Page 132 - Rižnar, Igor, and Klemen Kavčič (ed.). 2017. Connecting Higher Education Institutions with Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 132
Franko Milost, Klara Dodič Pegan, and Tatjana Horvat
Table 7.2 Continued from the previous page
i i i. Relational Capital Indicators
Inclusion into the environment
n f i The number of projects in progress in cooperation with companies
n f i The number of projects in progress where other knowledge users are
involved
n f i The representation of the representatives of the economy and other
n f i knowledge users in the university bodies and vice versa
n f i
The number and type of the received initiatives proposed by the u p
representatives in the competent authorities and organisations
The collaboration of the university in designing the national long-term
development policy for higher education and research activity
n f i The number and type (branch) of spin-off and start-up companies that
f i were established by the university
f i The total resources the economy allocates to the university’s basic ac-
f i tivity and the sponsorship of academic and professional meetings,
n f i summer schools and other university activities
The total resources the economy allocates to the university bursary
fund
The resources the economy dedicates to or spends on awards for the
u p’s innovative projects
The existence of special events that promote science (in the media, fo-
rums, happenings) at the university
f i The university income share from the so-called market activity in the
f i total (all) income of the university
n f i
The income share of the university deriving from executing the pro-
grammes of lifelong learning and certified training
Summer schools with international attendance
Continued on the next page
u p. This set of designed indicators should be considered as a first at-
tempt and a proposal that can be further completed and changed to
achieve the purpose of the university ic report.
Conclusion
In general, it is a fact that due to the nature of its activity, the i c at
universities exists as something in itself and does not have to be devel-
oped and managed separately (Fazlagic 2007, 3). However, the reality is
quite different. Universities function non-transparently and often do
not find their role in contemporary society.
The introduction of ic reporting at the university does not exclude
130
Table 7.2 Continued from the previous page
i i i. Relational Capital Indicators
Inclusion into the environment
n f i The number of projects in progress in cooperation with companies
n f i The number of projects in progress where other knowledge users are
involved
n f i The representation of the representatives of the economy and other
n f i knowledge users in the university bodies and vice versa
n f i
The number and type of the received initiatives proposed by the u p
representatives in the competent authorities and organisations
The collaboration of the university in designing the national long-term
development policy for higher education and research activity
n f i The number and type (branch) of spin-off and start-up companies that
f i were established by the university
f i The total resources the economy allocates to the university’s basic ac-
f i tivity and the sponsorship of academic and professional meetings,
n f i summer schools and other university activities
The total resources the economy allocates to the university bursary
fund
The resources the economy dedicates to or spends on awards for the
u p’s innovative projects
The existence of special events that promote science (in the media, fo-
rums, happenings) at the university
f i The university income share from the so-called market activity in the
f i total (all) income of the university
n f i
The income share of the university deriving from executing the pro-
grammes of lifelong learning and certified training
Summer schools with international attendance
Continued on the next page
u p. This set of designed indicators should be considered as a first at-
tempt and a proposal that can be further completed and changed to
achieve the purpose of the university ic report.
Conclusion
In general, it is a fact that due to the nature of its activity, the i c at
universities exists as something in itself and does not have to be devel-
oped and managed separately (Fazlagic 2007, 3). However, the reality is
quite different. Universities function non-transparently and often do
not find their role in contemporary society.
The introduction of ic reporting at the university does not exclude
130
