Open learning within growingbusinesses

Magnus KlofstenDepartment of Management and Engineering and

HELIX VINN Excellence Centre, Linkoping University, Linkoping, Sweden, and

Dylan Jones-EvansUniversity of Wales, Cardiff, UK

Abstract

Purpose – Understanding the factors behind successful enterprise policy interventions are critical inensuring effective programme development. The aim of this paper is to analyse an academic-industryinitiative in Sweden developed to support knowledge-intensive businesses in expanding theiroperations.

Design/methodology/approach – This paper describes a case study of a specific policyintervention to facilitate further business growth and development. Since 1986, 490 individualsfrom 194 companies have attended the Business Development Programme (BDP) organised byLinkoping University. Through analysing interviews with participants on the programme, the paperexamines the origins and motivations behind its creation, management and development.

Findings – This study finds that future policy interventions in enterprise development mustcultivate an open style of learning, similar to the principles of open innovation, which engages directlywith the participants, is based on a process of informality and flexibility, reflects the needs of thebusiness and includes engaged programme leadership based on a successful entrepreneurial trackrecord.

Practical implications – The programme has succeeded through an informal, flexible andneeds-orientated approach that essentially reflects the needs of the participating businesses.

Originality/value – Interventions that are targeted towards supporting established businessescould help to create wealth and employment. However, understanding the factors behind suchinterventions is critical in ensuring that policymakers design the most relevant programmes to assistsupport businesses that have the potential to grow.

Keywords Growth firms, Open learning, Training, Small business policy, Innovation, Sweden,Business development

Paper type Case study

IntroductionThe increasing importance of entrepreneurship in creating wealth and employment atboth national and regional levels (Audretsch and Thurik, 2000; Acs and Storey, 2004;Von Bargen et al., 2003; Fritsch and Mueller, 2004; Van Stel et al., 2005) has ledpolicymakers to focus on developing activities and programmes to assist the creationof new firms and the expansion of existing businesses and, from this, create a dynamicand competitive economy (Lundstrom and Stevenson, 2005; Reynolds et al., 2007;Norrman and Bager-Sjogren, 2010).Not surprisingly, there has been a concomitant

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/2046-9012.htm

The authors want to thank all of the former participants of the BDP programme for their mostvaluable contribution to the study. The authors also acknowledge the financial contribution fromthe HELIX VINN Excellence Centre.

EJTD37,3

298

Received 14 August 2012Revised 9 January 2013Accepted 9 January 2013

European Journal of Training andDevelopmentVol. 37 No. 3, 2013pp. 298-312q Emerald Group Publishing Limited2046-9012DOI 10.1108/03090591311312750

increase in the number of academic studies examining policy mechanisms developed tosustain enterprise. These researches have focussed predominantly on issues related tothe early stages of new business development, such as new venture creation(Van derSijde et al., 2002; Davidsson and Klofsten, 2003),entrepreneurial financing (Fredriksenet al., 1997; Winborg and Landstrom, 2001) and incubators for new firms (Mian, 1997;Bergek and Norrman, 2008).While there have been policy studies examining theimportance of growth in companies (Khan and Cooper, 2001; Davidsson andHenrekson, 2002; Mason and Brown, 2013), there has been very little analysis of theprogrammes which focus on the post start-up stage of development when companieshave become established and are seeking further growth (Gorman et al., 1997). Inparticular, as Patzelt and Shepherd (2009) point out, there have been few studies thathave analysed the development of existing ventures which emerge withinknowledge-intensive industries. The aim of this paper is to analyse auniversity-based programme based at Linkoping University in Sweden, which wasdeveloped to specifically support the growth and development of knowledge-intensivebusinesses. It will dissect the origins and motivations behind the creation of theprogramme, its management and development and finally, the key factors behind itssuccess. The paper concludes by examining the relevance of this type of programme toenterprise policy.

Policy issues for developing learning opportunities within growth firmsToday, knowledge-intensive businesses are operating in an increasingly complex andchanging environment, and in order to create and sustain innovation and establishcompetitive advantage, emerging businesses will need to develop a system whichsupports learning and knowledge-building, as both are central to future firmdevelopment (Sveiby, 1994; Lopes et al., 2006). Consequently, firms are prioritisingtheir participation in training programmes which facilitate the supply of the necessaryskills and competences required by managers, which can then lead to greaterinnovation and growth within the company (Ylinenpaa, 2004; Bergh, 2006). However,the content of such training programmes varies widely and focusses on areas asdiverse as strategy and planning (Masurel and Kees, 2006), learning and motivation ofemployees and managers (Torrence, 1993; Monk, 1996; Clinton and Laurence, 2005)and relationship building with stakeholders, such as customers, finance providers,suppliers and competitors (Gibb, 1990; Ylinenpaa, 1997; Klofsten, 2008). In addition, thedelivery of this training can be undertaken in a variety of ways, ranging fromtraditional methods, such as seminars, workshops and lectures, to non-classroombased approaches, such as online learning, e-learning and web-based training(Admiraal and Lockhorst, 2009; Kirwan et al., 2008).

