Analysis of the Dissemination Index of the Information of the Different Players of the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem in the Valencian Community

[EN] The main objective of this research is to calculate the diffusion index of entrepreneurship to the different actors of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. For this, 57 organizations, both private and public, belonging to the entrepreneurial ecosystem of the Valencian community have been analyzed. Among the results are stresses the importance of the optimal use of information and communication technology in current and future generations, as well as the dissemination of entrepreneurship. In addition, the best practices carried out by the different agents of the entrepreneurial ecosystem have been identified.This work has been funded by the R + D project with reference (GVA) GV/2016 078.Ribes-Giner, G.; Navarrete-Garnes, J. (2020). Analysis of the Dissemination Index of the Information of the Different Players of the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem in the Valencian Community. Administrative Sciences. 10(2):1-15. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci10010002S115102Ecosistemas Emprendedores y Startups, el Nuevo Protagonismo de Las Pequeñas Organizaciones https://www.mincotur.gob.es/Publicaciones/Publicacionesperiodicas/EconomiaIndustrial/RevistaEconomiaIndustrial/408/ARENAL,%20ARMU%C3%91A,%20RAMOS%20Y%20FEIJOO.pdfAutio, E., & Rannikko, H. (2016). Retaining winners: Can policy boost high-growth entrepreneurship? Research Policy, 45(1), 42-55. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2015.06.002Bonsón, E., & Escobar, T. (2004). La Difusión Voluntaria de Información Financiera en Internet. Un Análisis Comparativo Entre Estados Unidos, Europa del Este y la Unión Europea. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting / Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad, 33(123), 1063-1101. doi:10.1080/02102412.2004.10779539Crammond, R., Omeihe, K. O., Murray, A., & Ledger, K. (2018). Managing knowledge through social media. Baltic Journal of Management, 13(3), 303-328. doi:10.1108/bjm-05-2017-0133Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003). The Struggle to Govern the Commons. Science, 302(5652), 1907-1912. doi:10.1126/science.1091015Du, W. D., Pan, S. L., Zhou, N., & Ouyang, T. (2018). From a marketplace of electronics to a digital entrepreneurial ecosystem (DEE): The emergence of a meta-organization in Zhongguancun, China. Information Systems Journal, 28(6), 1158-1175. doi:10.1111/isj.12176Henrekson, M., & Sanandaji, T. (2014). Small business activity does not measure entrepreneurship. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(5), 1760-1765. doi:10.1073/pnas.1307204111Manfreda, A., Buh, B., & Indihar Štemberger, M. (2015). Knowledge-intensive process management: a case study from the public sector. Baltic Journal of Management, 10(4), 456-477. doi:10.1108/bjm-10-2014-0170Maroufkhani, P., Wagner, R., & Wan Ismail, W. K. (2018). Entrepreneurial ecosystems: a systematic review. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 12(4), 545-564. doi:10.1108/jec-03-2017-0025Muldoon, J., Bauman, A., & Lucy, C. (2018). Entrepreneurial ecosystem: do you trust or distrust? Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 12(2), 158-177. doi:10.1108/jec-07-2017-0050Nicotra, M., Romano, M., Del Giudice, M., & Schillaci, C. E. (2017). The causal relation between entrepreneurial ecosystem and productive entrepreneurship: a measurement framework. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(3), 640-673. doi:10.1007/s10961-017-9628-2Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (1994). Toward a Theory of International New ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 25(1), 45-64. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490193Understanding Entrepreneurship Promotion as an Economic Development Strategy: A Three-State Survey. A Joint Project of the National Commission on Entrepreneurship and the Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness http://entreworks.org/Download/3statesurveyfin.pdfPark, S. O. (2001). GeoJournal, 53(1), 29-38. doi:10.1023/a:1015814611617Prashantham, S., Eranova, M., & Couper, C. (2017). Globalization, entrepreneurship and paradox thinking. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 35(1), 1-9. doi:10.1007/s10490-017-9537-9Rossignoli, C., Ricciardi, F., & Bonomi, S. (2018). Organizing for Commons-Enabling Decision-Making Under Conflicting Institutional Logics in Social Entrepreneurship. Group Decision and Negotiation, 27(3), 417-443. doi:10.1007/s10726-018-9564-zSullivan, D. M., & Meek, W. R. (2012). Gender and entrepreneurship: a review and process model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(5), 428-458. doi:10.1108/02683941211235373Sussan, F., & Acs, Z. J. (2017). The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem. Small Business Economics, 49(1), 55-73. doi:10.1007/s11187-017-9867-5Tilson, D., Lyytinen, K., & Sørensen, C. (2010). Research Commentary—Digital Infrastructures: The Missing IS Research Agenda. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 748-759. doi:10.1287/isre.1100.0318Mapa del emprendimiento CV http://www.emprendedores.gva.es/en/novedades/-/asset_publisher/7YR8XVaYqFgR/content/mapa-emprendimiento-comunitat-valenciana-2016;jsessionid=7ACBF5F2AD07B4720CB0EC17F17C02BEWimmer, M. A. (2002). Integrated Service Modelling for Online One-stop Government. Electronic Markets, 12(3), 149-156. doi:10.1080/10196780232024591

