Universities in the UK often struggle with entrepreneurship. It doesn’t fit neatly into traditional academic structures—it’s not a defined career path, it’s taught like a vocational add-on, and worst of all (to some), entrepreneurial students tend to challenge authority. But in today’s unstable higher education sector, that might be exactly what’s needed.

I once spoke with Professor Allan Gibb about this disconnect. His model (Figure 5 in Gibb, A., Haskins, G., & Robertson, I. (2009). Leading the entrepreneurial university. University of Oxford. of the entrepreneurial university still holds true, but implementation varies wildly. Vice Chancellors don’t seem to know where entrepreneurship fits, so they stick it wherever there’s space—like rolling a dice.

So, I made a literal dice: six faces, six random “homes” for entrepreneurship.

1. Research & Enterprise – Often tied to funding pots like HEIF.
2. Employability & Careers – Think Graduate Businesses and initiatives like Northumbria’s.
3. Innovation & Enterprise – See UCL’s Enterprise or Birmingham’s Collaborate.
4. Business Schools – Sometimes embraced, often sidelined.
5. Institutes or Centres – Coventry University’s Enterprise unit is one model.
6. Technology Transfer – Like Newcastle’s IP and licensing efforts.

The randomness highlights the problem—and the opportunity. Maybe it’s time to stop rolling dice and start placing strategic bets.

Lets quickly look at each and see what the pro’s and cons of each are:

1. Research & Enterprise

Pros: Strong alignment with funding (e.g., HEIF), links to knowledge exchange, impact, and spinouts.
Cons: Tends to favour staff-led innovation over student engagement; risk of entrepreneurship becoming a reporting metric which leads to cash to pay for other things.

2. Employability & Careers

Pros: Focused on graduate outcomes, enterprise skills, and real-world readiness.
Cons: Can reduce entrepreneurship to CV-enhancing workshops, lacking depth and strategic investment. Focused B3 Progression measured at 15 months after completion, so long term entreprneurial development is not supported.

3. Innovation & Enterprise Units

Pros: Dedicated structures (e.g., UCL, Birmingham) often offer incubators, funding, and expert support.
Cons: Can be isolated from the academic curriculum and suffer from poor integration across faculties.

4. Business Schools

Pros: A natural home—entrepreneurship is a recognised academic discipline with research, teaching, and networks.
Cons: Can become too theoretical, divorced from practice, or siloed from other departments. Provides many students who can create a business model but never be able to execute it.

5. Institutes or Centres

Pros: Flexible and agile, like Coventry’s model; can act as cross-university hubs.
Cons: Vulnerable to funding changes and may lack influence in university decision-making.

6. Technology Transfer Offices

Pros: Ideal for commercialising university research and developing staff-led startups.
Cons: Student entrepreneurship is often ignored; focus is on IP, patents, and licensing rather than broader enterprise education.

Each model has its merits and its blind spots. But the real issue is that entrepreneurship in higher education still feels like an afterthought—tacked onto existing structures rather than strategically embedded.

So maybe it’s time to stop rolling dice and start making intentional, informed decisions.

Where does entrepreneurship live in your institution—and more importantly, where should it?