Despite a positive view of management training as a powerful tool for facilitatinglearning and increasing the competitive edge of firms (Gibb, 2000), some studiessuggest that a discrepancy may exist, from the viewpoint of the participatingcompanies, between the proposed content and the actual execution of trainingprogrammes. For example, many entrepreneurs often do not have the time or economicresources to participate in training programmes – a situation which is oftenexacerbated within small and immature firms (Matlay, 2000). Entrepreneurs also tendto have poor knowledge of the training available or, more significantly, the positive

Open learning

299

effect that training can have on the company’s performance (Ylinenpaa, 2004). Otherstudies have shown that experienced entrepreneurs may have a more positive attitudetowards training than those who are embarking on entrepreneurial activity for the firsttime, and will devote more time and resources to ensuring that the appropriate type oftraining is utilised to support their company’s development (Klofsten and Mikaelsson,1996). More importantly, research has shown that entrepreneurs who are prepared toinvest in the long-term development of the company through training and learningprogrammes are more likely to show greater entrepreneurial orientation and be moreopen-minded towards new opportunities for growth (Davidsson, 1989; Ylinenpaa,1997). However, it has been argued that because of the heterogeneity of the small firmsector, company performance will only be impacted by training programmes if they arefocussed on specific traits, such as firm size, the sector in which they operate and thestages of growth of the business (Gibb, 1990).

The problems of the firm as it progresses through different stages of growth havebeen studied for many years (Greiner, 1972; Churchill and Lewis, 1983; Scott and Bruce,1987; Kazanjian, 1988; Davidsson et al., 2002). On a more general level, those studiesshow that the degree of maturity and size over time creates different challenges androles for the entrepreneur. For example, the founders often dominate young firmsalthough as the firm grows, their competence diminishes and they may need to becomplemented by other managers. This is especially the case withinknowledge-intensive companies where a mixture of entrepreneurial, technologicaland managerial skills is often required for successful growth (Jones-Evans, 1996). If thebusiness is to successfully develop from initiation to maturity, the founder will need toengage in professional leadership which involves the delegation of roles to otherindividuals both within the company and, potentially, to external actors (Adizes, 1988;Jones and Crompton, 2009). As a result, it is critical that it is not only the founder whoparticipates in training programmes, but that managers within the company are alsoengaged in learning to ensure organisational cohesion and a common approach tomanaging the business. Therefore, any successful training programme, whichaddresses the issues facing growing businesses, must be targeted not only at thefounder, but also at other senior members of staff within the firm. More critically, theseprogrammes must develop learning methods which enables all participants topositively engage in training which benefits the development of the firm (Gibb, 1990;Ylinenpaa, 1997; Lopes et al., 2006). These results are also in line with recent researchexamining why SMEs participate in programmes for competence development andtraining (Kock et al., 2008; Ellstrom and Kock, 2009). More relevantly, these studiesemphasise the interplay between external factors, such as competitive pressures,demand from customers and internal organisational conditions, not to mention theimportance of how managers evaluate competence development and training.

As discussed earlier, most research studies investigating enterprise trainingprogrammes have focussed predominantly on start-ups and the mechanisms that canbe used to facilitate their success. However, several studies have shown thatconcentrating on start-ups may not be the most efficient approach regarding policyintervention, as it is the small number of businesses that grow quickly that create themajority of new jobs (Birch, 1979; Kirchhoff, 1994; Buss, 2002; Acs and Mueller, 2008;Henrekson and Johansson, 2010); thus, policymakers should focus predominantly on

EJTD37,3

300

growth firms instead of adopting a non-targeted approach and stimulating brand newbusinesses (Friar and Meyer, 2003; Wong et al., 2005; Autio, 2007). Therefore, policiesshould not only focus on encouraging start-ups, but should also include interventionsthat are targeted towards supporting those established businesses that have thepotential to grow, creating wealth and employment. Comprehending the factors behindsuch interventions will be critical in ensuring that policymakers design the mostrelevant programmes to assist businesses that have the potential to expand.

MethodologyThis paper describes a case study of a specific policy intervention to foster businessgrowth and development. The Business Development Programme (BDP) at LinkopingUniversity has been highly successful in enabling entrepreneurs within growing firmsto evaluate their strategies and has encouraged a culture of self-learning that issustainable over the long term. This research does not seek to evaluate the success ofthe programme in terms of any quantitative measure because it has been maintainedthat entrepreneurship training should not be evaluated on quantities. Instead, insightsthat are generated by a programme can hopefully be utilised by policymakers indifferent contexts (Klofsten et al., 2010). The authors of the paper have, as part of thecontinuous evaluation of the programme, met with participants regularly and havecollected valuable qualitative data on the needs of potential entrepreneurs and, moreimportantly, how the programme fulfils those needs. Of course, it must be rememberedthat the results are influenced by the admission criteria for programme participants,which, in this case, are knowledge-intensive firms emerging from the post start-upstage of development.

