{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01798736023334954, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.617363344051447, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Delineating the Anatomy of an Entrepreneurial University: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Experience

In many universities, heads, administrators and faculty seek to increase the propensity to engage in commercialization of research activity through the spinoff of new companies. The highly complex mechanism of spinoff generation is typically considered the result of either the characteristics of individuals, organizational policies and structures, organizational culture, or the external environment. Explanations of spinoff activity have in the main focused on only one of these dimensions at a time. In this paper we integrate these four dimensions of academic entrepreneurship to develop a more systemic understanding of spinoff activity at the university level. Using the case of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a top spinoff generator in the United States, a systemic analysis is presented. We identify the inter-related factors that have contributed to successful academic entrepreneurship in MIT. We argue that MIT's success is based on the science and engineering resource base at MIT; the quality of research faculty; supporting organizational mechanisms and policies such as MIT's Technology Licensing Office; and the culture within MIT faculty that encourages entrepreneurship. However, to understand why MIT has developed these resources and organizational mechanisms, it is necessary to understand the historical context and emergence of MIT, and in particular the historical mission of the university, the role of key individuals and university leaders in supporting this mission, and the impact of past success at commercialization activity. Finally, we suggest that MIT's success needs to be understood in the context of the local regional environment. We argue that university administrators and academics can learn from the case of MIT, but that efforts at transposing or replicating single elements of MIT's model may only have limited success, given the inter-related nature of the drivers of spinoff activity.