Bibliometric analysis of venture teams of technology-based firms

[EN] Due to its growing impact on the economic development of countries, research on venture teams in new technology-based firms - TBFs has been increasing in recent years, seeking to identify the success and failure factors of this type of firms, given their high mortality rates. This paper analyzes the changes that have occurred in the intellectual structure of this discipline through the bibliometric analysis of research on the theme of venture teams in the new TBFs. The information collected was extracted from the main collection of the Web of Science (WoS) and SCOPUS databases from 1987 to 2020. The Nvivo and VOSviewer softwares are used to perform the initial analyzesas well as the analysis of citations, co-citations , co-authorship, etc. The advances associated with the main authors, sources and countries, the general citation structure and the development of this field are presented. The results show a growing publication trend as of 2009, seeing a higher production of articles between 2014 and 2019. USA is the most influential country, followed by UK and Italy. The"Journal of Business Venturing" and "Technovation" are the most influential sources. The main contribution of this work is to show the evolution of this theme, so that researchers can use it in the future in their theoretical and research frameworks.Ribes Giner, G.; Moya Clemente, I.; Alzate Alvarado, A. (2022). Bibliometric analysis of venture teams of technology-based firms. En Proceedings 3rd International Conference. Business Meets Technology. Editorial Universitat Politècnica de València. 89-96. https://doi.org/10.4995/BMT2021.2021.13695899

Identifying environmental and economic development factors in sustainable entrepreneurship over time by partial least squares (PLS)