Since 1986, the Business Development Programme (BDP) has been offered byLinkoping University and SMIL (a network for small and medium-sized companies inLinkoping). Since the launch of BDP, 490 individuals from 194 companies haveparticipated in 22 business development programmes. The concept has also beentransferred to other university regions in Sweden, such as Stockholm, Umea, Uppsalaand Vasteras. The programme has its roots in an environment which has encouragedthe creation of an infrastructure to support the development of a knowledge-intensivebusiness sector within Linkoping, and one which has increased interaction betweenacademia and business at the core of its strategy. This began in the early 1980s whenLinkoping University began to seek greater interactions with the community outsidethe university (Klofsten and Jones-Evans, 1996; Etzkowitz and Klofsten, 2005). At thesame time, academics began to create opportunities for commercialisation of theirknowledge through new company formation. This “spin out boom” resulted in theestablishment of more than 40 companies between 1981 and 1984 with roots in thetechnology developed at the university (Klofsten and Jones-Evans, 2000).Simultaneously, a group of entrepreneurs from technology-based firms, togetherwith academics at Linkoping University, established a new organisation known asSMIL (the Foundation for Business Development). The idea behind SMIL was to form abody to aid newly established companies within knowledge-based sectors, most ofwhich were spin-outs from Linkoping University but also included firms from hightechnology companies and organisations in the region, such as Saab, Ericsson and theSwedish Defence Research Institute.

Open learning

301

Initially, SMIL focussed its activities on stimulating network development byhosting breakfast meetings and seminars where lecturers, often from the managementdepartment, were invited to speak on subjects of current interest to the founders ofyoung firms. In order to generate commitment and strong relations betweenentrepreneurs, firms wishing to participate in the different activities offered by SMILhad to apply for membership. In addition, it was stipulated that only two types oforganisations could become members, namely small technology-based firms andentrepreneurship support organisations that could contribute to the activities of thefoundation. SMIL has therefore focussed on creating activities which stimulateco-operation between academia and industry to develop the knowledge-intensivesectors within the Linkoping region. The synergies that have been generated from suchactivities have ensured that the real needs of the firms in SMIL’s network could beidentified, clarified and transformed into actual support activities. As a direct result ofthis interaction with local companies, the first version of BDP was devised under themanagement of a group of leading entrepreneurs and university professors. Therefore,the BDP was established because of three key factors. The first is that there was anincreased interest by the university in dealing with external issues, particularly thestimulation of knowledge-intensive business within the region. For example, asEtzkowitz and Klofsten (2005) note, an industrial liaison office was set up under a newoffice of external relations with a role to facilitate greater interactions betweenacademia and industry. In addition, researchers within the Department of Managementand Economics were expressing considerable interest in business development andentrepreneurial issues, and were actively engaging with new knowledge-intensivecompanies. Second, Linkoping experienced a growth in the number oftechnology-based firms emerging from the university sector, which then demandedsupport services to help them develop and grow (Jones-Evans et al., 1999). Finally, theclose collaboration between a newly established networking organisation (SMIL) andLinkoping University opened an opportunity to establish the programme and moreimportantly, to access potential client businesses whose founders helped to shape thefirst programme (Jones-Evans and Klofsten, 1997).

As various studies have noted, the training programmes that have the greatestimpact on the development of businesses are those which reflect the needs ofbusinesses and, more importantly, are developed to involve the entrepreneurs in anaction learning context (Gibb, 1996; Johannisson, 1991). The work that led to the firstBDP came through continuous discussions with leading entrepreneurs within theSMIL network and, following these consultations, the programme managers decidedthat the BDP should be arranged around the following cornerstones which, over time,became the foundation for the eventual success of the programme:

. The target group should be knowledge-intensive firms that have left the start-upstage and are developing into sustainable and growing businesses.

. The content delivered during the programme should be practically orientatedand based on the actual business development needs of the participatingentrepreneurs and firms.

. The programme should be led by a senior entrepreneur who has a broadbusiness experience and the necessary competence to advise on a range ofdifferent strategic and operational issues.

EJTD37,3

302

. The execution of the programme should be built on group dynamics where theexperience and competence of the participants are a crucial asset in achievingsuccessful outcomes.

. In order to generate commitment, the programme should be fundedpredominantly by participants’ fees although they should not be too high soas to exclude younger businesses.

. The co-ordination of the programme should be undertaken by LinkopingUniversity, which was seen to have the best administrative capacity for such arole. At the same time, it was important to show that policymakers saw BDP asan effective collaborative programme between SMIL and Linkoping University.

Much of the initial work was devoted to finding a leader for the programme, and theindividual who was chosen for this task was someone with considerable experience instarting and managing businesses both nationally and internationally. Thisrecruitment was exceptionally successful, and the individual became the leader ofthe programme, making a significant contribution to its success. While the programmewas to be largely funded by participants’ fees, it was also given some financial supportfrom the Swedish Government, which had made funds available at the time to supportthe education and training of entrepreneurs within established firms. Subsequentprogrammes have also been subsidised by government funds although the principlethat the majority of the programme remains funded by the participants is still intact.Following a detailed analysis of the needs of SMIL members, the first programme waslaunched in 1986 with 20 firms participating and consisted of five one-day workshopswhich combined plenary sessions and groupwork with the companies. The feedbackfrom the first participants on the programme was generally very positive. However, onreviewing the programme, it became clear that a group size of 20 companies was toolarge to ensure the quality of the programme and a detailed analysis of the individualproblems faced by participating firms. Therefore, the number of firms, which were toparticipate in the programme, was reduced to a maximum of nine companies to ensurethat greater resources could be devoted to network building between companies andwith the programme leadership.

