Using HEInnovate to Strengthen the Visibility and Coordination of Entrepreneurial Activities at ISCAL

by Fernando C. Gaspar 

Abstract

ISCAL used HEInnovate to assess how its existing entrepreneurial and innovative activities could be better connected, communicated and made accessible across the institution. The self-assessment and workshops confirmed that substantial activity was already taking place but was not yet fully visible, coordinated or used to its full potential. The process resulted in four complementary proposals: mapping existing initiatives, creating a visible gateway to entrepreneurial support, developing a more systematic picture of entrepreneurship and innovation across ISCAL, and exploring a light institutional structure to coordinate these efforts. The initiatives remain at an early stage, but the experience has already provided a clearer basis for institutional discussion and action.

Could you briefly introduce yourself, your role at ISCAL, and the context in which you became interested in using HEInnovate? 

I am a professor in the Management Department at ISCAL - Lisbon Accounting and Business School. ISCAL is part of the Polytechnic University of Lisbon and the U!REKA European University. I hold a PhD in Management and have taught and worked in this field for many years.

I first encountered HEInnovate through its newsletter. As I learned more about the tool and its potential applications, I became interested in exploring it further. I subsequently attended a HEInnovate Train the Trainers programme in Berlin, which introduced me to the framework and gave me the opportunity to understand how it could be used in an institutional context.

What was the main motivation for exploring HEInnovate at ISCAL, and what were you hoping the process would help you achieve?

At ISCAL, we recognised that a wide range of activities related to entrepreneurship and innovation were already taking place, but that they were dispersed across the institution and not always fully recognised. The motivation for using HEInnovate was therefore not to address an absence of entrepreneurial activity, but to help ISCAL recognise, connect and make better use of existing initiatives. After I discussed the idea with the President of ISCAL, he supported taking the process forward.

With the President’s support, the process moved into implementation: professors were invited to complete the HEInnovate self-assessment before a workshop at the beginning of the academic year.

How did you organise the self-assessment and workshop, and what did the process reveal?

Ahead of the first workshop, 15 colleagues completed the HEInnovate self-assessment. This was a small diagnostic sample rather than a representative institutional survey, but it provided a useful starting point for discussion. The workshop brought together colleagues with different teaching and management responsibilities, which helped bring several institutional perspectives into the conversation.

The first workshop was planned to last around one hour but ultimately lasted approximately two and a half hours. We began by looking at the self-assessment results and then discussed relevant HEInnovate Action Cards and case studies from the HEInnovate website. We deliberately selected examples that were close to our own context, including one from Portugal and one from a university alliance partner in Belgium.

The results showed clear differences across the eight dimensions and between individual statements. In some areas, there was considerable variation in how colleagues perceived the institution, while in others there was a higher degree of agreement. The results were therefore used as a basis for reflection and discussion, rather than as an institutional ranking or performance judgement.

One of the clearest patterns was that strategic intent appeared stronger than institutionalisation. Leadership and internationalisation were perceived relatively positively, while coordination, structured support for entrepreneurs, links with the external ecosystem and impact measurement appeared less developed. At the same time, colleagues repeatedly noted that ISCAL is already doing a great deal in entrepreneurship and innovation but is not necessarily benefiting from these activities as much as it could. This led to an important discussion about making existing work more visible, connected and accessible rather than continually creating new initiatives.

How were the findings translated into priorities and action?

A second session on 30 September 2026 deliberately did not reopen the diagnosis. Participants were asked to move from reflection to action, bringing concrete ideas and using the HEInnovate Action Cards and case studies where appropriate. The discussion focused on a small number of priorities that could generate visible progress within a relatively short period, rather than producing a long list of aspirations. Four complementary proposals emerged.

The first proposal was to create a Living Map of Innovation and Entrepreneurship at ISCAL: a simple, continuously updated overview of initiatives, projects, courses, people involved, target groups, external partners and possible connections between activities. The aim would be to make existing work easier to discover and to identify opportunities for collaboration across the institution.

The second proposal was to create a visible gateway for entrepreneurial projects. Students, staff or alumni with an idea would have a clear point of contact at ISCAL and could then be directed towards the most appropriate support. Rather than attempting to reproduce every facility internally, ISCAL could make more strategic use of its established links with Lisbon's incubators, accelerators, co-working spaces, mentors, investors and other support organisations.

The third proposal was to develop a more structured study of entrepreneurship and innovation across ISCAL. This could begin with a review of courses, curricula and existing initiatives and be complemented by semi-structured interviews or focus groups with course directors, teaching staff and students. The purpose would be to establish a richer baseline of what is already happening, identify gaps and good practices, and support future decisions with more systematic evidence.

The fourth proposal was to explore the creation of a dedicated Entrepreneurship Centre or Office, initially as a light and low-cost coordination structure rather than a large new unit. A small multidisciplinary team and, where feasible, a shared physical space could coordinate visibility, support and referral activities, promote cross-course initiatives and seminars, and involve alumni and external practitioners as mentors. Such a structure could provide the organisational framework within which the Living Map, the gateway and the institutional study could develop.

The four proposals were summarised for the President of ISCAL as possible next steps. They are complementary rather than competing ideas, and they remain at an early stage. The immediate challenge is therefore to decide how they should be prioritised, coordinated and implemented before any longer-term results can be assessed.

What have you learned from the experience, and what would you do differently?

The most positive aspect was the enthusiasm of the colleagues who participated. The discussions demonstrated that there is significant interest in entrepreneurship and innovation within the institution.

At the same time, participation in the self-assessment was lower than expected, and this was an important lesson. Some colleagues later indicated that they would have participated had they understood in advance how relevant and interesting the process would be. This suggests that institutions need to create awareness and interest before asking colleagues to complete the self-assessment or attend a workshop. Without that framing, people may initially perceive it as simply another institutional survey rather than the beginning of a reflection-and-action process.

In a future exercise, I would therefore place greater emphasis on communicating the purpose and potential benefits of HEInnovate before launching the self-assessment. I would also consider using other activities to engage a broader group of colleagues and continue building familiarity with the process.

What resources did you find useful, and what additional support would be valuable?

The HEInnovate website, Action Cards and Case Studies were useful during the workshop, particularly because they provided concrete examples that could stimulate discussion and help colleagues consider possible actions.

One resource that could be particularly valuable in the future is comparative context. HEInnovate is not a benchmarking or ranking tool, but aggregated and anonymised comparisons with groups of institutions sharing similar characteristics can help users interpret their own results. For ISCAL, it would also be useful to exchange approaches and lessons with comparable business schools, institutions in Portugal and partners within the U!REKA European University.

Looking ahead, I would also like to use other tools, such as an HEInnovate SWOT Analysis linked to the institution’s strategy, to complement the HEInnovate process. The intention is to use these tools to move from the assessment and discussion towards strategy.

What advice would you give to other higher education institutions using HEInnovate?

My main recommendation is to start. The process does not need to be perfect before it begins. Once people become involved, there is an opportunity to develop the discussion further and build momentum. However, it is important to create excitement and communicate clearly what participation can offer. Before asking people to complete the self-assessment, institutions should make sure that colleagues understand why it is relevant to them and what can be achieved through the process.

For us, HEInnovate provided a structured way to bring existing entrepreneurial and innovative activities into a common discussion and identify how they could achieve greater visibility, coordination and impact. The next step is to involve more colleagues, decide how the four proposals should be taken forward and use the process as a basis for continued institutional learning rather than a one-off assessment.