[EN] This study analyses the impact of environmental and economic factors consolidation on sustainable entrepreneurship over time. A model is proposed that analyses the relations between these factors and sustainable entrepreneurship over time with sustainable development goals performances and the continuation of the businesses index as variables. Using data from 50 countries, a quantitative method based on partial least squares was applied to validate the proposed model. Our findings showed positive and significant relations between environmental and economic factors with sustainable entrepreneurship over time. This implies that the countries which invest more efforts to consolidate their economic and environmental factors obtain higher durability rates for their sustainable entrepreneurship.Moya Clemente, I.; Ribes-Giner, G.; Pantoja-Díaz, O. (2020). Identifying environmental and economic development factors in sustainable entrepreneurship over time by partial least squares (PLS). PLoS ONE. 15(9):1-17. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238462S117159Kuckertz, A., & Wagner, M. (2010). The influence of sustainability orientation on entrepreneurial intentions — Investigating the role of business experience. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 524-539. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.09.001Pacheco, D. F., Dean, T. J., & Payne, D. S. (2010). Escaping the green prison: Entrepreneurship and the creation of opportunities for sustainable development. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 464-480. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.07.006Audretsch, D. B., & Peña-Legazkue, I. (2011). Entrepreneurial activity and regional competitiveness: an introduction to the special issue. Small Business Economics, 39(3), 531-537. doi:10.1007/s11187-011-9328-5Van Praag, C. M., & Versloot, P. H. (2007). What is the value of entrepreneurship? A review of recent research. Small Business Economics, 29(4), 351-382. doi:10.1007/s11187-007-9074-xTerán-Yépez, E., Marín-Carrillo, G. M., Casado-Belmonte, M. del P., & Capobianco-Uriarte, M. de las M. (2020). Sustainable entrepreneurship: Review of its evolution and new trends. Journal of Cleaner Production, 252, 119742. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119742Eleni K. Sustainable issues for start-up enterprises. The case of Greece. 2019.Criado-Gomis, A., Iniesta-Bonillo, M. Á., & Cervera-Taulet, A. (2018). Sustainable entrepreneurial orientation within an intrapreneurial context: effects on business performance. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14(2), 295-308. doi:10.1007/s11365-018-0503-xLans, T., Blok, V., & Wesselink, R. (2014). Learning apart and together: towards an integrated competence framework for sustainable entrepreneurship in higher education. Journal of Cleaner Production, 62, 37-47. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.036Muñoz, P., & Cohen, B. (2017). Sustainable Entrepreneurship Research: Taking Stock and looking ahead. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(3), 300-322. doi:10.1002/bse.2000Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D. A. (2011). Recognizing Opportunities for Sustainable Development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(4), 631-652. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00386.xHernández-Perlines, F., & Rung-Hoch, N. (2017). Sustainable Entrepreneurial Orientation in Family Firms. Sustainability, 9(7), 1212. doi:10.3390/su9071212Miralles-Quirós, J. L., Miralles-Quirós, M. M., & Nogueira, J. M. (2018). Diversification benefits of using exchange-traded funds in compliance to the sustainable development goals. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(1), 244-255. doi:10.1002/bse.2253Parra, S. (2013). Exploring the Incorporation of Values for Sustainable Entrepreneurship Teaching/Learning. Journal of technology management & innovation, 8(1), 11-20. doi:10.4067/s0718-27242013000100002Anbarasan, P., & Sushil. (2017). Stakeholder Engagement in Sustainable Enterprise: Evolving a Conceptual Framework, and a Case Study of ITC. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(3), 282-299. doi:10.1002/bse.1999Partzsch, L., & Ziegler, R. (2011). Social entrepreneurs as change agents: a case study on power and authority in the water sector. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 11(1), 63-83. doi:10.1007/s10784-011-9150-1Sunny, S. A., & Shu, C. (2017). Investments, incentives, and innovation: geographical clustering dynamics as drivers of sustainable entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 52(4), 905-927. doi:10.1007/s11187-017-9941-zCohen, B., & Winn, M. I. (2007). Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 29-49. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.12.001Hanchett S. Sustainable Sanitation for All [Internet]. CLTS Knowledge Hub Learning Paper. 2016. http://www.developmentbookshelf.com/doi/pdf/10.3362/9781780449272#page=49%0Ahttp://www.developmentbookshelf.com/doi/book/10.3362/9781780449272Jiang, W., Chai, H., Shao, J., & Feng, T. (2018). Green entrepreneurial orientation for enhancing firm performance: A dynamic capability perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 198, 1311-1323. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.104Nations U. Sustainable Development Goals [Internet]. 2019. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/Schaltegger, S., Beckmann, M., & Hockerts, K. (2018). Collaborative entrepreneurship for sustainability. Creating solutions in light of the UN sustainable development goals. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 10(2), 131. doi:10.1504/ijev.2018.092709Rodgers, C. (2010). Sustainable entrepreneurship in SMEs: a case study analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 17(3), 125-132. doi:10.1002/csr.223Dean, T. J., & McMullen, J. S. (2007). Toward a theory of sustainable entrepreneurship: Reducing environmental degradation through entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 50-76. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.09.003Gibbs, D. (2006). Sustainability Entrepreneurs, Ecopreneurs and the Development of a Sustainable Economy. Greener Management International, 2006(55), 63-78. doi:10.9774/gleaf.3062.2006.au.00007Stål, H. I., & Bonnedahl, K. (2016). Conceptualizing strong sustainable entrepreneurship. Small Enterprise Research, 23(1), 73-84. doi:10.1080/13215906.2016.1188718Shepherd, D. A., & Patzelt, H. (2011). The New Field of Sustainable Entrepreneurship: Studying Entrepreneurial Action Linking «What is to be Sustained» with «What is to be Developed». Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 137-163. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00426.xDhahri, S., & Omri, A. (2018). Entrepreneurship contribution to the three pillars of sustainable development: What does the evidence really say? World Development, 106, 64-77. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.01.008Bloomfield, G., Bucht, K., Martínez-Hernández, J. C., Ramírez-Soto, A. F., Sheseña-Hernández, I., Lucio-Palacio, C. R., & Ruelas Inzunza, E. (2017). Capacity building to advance the United Nations sustainable development goals: An overview of tools and approaches related to sustainable land management. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 37(2), 157-177. doi:10.1080/10549811.2017.1359097Bizri, R., Hammoud, J., Stouhi, M., & Hammoud, M. (2019). The entrepreneurial university: a proposed model for developing nations. Journal of Management Development, 38(5), 383-404. doi:10.1108/jmd-11-2018-0347Fernández-Serrano, J., & Romero, I. (2014). About the interactive influence of culture and regulatory barriers on entrepreneurial activity. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10(4), 781-802. doi:10.1007/s11365-014-0296-5Weidinger, C., Fischler, F., & Schmidpeter, R. (Eds.). (2014). Sustainable Entrepreneurship. CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38753-1Rahdari, A., Sepasi, S., & Moradi, M. (2016). Achieving sustainability through Schumpeterian social entrepreneurship: The role of social enterprises. Journal of Cleaner Production, 137, 347-360. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.159Kooi AR. Corporate Social Responsibility and Antitrust Compliance in the Fashion Industry. Jonkoping University. 2015.Global Entrepreneurship Research Association. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2017–2018 [Internet]. 2017. www.babson.eduSachs J, Schmidt-Traub G, Kroll C, Lafortune G, Fuller G. SDG Index and Dashboards Report 2018. New York Bertelsmann Stift Sustain Dev Solut Netw. 2019;1–7.Williams, L. J., Vandenberg, R. J., & Edwards, J. R. (2009). 12 Structural Equation Modeling in Management Research: A Guide for Improved Analysis. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 543-604. doi:10.5465/19416520903065683Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Piovoso, M. J. (2009). Silver Bullet or Voodoo Statistics? Group & Organization Management, 34(1), 5-36. doi:10.1177/1059601108329198Castaño, M.-S., Méndez, M.-T., & Galindo, M.-Á. (2015). The effect of social, cultural, and economic factors on entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1496-1500. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.040Ringle CM, Wende S, Becker JM. SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt SmartPLS GmbH [Internet]. 2015; https://www.smartpls.com/Cepeda-Carrión, G., & Roldán Salgueiro JL. Aplicando en la práctica la técnica PLS en la administración de empresas. In: Conocimiento y Competitividad XIV Congreso Nacional ACEDE [Internet]. 2004. p. 1–30. http://www.ghbook.ir/index.php?name=فرهنگورسانههاینوین&option=com_dbook&task=readonline&book_id=13650&page=73&chkhashk=ED9C9491B4&Itemid=218&lang=fa&tmpl=componentHenseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 116(1), 2-20. doi:10.1108/imds-09-2015-0382Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424-453. doi:10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.424Henseler J. Adanco 2.0.1 User Manual. KG, Kleve, Germany.: Composite Modeling GmbH&Co; 2017.Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., Thiele, K. O., & Gudergan, S. P. (2016). Estimation issues with PLS and CBSEM: Where the bias lies! Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 3998-4010. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.06.007Hair JF, Hult GT, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M, Castillo-Apraiz J, Cepeda Carrion G, et al. Manual de Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. 2019.Ali, F., Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Ryu, K. (2018). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) in hospitality research. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 30(1), 514-538. doi:10.1108/ijchm-10-2016-0568Dijkstra, T. K., & Schermelleh-Engel, K. (2013). Consistent Partial Least Squares for Nonlinear Structural Equation Models. Psychometrika, 79(4), 585-604. doi:10.1007/s11336-013-9370-0Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. doi:10.1177/002224378101800104Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135. doi:10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8Hair, J., Hollingsworth, C. L., Randolph, A. B., & Chong, A. Y. L. (2017). An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117(3), 442-458. doi:10.1108/imds-04-2016-013