The participating firms are exclusively recruited from the SMIL network and thusguaranteeing commitment and credibility for the programme. It also ensures that theprogramme is focussed on the specific needs of knowledge-intensive businesses, whichare different to the more general small firm population ( Jones-Evans and Klofsten,1997). The cost of participation in the programme is approximately 35,000 SEK (4,000Euros) per company and added to these variable costs are travel and subsistenceexpenses to attend the programme. Each company, however, receives a subsidy of 40per cent from the Swedish Government although the majority of the costs are borne bythe participants. As discussed, a maximum of nine firms participates in eachprogramme, as this has been shown to be the optimum size of the group for effectivelearning although each firm can be represented by up to three people. This is becauseevaluation of the early programmes showed that the presence of more than oneparticipant from a company accelerates learning and ensures that any outcomes areimplemented quickly following attendance on the programme.

Open learning

303

The programme consists of three workshops, which take place over a period oftwelve months. The first two workshops last for two days and normally take placewithin five months of each other. The final workshop is a one-day session towards theend of the 12-month process. Between these workshops, the firms undertakeassignments, which are defined during each workshop. Firms also meet informallywithout any of the programme leaders being present. The first workshop focuses onpresenting the firms and the individuals to each other. To ensure continuity anddevelopment, the firms are split into three groups that will work closely togetherduring the entire programme. The composition of the group is crucial and takes intoconsideration factors, such as the personal chemistry between the participants, types ofproblems faced by the companies that will be solved during the programme and theexperience level of the individuals. Therefore, an optimal group consists of individualswho complement each other in terms of experience and expertise, can work togethercollaboratively on a range of different issues and whose firms have quite similarproblems. Importantly, the philosophy underpinning the programme is flexibility andensuring an open style of learning. The content of both the plenary sessions and theworkshops can, in some instances, be immediate and reflect the specific issuesgenerated by particular businesses in the programme. However, the foundation of thewhole programme tends to evolve around a range of those common problems, such asstrategic choice for growth, ownership strategies, motivation and reward systems,financing and strategic alliances. The BDP is therefore an excellent laboratory in whichto examine which particular factors can lead to successful learning within growthcompanies, particularly those emerging from knowledge-intensive sectors. Given thatthe participating companies interest this paper in the processes which lead tosuccessful learning, the best approach to be adopted is qualitative interviews withparticipants in the programme. This is normally the methodology adopted by otherstudies in examining business support programmes ( Johannisson, 2007; Brulin et al.,2009). Since 1986, the programme has been regularly evaluated by LinkopingUniversity in order to improve its structure, content and process utilising broadopen-ended questions in order to encourage respondents who had participated in theprogramme to provide a full and free narrative of their experiences. Interview probeswere used to clarify statements and their meaning and to elaborate on the participant’sexperiences and judgements on the transfer process and its impact. The evaluation alsoemployed aspects of the “critical incidence” technique (Polit and Hungler, 1999) to askrespondents about incidences which impacted on their learning during the businessdevelopment programme. The interview findings from all of the evaluationsundertaken since the programme started in 1986 have been systemised, with resultsand conclusions validated with the interview partners who have proofread thedocumentation of the interviews and the final version of the paper.

ResultsEight key success factors have been identified from interviews with representativesfrom the 194 companies, which have taken part in the BDP.

EJTD37,3

304

Engaged programme leadershipThe entrepreneur who has been appointed as programme leader has, according to theparticipating firms, become the central figure in the success of the programme. Notonly did he bring considerable wisdom and expertise to the process, but he also sharedhis experiences of being an entrepreneur and dealing with different types of companycultures, which was advantageous to participants who had little contact with otherbusinesses. His openness and willingness to share his experience established theculture of the complete programme. Participants felt it was important that theprogramme leadership not only had broad experience and an understanding ofbuilding companies, but also had the social capability to understand differentpersonalities in the programme. Therefore, not only was the programme leader able tofully participate with companies, but he had an innate ability to understand their needsand offer suggestions for solutions. Another important issue was the richness ofpractical and real examples from both the programme leader and the otherparticipants. This gave those in the programme a number of potential solutions, whichcould be applied to their own business problems.

Openness between participating entrepreneursThe participants shared the view that openness was one of the most important parts ofthe programme and accelerated the process of learning for individuals, especially withregard to how to approach and solve different challenges within different companysettings. During workshops, various participants who discussed potential outcomes ina friendly but constructively critical manner tested ideas regarding a number ofoperational issues. However, this openness also meant that discussions were keptwithin the programme and companies had an “oral agreement” not to pass on anythingoutside the group. Finally, the process of companies working together was made easierby the open atmosphere established in the programmes, which were arranged inrelaxing and remote locations away from the day-to-day problems and issues faced bymost of the participants.

