A Journal of University-Industry-Government Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Table 3 Scenario analysis outcomes
Case 1: base case | Case 2: active quality and reputation impacts | Case 3: active quality, reputation and budgetary impacts |
|---|---|---|
Graduates | Number of students and graduates did not change as there was no influence of the drop in quality on student dropouts and lower quality standards allow for a higher funnel of students being admitted | Drop in the number of students and graduates as financial limitations become effective around 2017 |
Faculty/Staff | Drop in academic staff since quality drop impacts the number of faculty getting tenure and reputation drop also impacts the ability to hire visitor faculty and research staff and also weakens the pool of prospective faculty | Turning point in academic staff due to budget limitations and higher production of commercialized projects relative to case 2. The limited financial resources could lead to further deterioration in quality standards of the faculty and students admitted under the pressure to hit performance and budgetary targets. Lower quality impacts research team productivity and quality of innovation pipeline which prompts the government to cut budget, even further reinforcing the vicious cycle |
Demand for graduates | Drop in HR demand by the industry despite keeping a strong growth of start-ups. | Increase in HR demand due to a decline in the number of prospective employees and a gradual increase in the number of start-ups (which ultimately raises questions about the long-term sustainability of this scenario) |