Una orientación proactiva hacia el mercado para los programas de Postgrado

[EN] The present study aims to help universities to develop a proactive market orientation as the precedent for a successful innovation policy for their postgraduate programs through a deep review of the concepts of “proactive market orientation” of the postgraduate market and its relative “postgraduate decision-making process”. This ‘decision-making process model’ will be the perfect framework which will facilitate different reflections about customers (adult students), companies (employers) and universities and all their possible interactions which can exist under a “proactive market orientation” and the consequent strategies for a successful innovation policy. Therefore, this research makes a significant contribution to the body of knowledge in this important area of market orientation as a precedent for innovation for educational institutions This proactive market research philosophy can assist the University, administrators, managers and recruiters in adapting their marketing strategies and their related innovation policy in order to differentiate from the competition in a complex sector like the postgraduate education one.[ES] El presente estudio pretende ayudar a las universidades a desarrollar una orientación proactiva hacia el mercado como precedente de una política de innovación exitosa para sus programas máster, a través de una revisión sistemática de los conceptos de «orientación proactiva hacia el mercado del postgrado» y su correspondiente «proceso de toma de decisiones y elección». El modelo de proceso de elección será el marco perfecto para facilitar reflexiones sobre consumidores (estudiantes adultos), compañías (empleadoras o facilitadoras de alumnos), universidades y todas las posibles relaciones que existan relacionadas con la orientación proactiva hacia el mercado y sus consecuentes estrategias en la búsqueda de una política de innovación exitosa. Por lo tanto, esta investigación realiza una significante contribución al conocimiento en el área de la orientación al mercado como un precedente para la innovación en las instituciones educativas. Esta filosofía de orientación proactiva hacia el mercado puede ayudar a las universidades, sus administradores, sus directivos y sus recruiters a adaptar sus estrategias de marketing y su correspondiente política de innovación para poder diferenciarse de la competencia en un sector tan complejo como el de la educación de postgrado.Peralt Rillo, A.; Ribes Giner, G. (2013). A proactive market orientation for the postgraduate programs. Dirección y Organización. (50):37-47. http://hdl.handle.net/10251/59675S37475

Métodos y técnicas facilitadoras de la co-creation innovation en programas máster para el mercado del postgrado

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License[EN] The main objective of this paper is to propose methods and techniques for successfully implementing an innovative project based on the paradigm of co-creation innovation for the postgraduate market. This is intended to provide universities the way to a successful innovation policy in its masters programs which are understood as a product-service binomial.[ES] El principal objetivo de este artículo es proponer métodos y técnicas para implementar con éxito un proyecto de innovación, en una universidad, para el mercado de los programas de máster, basado en el paradigma de la co-creation innovation. Con ellos se pretender proporcionar a las universidades el camino para una política de innovación con éxito para sus programas master que se consideran un binomio producto servicio.Ribes-Giner, G.; Peralt Rillo, A. (2014). Métodos y técnicas facilitadoras de la co-creation innovation en programas máster para el mercado del postgrado. Intangible Capital. 10(1):101-124. doi:10.3926/ic.443S10112410

Domestic economic and social conditions empowering female entrepreneurship

[EN] To identify the combinations of the economic and social aspects related to female entrepreneurship in OECD countries, we carried out a cross-national analysis of female entrepreneurship using fsQCA methodology. We analyzed 2015 data from 29 OECD countries, covering different geographical areas. Data were retrieved from three databases (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, Country Risk Score, and Glass Ceiling Index) and the relationship between entrepreneurship by gender and the conditions in a country were studied, especially those socially related to gender under female labor working conditions. The results show that the combination of good country risk score conditions and the low presence of women in power positions is related to high female entrepreneurship and low gender labor-force gap. By contrast, low female entrepreneurship is reached through a combination of high gender labor-force and wage gaps.This work has been funded by the R + D project for emerging research groups with reference (GVA) GV/2016/078.Ribes-Giner, G.; Moya Clemente, I.; Cervelló Royo, RE.; Perelló Marín, MR. (2018). Domestic economic and social conditions empowering female entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research. 89:182-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.005S1821898

The impact of co-creation on the student satisfaction: analysis through structural equation modeling

