Fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) have been considered as the future vision for the automotive industry. An increasing number of concepts and prototypes have been introduced in the last decade. In parallel with the technological development, recent discussions about global warming and climate change bring public support for emission free vehicles. Despite of the advancements and support, the speed of introduction of FCEVs is still not at the desirable levels. From a transition management perspective, the present paper seeks to answer the underlying factors behind the implementation of the FCEVs. The discussion goes beyond a technical one to cover broad factors and interests of stakeholders with an ‘eagle-eye view’. Following a discussion the key drivers of change for the FCEV sector and wild cards with disruptive effects, the paper proposes a strategic roadmap template to set an agenda for a successful transition towards FCEVs.

This article presents the results of a survey of competitive intelligence (CI) practices in European firms. In comparing the results to a similar 2006 global study and a 2006 European CI study, it appears that the breadth of applications for CI has grown well beyond competitors to include customer related intelligence, technology, market, etc. Innovation is driving much intelligence activity, in particular research and development (R&D) and new product development decisions. CI is more formalised now in European firms than it was in 2006. The study also found similarities between corporate foresight and CI in terms of objectives (development and maintenance of competitive advantage, help with decision making) and analytical techniques with scenarios being among the more frequently used analytical techniques along with STEEP and other environmental analysis in both corporate foresight studies and the CI study.

Developing policies for enhancing the productivity of university-industry linkages has been a central issue on the political agenda for decades. However, as reality shows there are pro and cons of any policy applied. In this study, we explore these policies based on the "triple helix" (government-industry-university) respectively quadriple helix (government industry university-civil society) model and with a strong focus on the regional, country-specific and institutional context. In conclusion, our exploration suggests that the optimal shape of university-industry linkages portfolios is likely to vary across countries, regions, and institutions by setting different incentives and funding principles. Second, policies should use appropriate metrics to measure the performance of these linkages. Third, a precondition is a multi-level governance arrangement between ministries, higher education institutions, local and regional governments must define the respective roles of stakeholders. And finally, input of regional business leaders with a long term commitment to the region might be an important factor.

This chapter explains the entrepreneurial university concept and its place and role in the triple helix in its entirety. It further elaborates on its implications for university management, departments, faculty members and supporting organizations. Moreover it reflects the meaning of the entrepreneurial university for stakeholders, i.e., university boards, regional and national policy and administrative bodies, funding agencies, the business community, university ranking institutions and the global university community overall. The chapter provides a comprehensive understanding of the entrepreneurial university, which is increasingly important because stakeholders’ expectations towards universities are growing. This in turn leads to increased pressure on universities to move beyond their traditional roles and models towards taking responsibility for economic development, large scale basic education and targeted further education and the development of value from research. These expectations provide opportunities for universities, but impose threats on the existing models and practices. Recent literature on entrepreneurial universities is incomplete and mostly focused on the commercialization of research, technology transfer and the third mission of universities. The article expands the predominant thinking about entrepreneurial universities and gives a broader structured definition.