Willingness of companies to share ideas and experiencesWhen the programme was first initiated, none of the companies had any experience ofsharing their ideas with other businesses. However, a number of participants becameinvolved in more than one programme and as their business experienced matured, theywere able to pass this on to new participants, a characteristic which came to embodythe co-operative nature of the interaction between businesses enrolled in theprogramme. Some of the participants, particularly those who had attended severalprogrammes, considered that the best way to learn and gain new insights was throughteaching others.

High level of company engagementAs the companies participating in the programme were emerging fromknowledge-intensive sectors, it was not surprising that some found themselvesworking alongside potential competitors. However, there was a general agreement thateven when firms are operating in the same sector, they can both gain by talking to eachother and, in some instances, work together to solve common problems. Indeed, most ofthe companies had similar challenges that were independent of the sector from which

Open learning

305

they came. In some cases, problems brought up by one company had already beenrecognised and solved by another company. This made the discussions very real andinspiring for the whole group. Even the presence of several competitors helped tocreate more market opportunities for the individual companies, with competitorsworking together to solve common problems. This is because participants appreciatethat the prerequisite for gaining any insight and practical results is an openatmosphere, trust and respect for each other.

Tolerance of all opinions when discussing problemsThe learning process undertaken within the programme meant that companies had towork through critical management issues, which benefited from the coaching availableand, more importantly, the opportunity to meet company owners facing similarchallenges. Therefore, all ideas and thoughts put forward by participants werethoroughly scrutinised and analysed to develop the most appropriate solution to acompany’s problems. This openness, combined with respect of the other participants’knowledge and experience, has lifted discussions to a much higher level than originallyanticipated. In addition, those who had taken part in several programmes and hadgrown their company through this period were encouraged to support participantsfrom new entrepreneurial companies in the start-up phase.

Informality and programme flexibilityPrior to programme attendance, the majority of participants had more formal trainingexperience that largely involved a set curriculum that was taught in a classroom style.The nature of the BDP meant that the programme does not have a fixed “toolbox” andwould adjust the content according to the outcomes of discussions that would takeplace during the group sessions. Therefore, any plenary session would reflect thediscussions that had taken place between companies and focus on the situationalissues that had arisen as a result of the workshops. The strength of the plenarysessions is that they are mainly focussed on real-world examples experiencedpersonally by the programme leader. This contrasts with the normal classroom style oftraining found in universities and other training programmes. However, the success ofthis style of training is very dependent on the leadership to both understand and haveexperience of the problems arising so that the discussions are relevant to the needs ofthe companies.

Needs-oriented processes of programmeDespite the involvement of Linkoping University, the participants welcomed theopportunity to solve problems that were directly related to practical issues aroundbusiness ownership, such as “How does a client think?”, “What do you take intoconsideration to reach a good business deal?” Companies were able to take theknowledge to inform critical decisions, such as the structure of the board of directors,development of a new salary system, outsourcing activities and the reinforcement offinancial competences. To many participants, this was one of the key advantages of theprogramme, namely sharing and discussing different experiences and returning totheir company with a wider understanding of running their business. The collectivecompetence and experience of the academic programme organisers, the programmeleader and all of the company participants meant that there was always relevant

EJTD37,3

306

real-world knowledge and experience present among several participants to givevaluable insight and help in the discussions. As a result of this needs-driven approach,the programme did not need a preset agenda for the meetings. Such a flexible processmeans that individual participants often change their opinion regarding theircompanies of the most pressing needs after constructive critique and insight from theother participants. Having peer entrepreneurs with a critical eye and an open mindmakes it difficult for any participant to conceal any issues that they do not want to dealwith.

Continuous learning by participating companiesOne of the important outcomes from participation in the programme is thesustainability of the learning process by individuals and companies. This can take theform of increased self-confidence and self-evaluation by the participants within thefirms, an extended and engaged network of people that can be used in the future by thecompany (with people continuing to meet and learn from each other), and the use ofnew methods that can be used to continue the development work within theorganisation. By bringing together people with similar problems and issues whonormally would not have met at all to discuss their issues in such detail and with openminds, new opportunities are created for future collaborations and valuable networkbuilding. As a result, the format of the programme has led to a strong network andinformal contacts between the participants, and the process of engaging in sharingknowledge and helping other people has become an important self-development toolfor participants both from a personal and professional aspect.