Copyright © 2016 Odette Pantoja Díaz et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.[EN] The objective of this study is to apply the cocreation initiative as a marketing tool in the context of university undergraduate programs. Considering that cocreation is a practice that involves stakeholders in different phases of product production or service, this research analyzes the interactions between some of the factors during the cocreation process as students collaborate with the university. These factors are participation, communication, cocreation, and satisfaction, and this study focuses on how they fuse together at the moment of cocreation. After a literature review, which supplied the basis for creating a model, we used exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling to validate the hypothesized relations between the variables; finally, the proposed cocreation model was verified. The results could empower academic institutions to develop managerial strategies in order to increase students’ collaboration and satisfaction.Pantoja Diaz, O.; Ribes Giner, G.; Perelló Marín, MR. (2016). The impact of co-creation on the student satisfaction: analysis through structural equation modeling. Abstract and Applied Analysis. 2016:1-10. doi:10.1155/2016/3729791S110201

Literature review of the key variables of the co-creation process in higher education institutions

[EN] Value co-creation has been broadly developed as a new paradigm in management innovation. It allows companies and customers to create value through interaction. However, it has not been examined in depth in Higher Education contexts as a type of service industry. The present paper clarifies value co-creation in Higher Education Institutions, analysing the relationships between key factors affecting it: communicative participation, trust, satisfaction and loyalty. A literature review was conducted, resulting in 84 relevant papers dealing with the studied topic. The study was focused on the micro level, and, specifically, it analyses the relation between students and Higher Education institutions as main actors of value co-creation within this context. This perspective corresponds to the new trends in university teaching-learning framework, where professors are no longer the heart of the process, to become just a part of it. This shift makes students the backbone of the value co-creation process. This study provides, among other things, a conceptual framework to endorse further works on value co-creation in Higher Education institutions.[ES] La co-creación de valor ha sido ampliamente desarrollada como un nuevo paradigma en la gestión de la innovación, permitiendo a empresas y clientes crear valor a través de las interacciones entre los diferentes stakeholders. Este enfoque ha sido principalmente abordado en el ámbito empresarial, no siendo aplicado en profundidad en el contexto universitario. Es por esta razón que el principal aporte del presente trabajo es profundizar, mediante una revisión de la literatura, en el concepto de co-creación de valor en Instituciones de Educación Superior centrándose específicamente en la interacción entre el estudiante y la universidad. De igual forma, se estudian las relaciones entre los diferentes factores clave involucrados: participación comunicativa, confianza, satisfacción y lealtad. El objetivo del estudio es identificar hasta qué punto dichos factores son relevantes en un modelo de co-creación de valor en entornos de educación superior. Como resultado, se identifican 111 documentos relevantes relacionados con el tema abordado. Esta perspectiva corresponde a las nuevas tendencias de enseñanza-aprendizaje en la universidad, en la cual los profesores dejan de ser el centro del proceso y pasan a ser solo una parte de este. Este cambio convierte a los estudiantes en la columna vertebral del proceso de co-creación de valor; proporcionando esta investigación un marco conceptual que respalda futuros estudios de co-creación en las instituciones universitarias.Ribes-Giner, G.; Perelló Marín, MR.; Pantoja-Diaz, O. (2017). Revisión sistemática de literatura de las variables clave del proceso de co-creación en las instituciones de educación superior. TEC Empresarial. 11(3):41-53. http://hdl.handle.net/10251/111709S415311

Enhancing Education for Sustainable Development in Environmental University Programmes: A Co-Creation Approach

[EN] The purpose of this study is to analyse co-creation approach as a strategy at HE as a prerequisite for a successful implementation of sustainable development (HESD), while considering student collaboration in university processes. A questionnaire was handed in to 395 undergraduate environmental students from twelve Ecuadorian universities to test a structural equation model that included four variablesparticipation, co-creation, satisfaction, and trust. It is worth noting that these topics are increasingly relevant in competitive and innovative universities when promoting management in HESD. The results verify that student participation, as one of the key ESD skills, has a significant and positive influence on co-creation as a generator of student satisfaction and trust, especially in this context. Co-creation, from a higher education perspective, from the premise that students are the centre of the learning process, reinforces the education quality principles in an innovative way, and promotes the HESD perspectives.Perelló Marín, MR.; Ribes-Giner, G.; Pantoja-Diaz, O. (2018). Enhancing Education for Sustainable Development in Environmental University Programmes: A Co-Creation Approach. Sustainability. 10(1):1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1001015811710