Page 48 - Technology and Innovation Journal - 19-1

386 FOSSUM ET AL.

Figure 2. Initial employment (jobs) outcomes for Ph.D. students in the regular and Innovation programs. See text for category
descriptions.
area of innovation and enterprise goes far in over-
OTHER PROGRAMS coming the natural barriers engineering personalities
In 2014, Dartmouth’s Thayer School of Engineering have with creating enterprises. In fact, it seems many
was awarded the National Academy of Engineering’s engineers often find a lack of education in the area of
Bernard M. Gordon Prize for Innovation in Engi- business a formidable psychological barrier to tak-
neering and Technology Education “[f]or creating ing the leap to initiating a new enterprise. However,
an integrated program in engineering innovation most Innovation Program PhD students, already well-
from undergraduate through doctorate to prepare equipped with mathematical and analytical skills,
students for engineering leadership.” Fundamentals find that core entrepreneurial business concepts (e.g.,
in innovation and entrepreneurship concepts are legal, intellectual property, accounting, business plans,
perhaps something all engineering students should etc.) are relatively easy to learn. In a phrase, learning
be exposed to at the undergraduate level (e.g., 5), and, entrepreneurial business mechanics is not rocket
indeed, a multitude of programs at the undergraduate science. Of course, taking risks does not come easily
and master’s degree level exist in the U.S. and else- to most engineers, and we can only diminish the
where. However, we find few engineering programs perceived risk through preparation.
that carry the same philosophy to the Ph.D. program, Another lesson learned is that training students in
although their number has grown in recent years. this area, as in research, requires one-on-one men-
Universities that have specific innovation and entre- torship and coaching. In a program that is a small
preneurship training for Ph.D. engineering students subset of just over 100 engineering Ph.D. candidates
include Stanford, Yale, Brown, Massachusetts Institute school-wide, each student’s background, needs, and
of Technology, and Duke, but not dozens more. We trajectories are rather different from one another. A
find that our program is unique in its emphasis on one-program-fits-all approach does not work well
the integration of research and enterprise planning and has been difficult to fashion. Instead, great flex-
in learning, skill-building, and practice in a doc- ibility is required to achieve the program objectives.
toral program. While having a unique curriculum in The ability to offer such flexibility is a strength of a
this area is good for attracting excellent engineering smaller institution.
graduate students to Dartmouth, we would like to One area of concern among some of the parti-
see more programs in the U.S. and feel it is vital for cipating faculty is that the Innovation Fellows are
national competitiveness. extraordinarily independent, especially once enabled
by fellowship and research funding. These intellectu-
LESSONS LEARNED AND IMPROVEMENTS ally strong students may adjust or possibly abandon
Perhaps one of the most important lessons learned the research path foreseen by the faculty member
in this program is that a modicum of education in the or may be reluctant to accept their adviser’s advice.