Concluding remarksThere has been considerable interest from policymakers in determining the factorswhich can lead to more effective support to companies, especially those that can growquickly and create employment and prosperity within local communities. Despite this,there seems to be only a limited number of actual policy interventions that are focussedon meeting the needs of existing business owners (Gorman et al., 1997). This paper hasexamined a specific case study of a programme that is focussed on supporting thedevelopment of knowledge-based companies that have emerged from the early stage ofbusiness development and are looking to expand their operations and develop theirpotential for expansion. Through evaluations of participants’ experiences of theprogramme since 1986, this study has provided a unique insight into the mechanismswhich have resulted in a successful policy intervention that is specifically targeted atsupporting the growth and development of established businesses. What should be ofinterest to both academics and policymakers is the fact that the programme hassucceeded through an informal, flexible and needs-orientated approach that essentiallyreflects the needs of the participating businesses. It has also developed a learning stylewhich encourages co-operation and collaboration, even by competing businesses. Inthis respect, it mirrors the philosophy espoused by Chesbrough (2003) with respect tothe concept of open innovation, where firms use external ideas as well as internal ideasto advance their technology. In this case, entrepreneurial managers utilise externaladvice, both from other participants and the programme leaders, to generate specificsolutions to challenges faced by the businesses. This open style of learning is in

Open learning

307

contrast to the majority of business support programmes, which normally utilise atop-down and structured approach involving experts giving advice and support ratherthan the participants devising their own remedies to specific problems (Sullivan, 2000;De Faoite et al., 2004). Such organisational learning has been catalogued as being adistinguishing feature of growth firms (Hansen and Hamilton, 2011).

In addition to open learning, another key factor in the success of the programme hasbeen the engagement of a successful entrepreneurial leader who has acted as theanimateur, who stimulates interactions between the companies and facilitatessolutions to specific problems. While a number of studies have discussed theimportance of utilising successful entrepreneurs in terms of leading supportprogrammes (Krueger, 1993; Hytti and O’Gorman, 2004), there is little evidence ofany widespread engagement with individuals who have the necessary experience andexpertise to make a significant intervention and, more importantly, have a successfulcommercial track record that ensures trust and respect from those in the programme.Therefore, any future policy interventions in enterprise development must develop anopen style of learning which engages directly with the participants, is based on aprocess of informality and flexibility, reflects the needs of the business and, finally,includes engaged programme leadership based on a successful entrepreneurial trackrecord.

References

Acs, Z. and Storey, D. (2004), “Introduction: entrepreneurship and economic development”,Regional Studies, Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. 871-7.

Acs, Z.J. and Mueller, P. (2008), “Employment effects of business dynamics: mice, gazelles andelephants”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 85-100.

Adizes, I. (1988), Corporate Lifecycles: How and Why Corporations Grow and Die and What to Doabout It, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Admiraal, W. and Lockhorst, D. (2009), “E-learning in small and medium-sized enterprises acrossEurope: attitudes towards technology, learning and training”, International Small BusinessJournal, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 743-67.

Audretsch, D.B. and Thurik, A.R. (2000), “Capitalism and democracy in the 21st century: fromthe managed to the entrepreneurial economy”, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Vol. 10Nos 1-2, pp. 17-34.

Autio, E. (2007), GEM 2007 High-Growth Entrepreneurship Report, Babson College, Wellesley,MA.

Bergek, A. and Norrman, C. (2008), “Incubator best practice: a framework”, Technovation, Vol. 28Nos 1-2, pp. 20-8.

Bergh, P. (2006), “Interorganisatoriska larandenatverk for chefer fran sma och medelstoraforetag”, licentiate thesis,FE-publikationer 2006:184, Umea University, Umea.

Birch, D.L. (1979), The Job Generation Process, MIT Programme on Neighborhood and RegionalChange, Cambridge, MA.

Brulin, G., Sjoberg, K. and Svensson, L. (2009), “Gemensam kunskapsbildning for regionaltillvaxt”, Arbetsmarknad & Arbetsliv, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 61-74.

Buss, T.F. (2002), “Emerging high-growth firms and economic development policy”, EconomicDevelopment Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 17-19.

EJTD37,3

308

Chesbrough, H.W. (2003), “The era of open innovation”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 3,pp. 35-41.

Churchill, N.C. and Lewis, V.L. (1983), “The five stages of small business growth”, HarvardBusiness Review, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 30-41.

Clinton, O.L. and Laurence, S.F. (2005), “Management training: benefits and lost opportunities”,Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 25-30.

Davidsson, P. (1989), “Continued entrepreneurship and small firm growth”, PhD Dissertation,Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm.

Davidsson, P. and Henrekson, M. (2002), “Determinants of the prevalance of start-ups andhigh-growth firms”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 81-104.

Davidsson, P. and Klofsten, M. (2003), “The business platform: developing an instrument togauge and assist the development of young firms”, Journal of Small BusinessManagement, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 1-26.

Davidsson, P., Kirchhoff, B., Hatemi, A. and Gustavsson, H. (2002), “Empirical analysis ofbusiness growth factors using Swedish data”, Journal of Small Business Management,Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 332-49.

De Faoite, D., Henry, C., Johnston, K. and van der Sijde, P. (2004), “Entrepreneurs’ attitudes totraining and support initiatives: evidence from Ireland and The Netherlands”, Journal ofSmall Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 440-8.

Ellstrom, P-E. and Kock, H. (2009), “Competence development in the workplace: concepts,strategies, and effects”, in Illeris, K. (Ed.), International Perspectives on CompetenceDevelopment. Developing Skill and Capabilities, Routledge, London.

