurial education in the United States is growing rapidly in a variety of directions [ 5 – 7 ]. To benefit from these innovative concepts of large companies, the entrepreneurial education models must include an understanding of industry challenges and opportunities; working in highly constrained environments; working across organizational boundaries; and the traditional entrepreneurship topics, such as early-stage market research, business plan writing, and developing and producing winning products. Ideally, industry should be deeply involved with university education to help educators understand industry needs to prepare corporate entrepreneurs. This article examines entrepreneurial education in a unique setting positioned to prepare people for corporate entrepreneurship. The Research Triangle Park (RTP) is situated between Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA, and enjoys a rich tradition of company and university cooperation. The RTP is one of the largest business and oldest technology parks in the world, with a long track record of success. The “Triangle” refers to three major research universities in close proximity. Private parties created a non-profit research park in the middle of the universities to facilitate the interaction between corporations and universities. Unlike some technology-rich areas, the RTP was deliberately created rather than being an artifact of the Cold War. Therefore, it is a unique laboratory that can be duplicated elsewhere. The universities recognize their role in preparing students for large companies, while at the same time being focused on innovation and entrepreneurship. For their part, companies in the RTP are heavily connected with numerous university programs. The RTP provides a specialized setting to develop entrepreneurial programs relevant to large technology companies. Many universities have multiple entrepreneurial education programs; the RTP universities are no exception. In particular, North Carolina State University’s STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) focus, its land grant mission, and its Centennial Campus (dedicated to industry/university cooperation) position the university to prepare students for entrepreneurial thinking in large organizations. According to the 11th undergraduate students list at North Carolina State University, students who graduated within the last five years started 104 companies that raised $365 million. Over the past five years, UNC-Chapel Hill has ranked 15th on the undergraduate list and has raised $29 million for graduating students [8]. This article focuses on how industry and universities can cooperate to prepare students for corporate entrepreneurial thinking. This article is organized as follows: First, it presents a specific program in North Carolina that will explore the need for entrepreneurship education in the US, explain RTP, and prepare students for corporate entrepreneurship. We then develop a model for corporate entrepreneurship and employ the triple helix concept to make recommendations on how corporations and government agencies can be involved with university’s entrepreneurship programs. 2. Literature Review of Entrepreneurship Education Figure 1presents the model for connecting industry needs university educational programs and government infrastructure to make recommendations for corporate entrepreneurship education. The examples of the RTP as a corporate-based innovation and entrepreneurship center and North Carolina State University as tightly connected with corporate needs and entrepreneurship are used to identify principles and to make concrete recommendations for corporate involvement in university entrepreneurship education. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019,5, 62 3 of 15 J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 15 industry and universities. Similarly, government activities are combined to provide support and infrastructure necessary for universities to provide students with skills needed by industry. Figure 1. Industry, university, and government involvement in corporate entrepreneurship education. 2.1. Entrepreneurial Thinking Startup and corporate entrepreneurial thinking have many similarities, but some critical differences must be understood. Global competition heightens the need for companies to think faster, be nimble, respond to customers faster, and increase the value they add in products and services [10]. Nevertheless, large capital-intensive companies with large installed bases find it particularly difficult to innovate. Efficiently addressing the needs of a large installed base requires specialization in training and equipment. This ability, however, brings with it a reluctance to change. Change necessitates disruption of the present system that the company has worked on for years to perfect. This, of course, results in a very high level of aversion to change. In traditional entrepreneurial training, students are encouraged to think about creating new value with new products, new business models, and new market segments, without the constraints of an existing company. Thinking of new products and services is adaptive for startup companies with new technologies, but established companies have multiple layers of constraints that must be addressed [11]. In addition to the usual topics of opportunity recognition, early stage market research, forming partnerships, etc., corporate entrepreneurial thinking must include how to innovate in a constrained environment with fixed resources and market approaches (see Table 1). Table 1. Innovation differences between large established and entrepreneurial companies. Innovation Characteristics Established Large Companies Entrepreneurial Companies Innovation culture One right way to innovate New ideas abound Resources Large but already dedicated Small but able to be deployed flexibly Personnel Experienced but narrow. Difficult to replace or add Inexperienced but broad. Only has to add needed Policies Fixed Flexible Value creation Constrained by existing resources Able to change and move to new opportunities Bricolage Assets are functionally fixed Assets can be used in various ways Responsive to market conditions Tries to fit responses to existing capabilities Can build new customer capabilities Repositioning Difficult because of fixed capabilities Difficult because of limited resources Corporate entrepreneurs need to know how to get multiple constituents in the same organization to support an idea. This is not completely different from a startup company seeking Figure 1. Industry, university, and government involvement in corporate entrepreneurship education. This model integrates industry, universities, and government roles and responsibilities using the triple helix model [ 9 ]. Industry has needs that can be better met by universities and companies working together to develop and offer entrepreneurial educational programs advantageous to both industry and universities. Similarly, government activities are combined to provide support and infrastructure necessary for universities to provide students with skills needed by industry. 2.1. Entrepreneurial Thinking Startup and corporate entrepreneurial thinking have many similarities, but some critical differences must be understood. Global competition heightens the need for companies to think faster, be nimble, respond to customers faster, and increase the value they add in products and services [ 10 ]. Nevertheless, large capital-intensive companies with large installed bases find it particularly difficult to innovate. Efficiently addressing the needs of a large installed base requires specialization in training and equipment. This ability, however, brings with it a reluctance to change. Change necessitates disruption of the present system that the company has worked on for years to perfect. This, of course, results in a very high level of aversion to change. In traditional entrepreneurial training, students are encouraged to think about creating new value with new products, new business models, and new market segments, without the constraints of an existing company. Thinking of new products and services is adaptive for startup companies with new technologies, but established companies have multiple layers of constraints that must be addressed [ 11 ]. In addition to the usual topics of opportunity recognition, early stage market research, forming partnerships, etc., corporate entrepreneurial thinking must include how to innovate in a constrained environment with fixed resources and market approaches (see Table 1). Corporate entrepreneurs need to know how to get multiple constituents in the same organization to support an idea. This is not completely different from a startup company seeking funding. Startups have to develop business plans that compel investors to write a check. Similarly, corporate entrepreneurs need to produce business plans that compel the appropriate business manager to invest. Entrepreneurial education can meet the needs of corporations to employ more entrepreneurial thinking, but corporations need to participate by providing the large company context to entrepreneurship education. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019,5, 62 4 of 15 Table 1. Innovation differences between large established and entrepreneurial companies. Innovation Characteristics Established Large Companies Entrepreneurial Companies Innovation culture One right way to innovate New ideas abound Resources Large but already dedicated Small but able to be deployed flexibly Personnel Experienced but narrow. Difficult to replace or add Inexperienced but broad. Only has to add needed Policies Fixed Flexible Value creation Constrained by existing resources Able to change and move to new opportunities Bricolage Assets are functionally fixed Assets can be used in various ways Responsive to market conditions Tries to fit responses to existing capabilities Can build new customer capabilities Repositioning Difficult because of fixed capabilities Difficult because of limited resources 2.2. Current Entrepreneurship Education Entrepreneurship education—the teaching of skills and cultivation of talents that students need to start businesses, identify opportunities, manage risk, and innovate in the course of their careers—is now a staple of American higher education [12]. The present entrepreneur education pedagogy seems to be very diverse and eclectic. The entrepreneurship education initiative adopts the traditional small business management approach and the recent high-growth venture creation. Although the lecture and case study approaches are very much evident, there is a growing body of opinion that technology entrepreneurial education can improve learning outcomes with a different content and educational focus than games, simulations, or experiential learning through real ventures [13–15]. At the core of the entrepreneurial education curriculum is the process that is essential to the starting and operating of new businesses (see Table 2). For example: •Introduction to entrepreneurship; •Business plan development; •SME (smalland medium-sized enterprises) financing; •Legal environment for a new business; •Case in small businesses; •Fast-growing company management. Table 2. University entrepreneurship education programs. University Entrepreneurial Education Program/Contents Authors New Venture, Start-up Small business management and high-growth venture creation. Mindset Rideout and Gray (2013), Kauffman (2013) [12,15] Family business Entrepreneurial intentions and perceived desirability Zhang et al. (2014) [16] Small business Financing a small business and cases in small business Gordon et al. (2012) Kauffman Foundation (2013) [12,17] Ranking index Availability of internships, externships, experiential and cooperative learning, and consulting opportunities for small business owners. A company that graduates started in the last five and 10 years. Annual business plan or new venture competition Princeton Review (2018) [8] There are now many entrepreneurship programs around the world. The Princeton Review (2018) [ 8 ] surveyed over 300 undergraduate and graduate business schools for entrepreneurship provision and ranked them based on three criteria: First, the availability of internships, overseas J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019,5, 62 5 of 15 systems, experience and cooperative learning, and consulting opportunities with small businesses; second, the number of students enrolled in entrepreneurship provision and the number of graduates who have started a business in the last five and ten years, and how many of them are still engaged in business; and third, whether they have partnerships with other schools that allow access to entrepreneurship programs. Universities host numerous business plan or new venture competitions, hackathons, pitch decks, startup weekends, etc. The Princeton index and these activities are focused on startup and venture creation, and are exclusively oriented toward small businesses, not large companies. In trying to broaden the definition of entrepreneurship, the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation launched the Kauffman Campuses Initiative (KCI) in December 2003 to encourage new interdisciplinary entrepreneurial education programs throughout colleges and universities of the United States. The Foundation has made it a campus-wide experience, helping schools become more entrepreneurial, and making thousands of students on various campuses see their knowledge and resources from more entrepreneurial perspectives [18]. For instance, Babson College was one of the first academic institutions in the world to offer entrepreneurship courses. Since then, Babson has been internationally recognized as a leader in entrepreneurship education. They stated, “Entrepreneurship is not just Babson’s discipline, it’s a way of life. Our faculty and staffrecognize the interdisciplinary value of entrepreneurship and frame it throughout the curriculum and co-curricular programs. The skills learned in our entrepreneurship classes are critical to the success of a public or private enterprise, a corporate or nonprofit organization, a local or global business” [ 19 ]. Nevertheless, Babson is generally focused on new venture creation and problem solving in the community. 3. Research Scope and the Method This research is based on extensive literature, records, reports, and interviews with 28 people from various parts of the RTP, including companies, government agencies, and numerous programs at multiple universities (see Table 3). Table 3. Interviewees (28). RTP (15) North Carolina (NC) State University (13) - A (CEO, Sprout) - B (Manager, Quinties) - C1 and C2 (Manager, First Flight) - D (Manager, RTF) - E (Manager, GSK) - F (CEO, BRI) - G1 and G2 (Manager, CED) - H1 and H2 (Manager, HQ Raleigh) - I1 and I2(Professor, UNC-Ch) - J (Professor, Duke) - K1(Manager, NC Biotech) L1 and L2 (Professor, COM) M1 and M2 (Manager, EI) N1 and N2(Professor, Textile) O1 and O2 and O3 (Professor, Psychology) P1(Professor, Art Entrepreneurship) Q1 and Q2 (Director, CIMS) R (Director, TEC) Method . Semi-structured interviews were conducted from August 2015 to May 2016. Questions were asked to assess how effective campus-wide entrepreneurship education prepared students for corporate entrepreneurship. Interviews lasted 30–90 min and averaged about 60 min. Careful notes were taken and analyzed immediately after each interview to categorize the content. The categories of content from these interviews are summarized in Table 4. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019,5, 62 6 of 15 Table 4. Key aspects or success components of corporate entrepreneurial education. Key Aspects Interview Contents (1) Entrepreneurial leadership in universities Vision of industry-university collaboration for corporate entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship vision tied to the university vision/mission. Administrative support to start and sustain funding strategies. This can come from tenured faculty, administrators, or non-tenure track specialists. (2) Faculty champion Although leadership can come from anywhere, a strong program will have a faculty champion, ideally with a strong STEM background, academic and industry experience, and entrepreneurial experience. These are exceptional faculties so faculty and program development in multiple colleges is necessary. (3) Focus on student Student friendly policies and engaging content and programs need to be focused on involving a wide variety of students. Connect students with a community, teamwork, competitions and co-working accessibility, process, and hands-on program. (4) Community engagement Industry–university collaboration culture, identify key stakeholders and partners, corporate participation, angel and investor networks, industry sponsors, mentor in residence, and internship opportunity. (5) Decentralized/coordinated Diverse autonomous discipline-based program. Each academic unit may sponsor their own program to meet specific industry needs associated with each discipline. Nevertheless, there is also the necessity for coordinated and collaborated structures. Analysis. Interview data were used to identify and categorize the key aspects or success components for Corporate Entrepreneurship Education (CEE). Recognizing the practical differences in entrepreneurship between large and small companies (Table 1) and the focus on small company entrepreneurship education in Table 2, this research focused on understanding educational needs for corporate entrepreneurship. The interviewees (Table 3) produced a variety of suggestions and observations about what is needed for corporate entrepreneurial education. The content of these interviews was categorized by the authors into five key aspects, as presented in Table 4. Interviewees indicated that universities that are successful at creating entrepreneurially-minded students for the corporate world must have an administration aware of this need and embed it in the mission and vision of the university. The interviewees recognize the necessity for faculty attuned to the entrepreneurial needs of corporations. The interviewees strongly recognized that there must be a focus on student development that goes beyond classroom settings and that actively engages with a variety of companies in the business community. Finally, while these activities must be encouraged and supported by the administration, programs and faculty are evaluated and live in their home units. This means that academic units must each establish their own vision, reward faculty for participation, create a student focus, and promote community engagement at the department level from the perspective of open innovation. Therefore, to be successful campus-wide, Corporate Entrepreneurship Education (CEE) must include (1) entrepreneurial leadership; (2) faculty champions; (3) student-focused policies; (4) engagement with the community; and (5) a decentralized, autonomous structure of entrepreneurship programs (see Table 4). Identifying specific suggestions made by the interviewees and consistent with the CEE principles derived from across all the interviews, we make the follow suggestions for a university-based corporate entrepreneurship program. The program should contain the following: •An educational process that covers all topics in corporate entrepreneurship; •Deep connection and cooperation with multiple corporations; • Corporate entrepreneurship projects that allow students to get first-hand experience of trying to be entrepreneurial in a large company; • Corporate mentors that can guide students to develop a compelling business plan for use inside existing corporations; J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019,5, 62 7 of 15 • An internship and jobs connection so students can gain experience and view the job opportunities in large companies; • Competitions for corporate entrepreneurship projects to call attention to and increase competition and innovation in corporate entrepreneurial thinking; • Establish a Corporate Entrepreneurship Clinic that works with existing companies and matches students with projects and mentors connected to their interests; and • Executive education programs and short courses to help educate existing managers and executives about what entrepreneurial thinking is and how to promote it within the organization. These features may be contained in a wide variety of academic programs, for example, MBA programs may include a corporate entrepreneurship course as part of an existing entrepreneurship program. We also identified successful entrepreneurial programs across the university that could include corporate entrepreneurship. A separate concentration may also be offered with support from area corporations. An even more ambitious approach would be starting a Master of Science degree focused on corporate entrepreneurship. At the undergraduate level, courses may be offered, similar to the MBA level. A minor in corporate entrepreneurship may be offered for non-business majors to expand job opportunities. The benefits for corporations to participate in corporate entrepreneurship programs will include more thought and creativity on the part of the faculty to solve pressing corporate innovation and competitive issues. Students from both business schools and other majors will be better able to understand the challenges and to formulate solutions for corporate challenges. Student projects will result in actual project work being done and new thinking being applied to old problems, as well as companies getting a close look at potential new hires. Executive and other professional courses will help existing managers to develop and manage in a more entrepreneurial way. Finally, participation in these types of programs gives companies a positive venue to present themselves to potential employees and benefits the hiring and retention of an entrepreneurially thinking workforce. Universities also benefit from providing corporate entrepreneurship programs by offering programs of interest to students, job placements, internship opportunities, connection with area corporations, potential research opportunities, and a positive venue to present the university as helping the local economy by responding to the educational needs of area employers. 4. The Case of the RTP 4.1. Regional Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Although the RTP is one of a few technology-start-up locations, we focus on how entrepreneurial education is utilized by companies in the RTP. The presence of corporations in the RTP often occurs in the form of development divisions. They are often tasked with creating new value. Therefore, they have a strong need for entrepreneurial thinking. NC State is uniquely positioned as a land grant university with a new campus that co-locates companies and academic units. NC State is in the top ten universities supported by corporate grants. This combination of development-based innovation in both RTP companies and universities makes it a unique location to study corporate entrepreneurship. Before making corporate entrepreneurship education recommendations, we include examples of regional entrepreneurship ecosystems and university examples. These give concrete examples in which companies can participate and guide. 4.2. Research Triangle Park (RTP) Governments seeking to establish economic engines and companies wanting to target their participation in corporate entrepreneurship should study the RTP. Unlike some other larger technology areas, the RTP is the result of careful planning from the very inception. The RTP did not just happen, nor is it a happy circumstance left over from military funding during the Cold War. Due to the J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019,5, 62 8 of 15 deliberate and well-documented actions of the founders and subsequent managers, the RTP is uniquely replicable in other areas [20]. RTP is one of the world’s largest high-tech research parks. The founders saw the potential for collaboration among universities, industry, and government in 1959. Today, RTP has more than 200 companies employing over 50,000 employees with expertise in microelectronics, telecommunications, biotechnology, chemical, pharmaceutical, and environmental sciences. The park has a large headquarters of the following organizations: IBM; GSK; Biogen Idec; Syngenta; United Therapeutics; Cisco; Bayer CropScience; Eisai; BASF; the U.S. EPA; NIH’s National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS; the only NIH institute/center outside of the DC metro area); and the first research institute to help launch the park, RTI International [21]. The RTP can be considered a “Moneyball” area; its success ignores traditional wisdom. The RTP region has attracted more corporate investments than traditional venture capital. Corporate investment seeks relevant strategic technologies and promising opportunities. Entrepreneurial outcomes are more likely to be acquired by a large company than initial public offerings (IPO). In the RTP region, corporate R and D, mergers, and acquisitions have led to greater employment growth than venture capital investment in the region. The acquiring company has recognized that the value of the assets acquired was more valuable in its place than in dismantling operations. Acquisitions often make additional investments in the region [ 22 ]. In 2014, the CED reported 59 mergers and acquisition (M and As) and six IPOs. Large corporate investments and entrepreneurial startups in the RTP share similar end points. This natural link between startup and acquisition is one aspect that helps integrate corporate and traditional entrepreneurship. Research Triangle Foundation. The Research Triangle Park Foundation manages RTP and operates three buildings. These three buildings are the Frontier, the Lab, and the Archie K. Davis Conference Center. The Frontier is an innovative and collaborative space that was first opened in January 2015. The Lab is a full service lab and office space with several research and development companies. The Archie K. Davis Conference (AKD) Center is a 6800 square foot event space. The AKD Conference Center is also home to the Research Triangle Park Foundation headquarters. There are numerous programs for large and small companies sponsored by the RTF (Research Triangle Foundation), for example, “RTP 180” invites speakers from three founding universities, local companies, and the community at-large. The TEDxRaleigh series draws between 250 and 300 people on the Foundation’s third Thursday evening. Frontiers. The RTF also runs a centrally located branch of RTP to plug in and collaborate and plan the next big move. The Frontier is the main building of the Park Center and is an important step for redevelopment efforts. It includes free collaborative work and drop in meeting space, mixed-use space including a third-floor tenant office, and event space. As a part of the free offerings, Wi-Fi, counter-culture coffee, the community garden, and programs are all free of charge and open to everyone. The success of the Frontier depends on the community to create a vibrant and rich space with innovative ideas. Weekly features and programming, such as Happy Hour, RTP/Fidelity Food Truck Rodeos, 1 Million Cups, and RTP 180 lighting talks are held in this place. Council for Entrepreneurial Development (CED). A mainstay of entrepreneurship in the RTP is the CED. Established in 1984, the CED is the largest corporate support organization in the United States, with more than 5000 members representing more than 1100 companies. Located in AU (American Underground) since 2010, CED’s Board of Directors (64 people) are committed to the Triangle’s entrepreneurial future. CED is based on an entrepreneurially inspired individual and business community and is a network of national networks that helps Triangle entrepreneurs build and grow successful businesses. CED provides education (or training), mentoring, and capital formation resources to technology-based, high-growth entrepreneurs. Activities include the CED Life Science Conference (March), the CED Tech Venture Conference (September), the CED Venture Mentoring Service, entrepreneur-only workshops, and investor introductions. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2019,5, 62 15 of 15 17. Gordon, I.; Hamilton, E.; Jack, S. A study of a university-led entrepreneurship education program for small business owner/managers. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2012,24, 767–805. [CrossRef] 18. Torrance, W.E. Entrepreneurial Campuses: Action, Impact, and Lessons Learned from the Kauffman Campus Initiative. 2013. Available online: https://www.kauffman.org/-/media/kauffman_org/research-reports-andcovers/2013/08/entrepreneurialcampusesessay.pdf (accessed on 19 July 2019). 19. Bobson College. Curriculum. 2019. Available online: https://www.babson.edu/academics/academic-divisions/ entrepreneurship/curriculum/(accessed on 5 June 2019). 20. McCorkle, M. History and the “New Economy” Narrative: The Case of Research Triangle Park and North Carolina’s Economic Development. J. Hist. Soc. 2012,12, 479–525. [CrossRef] 21. Kroll, D. 7 Reasons It’s Finally Time to Live in Research Triangle Park. 2014. Available online: https://www.forbes. com/sites/davidkroll/2014/02/04/7-reasons-its-finally-time-to-live-in-research-triangle-park/#35962fc36e1f (accessed on 19 July 2019). 22. Feldman, M.P. The character of innovative places: Entrepreneurial strategy, economic development, and prosperity. Small Bus. Econom. 2014,43, 9–20. [CrossRef] 23. Economic Modelling Specialists International. FACT SHEET. 2015. Available online: https://www.ncsu.edu/ content/uploads/2015/03/NC-State-ED-region-impact.pdf (accessed on 19 July 2019). 24. Miller, T., III; Walsh, S.; Hollar, S.; Rideout, E.; Pittman, B. Engineering and innovation: An immersive start-up experience. Computer 2011,44, 38–46. [CrossRef] 25. Barr, S.H.; Baker, T.; Stephen, K.; Markham, S.K.; Kingon, A.I. Bridging the Valley of Death: Lessons learned from 14 Years of commercialization of Technology Education. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2009,8, 370–388. 26. Markham, S.K.; Mugge, P.C. Traversing the Valley of Death; CIMS: Raleigh, NC, USA, 2015. 27. Chesbrough, H. Open Business Model: How to Thrive in the New Innovation Landscape; Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2006. 28. Nambisan, S.; Siegel, D.; Kenney, M. On open innovation, platforms and entrepreneurship. Strateg. Entrep. J. 2018,12, 354–368. [CrossRef] 29. Yun, J.J. How do we conquer the growth limits of capitalism? Schumpeterian dynamics of open innovation. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2015,1, 17. [CrossRef] 30. Yun, J.J.; Won, D.; Park, K. Dynamics from open innovation to evolutionary change. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2016,2, 7. [CrossRef] 31. Yun, J.J.; Jeon, J.; Park, K.; Zhao, X. Benefits and Costs of Closed Innovation Strategy: Analysis of Samsung’s Galaxy Note 7 Explosion and Withdrawal Scandal. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2018 ,4, 20. [CrossRef] © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).