Etzkowitz, H. and Klofsten, M. (2005), “The innovative region: toward a theory ofknowledge-based regional development”, R&D Management, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 243-55.

Fredriksen, O., Olofsson, C. and Wahlbin, C. (1997), “Are venture capitalists firefighters? A studyof the influence and impact of venture capital firms”, Technovation, Vol. 17 No. 9,pp. 503-11.

Friar, J. and Meyer, M. (2003), “Entrepreneurship and start-ups in the Boston region: factorsdifferentiating high-growth ventures from micro-ventures”, Small Business Economics,Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 145-52.

Fritsch, M. and Mueller, P. (2004), “Effects of new business formation on regional developmentover time”, Regional Studies, Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. 961-75.

Gibb, A.A. (1990), “Design effective programmes for encouraging the small business start-upprocess”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 17-25.

Gibb, A.A. (1996), “Entrepreneurship and small business management: can we afford to neglectthem in the twenty-first century business school?”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 7No. 4, pp. 309-21.

Gibb, A.A. (2000), “SME policy, academic research and the growth of ignorance, mythicalconcepts, myths, assumptions, rituals and confusions”, International Small BusinessJournal, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 13-35.

Gorman, G., Hanlon, D. and King, W. (1997), “Some research perspectives on entrepreneurshipeducation, enterprise education and education for small business management: a ten-yearliterature review”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 56-77.

Greiner, L.E. (1972), “Evolution and revolution as organisations grow”, Harvard Business Review,Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 37-46.

Open learning

309

Hansen, B. and Hamilton, R.T. (2011), “Factors distinguishing small firm growers andnon-growers”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 278-94.

Henrekson, M. and Johansson, D. (2010), “Gazelles as job creators: a survey and interpretation ofthe evidence”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 227-44.

Hytti, U. and O’Gorman, C. (2004), “What is ‘enterprise education’? An analysis of the objectivesand methods of enterprise education programmes in four European countries”, Educationþ Training, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 11-23.

Johannisson, B. (1991), “University training for entrepreneurship: Swedish approaches”,Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 67-82.

Johannisson, B. (2007), “Enacting local economic development-theoretical and methodologicalchallenges”, Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the GlobalEconomy, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 7-26.

Jones, O. and Crompton, H. (2009), “Enterprise logic and small firms: a model of authenticentrepreneurial leadership”, Journal of Strategy and Management, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 329-51.

Jones-Evans, D. (1996), “Technical entrepreneurship, strategy and experience”, InternationalSmall Business Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 15-39.

Jones-Evans, D. and Klofsten, M. (1997), Technology, Innovation and Enterprise – the EuropeanExperience, Macmillan, London.

Jones-Evans, D., Klofsten, M., Andersson, E. and Pandya, D. (1999), “Creating a bridge betweenuniversity and industry in small European countries: the role of the Industrial LiaisonOffice”, R&D Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 47-56.

Kazanjian, R.K. (1988), “Relation of dominant problems to stages of growth in technology-basednew ventures”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 257-79.

Khan, Z. and Cooper, M. (2001), “Managing training in SMEs for holistic high performance”, inOakey, R., Groen, A., van der Sijde, P. and Cook, G. (Eds), New Technology-based Firms inthe New Millennium, Permagon, Oxford, pp. 104-26.

Kirchhoff, B.A. (1994), Entrepreneurship and Dynamic Capitalism, Praeger, Westport, CT.

Kirwan, P.M., van der Sijde, P. and Klofsten, M. (2008), “Supporting high-tech companies: usingthe business platform as a practical instrument”, International Journal of Innovation andRegional Development, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 48-65.

Kock, H., Gill, A. and Ellstrom, P.-E. (2008), “Why do small enterprises participate in aprogramme for competence development?”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 20 No. 3,pp. 181-94.

Klofsten, M. (2008), “Supporting academic enterprise: a case study of an entrepreneurshipprogramme”, in Oakey, R., Groen, A., van der Sijde, P. and Cook, G. (Eds),New Technology-based Firms at the New Millennium, Elsevier Science, Oxford, pp. 53-67.

Klofsten, M. and Jones-Evans, D. (1996), “Stimulation of technology-based small firms – a casestudy of university-industry co-operation”, Technovation, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 187-93.

Klofsten, M. and Jones-Evans, D. (2000), “Comparing academic entrepreneurship in Europe: thecase of Sweden and Ireland”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 299-309.

Klofsten, M. and Mikaelsson, A.-S. (1996), “Support of small business firms: entrepreneurs: viewsof the demand and supply side”, Journal of Enterprising Culture, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 417-32.

Klofsten, M., Heydebreck, P. and Jones-Evans, D. (2010), “Transferring good practice beyondorganisational borders”, Regional Studies., Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 791-9.

EJTD37,3

310

Krueger, N. (1993), “The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venturefeasibility and desirability”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 5-21.

Lopes, S.P., Peon, J.M.M. and Ordas, C.J.V. (2006), “Human resource management as adetermining factor in organisational learning”, Management Learning, Vol. 37 No. 2,pp. 215-39.

Lundstrom, A. and Stevenson, L. (2005), Entrepreneurship Policy: Theory and Practice, Springer,New York, NY.

Mason, C. and Brown, R. (2013), “Creating good public policy to support high-growth firms”,Small Business Economics, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 211-25.

Masurel, E. and Kees, M. (2006), “Life cycle characteristics of small professional service firms”,Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 461-73.

Matlay, H. (2000), “Training and the small firm”, in Carter, S. and Jones-Evans, D. (Eds),Enterprise and Small Business, Prentice Hall, Harlow, pp. 323-36.

Mian, S.A. (1997), “Assessing and managing the university technology business incubator:an integrative framework”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 251-85.

Monk, R. (1996), “The motivation of managers for training”, Management Development Review,Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 26-32.

Norrman, C. and Bager-Sjogren, L. (2010), “Entrepreneurship policy to support new innovativeventures: is it effective?”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 602-19.

Patzelt, H. and Shepherd, D.A. (2009), “Strategic entrepreneurship at universities: Academicentrepreneurs’ assessment of policy programmes”, Entrepreneurship, Theory and Practice,Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 319-40.

Polit, D.F. and Hungler, B.P. (1999), Nursing Research: Principles and Methods, 6th ed.,Lippincott, Philadelphia, PA.

Reynolds, P., Storey, D.J. and Westhead, P. (2007), “Cross-national comparisons of the variationin new firm formation rates”, Regional Studies, Vol. 41, Supplement 1, pp. 123-36.

Scott, M. and Bruce, R. (1987), “Five stages of growth in small business”, Long Range Planning,Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 45-52.

Sullivan, R. (2000), “Entrepreneurial learning and mentoring”, International Journal ofEntrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 160-75.

Sveiby, K.-E. (1994), “Towards a knowledge perspective on organisation”, PhD dissertation,University of Stockholm, Stockholm.

Torrence, D. (1993), “Motivating trainees to learn”, Training and Development, Vol. 47 No. 3,pp. 55-9.

Van der Sijde, P., Karnebeek, S. and Van Benthem, J. (2002), “The impact of a university spin-offprogramme. The case of NTBFs established through TOP”, in Oakey, R., During, W. andKauser, S. (Eds), New Technology-based Firms at the New Millennium, Pergamon,Amsterdam.

Van Stel, A., Carree, M. and Thurik, R. (2005), “The effect of entrepreneurial activity on nationaleconomic growth”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 311-21.

Von Bargen, P., Freedman, D. and Pages, E.R. (2003), “The rise of the entrepreneurial society”,Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 315-24.

Winborg, J. and Landstrom, H. (2001), “Financial bootstrapping in small businesses: examiningsmall business managers’ resource acquisition behaviours”, Journal of BusinessVenturing, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 235-54.

Open learning

311

Wong, P., Ho, Y. and Autio, E. (2005), “Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth:evidence from GEM data”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 335-50.

Ylinenpaa, H. (1997), “Managing competence development and acquisition in smallmanufacturing firms”, PhD dissertation, Lulea Technical University, Lulea.

Ylinenpaa, H. (2004), “If management can be learned, can learning be managed? Reflections onHEI-based management training in smaller firms”, International Journal of LifelongEducation, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 507-24.

Further reading

Acs, Z., Braunerhjelm, P., Audretsch, D.B. and Carlsson, B. (2009), “The knowledge spillovertheory of entrepreneurship”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 15-30.

Bosma, N. and Schutjens, V. (2009), “Mapping entrepreneurial activity and entrepreneurialattitudes in European regions”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and SmallBusiness, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 191-213.

Gibb, A.A. and Scott, M. (1986), “Understanding small firms growth”, in Scott, M., Gibb, A.A.,Lewis, J. and Faulkner, T. (Eds), Small Business Growth and Development, Gower, London.

Krueger, N.F. and Brazeal, D.V. (1994), “Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs”,Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 91-104.

Norrman, C. and Klofsten, M. (2008), “Seed funding for innovative ventures: a survey of selectionmechanisms of a public support scheme”, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Vol. 9 No. 1,pp. 11-19.

Oakey, R.P. (1984), High Technology Small Firms, Pinter, London.

Peterman, N.E. and Kennedy, J. (2003), “Enterprise education: influencing students’ perceptionsof entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 129-44.

Storey, D.J. (2003), “Entrepreneurship, small and medium sized enterprises and public policies”,in Acs, Z.J. and Audretsch, D.B. (Eds), Handbook of Entrepreneurship Research, Kluwer,Dordrecht, pp. 473-511.

About the authors:Magnus Klofsten is a Full Professor and the Founding Director of Centre for Innovation andEntrepreneurship (CIE) at Linkoping University, Sweden. Magnus Klofsten is the correspondingauthor and can be contacted at: magnus.klofsten@liu.se

Dylan Jones-Evans is a Professor and Director of Enterprise and Innovation, University ofWales, UK.

EJTD37,3

312

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints