INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
“The Role of Institutional Innovation Council in Enhancing  
Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Higher Education”  
Pradeep Kumar C R, Vidya R, Pavithra N, Chandan K M, Arman Shaikh R  
Assistant professor, Dept. of Commerce, Swami Vivekananda Rural First Grade College Chandapura.  
Bangalore-560091  
DOI : https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2025.1412000086  
Received: 26 December 2025; Accepted: 31 December 2025; Published: 07 January 2026  
ABSTRACT  
Institutional Innovation Councils (IICs), initiated under the aegis of the Ministry of Education, Government of  
India, have emerged as a significant mechanism for fostering a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship in  
higher education institutions. The primary objective of IICs is to systematically nurture innovative thinking,  
problem-solving abilities, and entrepreneurial skills among students and faculty members. This study examines  
the role of Institutional Innovation Councils in enhancing innovation and entrepreneurship within higher  
education institutions by promoting start-up ecosystems, industry–academia collaboration, capacity-building  
programs, and experiential learning opportunities. Using a structured research framework, the study analyzes  
the effectiveness of IIC initiatives such as innovation challenges, entrepreneurship development programs,  
incubation support, and intellectual property awareness. The findings highlight that IICs play a pivotal role in  
strengthening innovation culture, improving entrepreneurial intent among students, and aligning academic  
institutions with national innovation goals. The study concludes that effective implementation of IIC activities  
significantly contributes to institutional transformation, skill development, and sustainable entrepreneurial  
outcomes in higher education.  
Keywords: Institutional Innovation Council; Higher Education; Innovation Ecosystem; Entrepreneurship  
Development; Start-ups; Skill Development; Industry–Academia Collaboration  
INTRODUCTION  
In the contemporary knowledge-driven economy, innovation and entrepreneurship have become critical  
determinants of national competitiveness, economic growth, and sustainable development. Higher education  
institutions play a pivotal role in nurturing human capital, generating new knowledge, and transforming ideas  
into viable solutions for societal and industrial challenges. Traditional teaching–learning models, which largely  
emphasize theoretical knowledge, are increasingly being complemented by experiential, problem-based, and  
innovation-oriented approaches to prepare students for dynamic global demands. In this context, fostering an  
innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystem within higher education has emerged as a strategic priority for  
policymakers and academic institutions.  
Recognizing the need to institutionalize innovation practices at the grassroots level, the Ministry of Education,  
Government of India, launched the Institutional Innovation Council (IIC) initiative under the aegis of the All  
India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and the National Innovation and Startup Policy (NISP). The  
primary objective of IICs is to create a structured and sustainable mechanism within higher education institutions  
to promote innovation, creativity, start-up culture, and entrepreneurial mindset among students and faculty  
members. By integrating innovation activities into academic processes, IICs aim to bridge the gap between  
knowledge creation and its practical application.  
Institutional Innovation Councils function as a central coordinating body within institutions, facilitating a wide  
range of activities such as ideation challenges, hackathons, innovation boot camps, entrepreneurship  
development programs, incubation support, intellectual property rights (IPR) awareness, and industry–academia  
interactions. These initiatives are designed to expose students to real-world problems, encourage  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 968  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
interdisciplinary collaboration, and provide mentorship and infrastructural support for transforming innovative  
ideas into entrepreneurial ventures. Moreover, IICs play a crucial role in aligning institutional goals with national  
initiatives such as Startup India, Atmanirbhar Bharat, and Make in India, thereby strengthening the overall  
innovation ecosystem.  
Despite the growing adoption of IICs across higher education institutions, variations exist in their  
implementation, effectiveness, and outcomes. Factors such as institutional leadership, faculty engagement,  
resource availability, and industry linkages significantly influence the success of IIC-driven initiatives.  
Therefore, a systematic examination of the role of Institutional Innovation Councils in enhancing innovation and  
entrepreneurship is essential to understand their impact, identify best practices, and address existing challenges.  
This study seeks to analyze the contribution of Institutional Innovation Councils in fostering innovation culture  
and entrepreneurial development in higher education institutions. By examining IIC activities, stakeholder  
participation, and perceived outcomes, the study aims to provide empirical insights into how IICs facilitate  
institutional transformation and contribute to the development of an innovation-driven academic environment.  
The findings of this research are expected to offer valuable implications for policymakers, institutional  
administrators, and educators in strengthening innovation and entrepreneurship frameworks within higher  
education.  
Objectives of the Study  
The present study aims to comprehensively examine the role of Institutional Innovation Councils (IICs) in  
promoting innovation and entrepreneurship within higher education institutions. The specific objectives of the  
study are as follows:  
1. To examine the conceptual framework and operational structure of Institutional Innovation Councils in higher  
education institutions and understand their role in institutionalizing innovation and entrepreneurial activities.  
2. To assess the effectiveness of IIC initiatives and programs such as innovation challenges, ideation workshops,  
entrepreneurship development programs, start-up support activities, and incubation initiatives in fostering  
innovative thinking among students and faculty members.  
3. To analyze the impact of Institutional Innovation Councils on entrepreneurial orientation and start-up  
intentions of students by evaluating exposure to experiential learning, mentorship, and industry engagement  
facilitated through IIC activities.  
4. To study the role of IICs in strengthening industry–academia collaboration, knowledge transfer, and practical  
problem-solving through partnerships, internships, and collaborative innovation projects.  
5. To evaluate the contribution of IICs in enhancing awareness and adoption of intellectual property rights (IPR),  
innovation commercialization, and technology transfer mechanisms within higher education institutions.  
6. To identify the key factors influencing the successful implementation of Institutional Innovation Councils,  
including institutional leadership, faculty participation, infrastructure support, and availability of financial and  
mentoring resources.  
7. To examine the challenges and constraints faced by higher education institutions in implementing IIC  
activities, and their implications for innovation and entrepreneurship development.  
8. To propose strategic recommendations for strengthening the effectiveness of Institutional Innovation Councils  
in nurturing a sustainable innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystem within higher education institutions.  
Research Questions  
The present study seeks to address the following research questions in order to examine the role of Institutional  
Innovation Councils (IICs) in enhancing innovation and entrepreneurship in higher education institutions:\  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 969  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
1. What is the role of Institutional Innovation Councils in promoting an innovation-oriented culture within higher  
education institutions, particularly among students and faculty members?  
2. To what extent do IIC initiatives and activities contribute to the development of innovative skills, creative  
thinking, and problem-solving abilities among students in higher education?  
3. How do Institutional Innovation Councils influence entrepreneurial awareness, intention, and start-up  
orientation among students and faculty members in higher education institutions?  
4. What types of IIC-driven programs and interventions are most effective in fostering innovation and  
entrepreneurship in the academic environment?  
5. How do Institutional Innovation Councils facilitate industry–academia collaboration, mentorship, and  
experiential learning to support innovation and entrepreneurial outcomes?  
6. What is the impact of IIC activities on intellectual property creation, awareness, and commercialization within  
higher education institutions?  
7. What institutional factors influence the effectiveness of Institutional Innovation Councils, including leadership  
support, faculty involvement, infrastructure, and funding availability?  
8. What challenges and constraints are encountered in the implementation of IIC initiatives, and how do these  
challenges affect innovation and entrepreneurship outcomes?  
9. How can the functioning and impact of Institutional Innovation Councils be strengthened to create a  
sustainable and inclusive innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystem in higher education?  
LITERATURE REVIEW  
Institutional Innovation Councils (IICs) have been increasingly recognized as a strategic mechanism for fostering  
innovation and entrepreneurship within higher education. The literature suggests that building an innovation  
ecosystem in academic institutions not only enhances creative thinking but also aligns educational outcomes  
with national economic goals.  
Researchers such as Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000) emphasize the role of universities as key engines in the  
“Triple Helix” model of innovation, where academia interacts with industry and government to stimulate  
economic development. Within this context, institutional mechanisms like IICs function as internal catalysts that  
translate policy into practice by engaging students and faculty in structured innovation and entrepreneurial  
activities.  
Several studies highlight the importance of entrepreneurship education in higher education. Nabi et al. (2017)  
assert that entrepreneurship education enhances students’ entrepreneurial intentions by combining knowledge  
acquisition with experiential learning, mentorship, and real-world problem-solving. IICs operationalize such  
pedagogical approaches by organizing ideation challenges, boot camps, internships, and mentoring sessions,  
which bridge theory and practice.  
The literature also points to the positive impact of structured innovation programs on students’ entrepreneurial  
orientation. For example, Liñán and Fayolle (2015) demonstrate that exposure to entrepreneurial activities  
significantly increases students' intention to start ventures. Institutional Innovation Councils, by incorporating  
workshops, start-up incubation support, and industry collaborations into academic life, help cultivate these  
competencies. Similarly, Guerrero et al. (2016) argue that university-based innovation programs contribute to  
higher levels of self-efficacy and entrepreneurial behavior among students.  
Industry–academia collaboration is another recurring theme in the literature. Studies (Perkmann et al., 2013)  
show that partnerships between higher education institutions and external stakeholders foster knowledge  
transfer, technology commercialization, and practical learning opportunities. IICs play a facilitative role by  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 970  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
connecting students with industry mentors, facilitating internships, and encouraging joint innovation projects,  
thereby enhancing institutional responsiveness to market needs.  
Intellectual property (IP) awareness and commercialization efforts have also gained attention in academic  
research. WIPO (2020) and educational scholars note that early exposure to IP processes encourages  
inventiveness and nurtures a proactive mindset toward protecting and valuing intellectual assets. Integrated into  
IIC frameworks, IP awareness workshops and patent filing support contribute to the institutionalization of  
innovation culture.  
However, the literature also identifies challenges in implementing innovation initiatives. Factors such as limited  
infrastructure, inadequate funding, and lack of trained faculty can constrain the effective functioning of  
innovation councils. Research by Fayolle and Gailly (2015) recommends institutional commitment and strategic  
resource allocation as essential elements for sustaining innovation ecosystems in higher education.  
Overall, the literature underscores that Institutional Innovation Councils, when effectively structured and  
supported, serve as key enablers of innovation and entrepreneurship. They provide platforms for experiential  
learning, industry engagement, and interdisciplinary collaboration, thus aligning higher education processes with  
the demands of a knowledge-driven economy.  
DATA AND METHODOLOGY  
The present study adopts a descriptive and analytical research design to examine the role of Institutional  
Innovation Councils (IICs) in enhancing innovation and entrepreneurship in higher education institutions. The  
research design is considered appropriate as it enables a systematic analysis of existing IIC practices, stakeholder  
perceptions, and outcomes related to innovation and entrepreneurial development.  
Research Design  
The study follows a mixed-method approach, combining both quantitative and qualitative methods to gain a  
comprehensive understanding of the functioning and impact of Institutional Innovation Councils. This approach  
helps in capturing measurable outcomes as well as experiential insights from stakeholders involved in IIC  
activities.  
Sources of Data  
Primary Data  
Primary data were collected from key stakeholders involved in IIC activities, including:  
Undergraduate and postgraduate students  
Faculty members associated with IIC  
IIC coordinators and innovation committee members  
Data were gathered using a structured questionnaire designed to measure perceptions related to innovation  
culture, entrepreneurial orientation, effectiveness of IIC activities, industry collaboration, and intellectual  
property awareness. In addition, informal interviews and discussions were conducted with selected faculty  
members and IIC coordinators to obtain qualitative insights into challenges and best practices.  
Secondary Data  
Secondary data were collected from:  
Official IIC guidelines and policy documents issued by the Ministry of Education  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 971  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
Institutional reports, annual reports, and IIC activity records  
Research articles, journals, books, conference papers, and online academic databases  
Reports related to higher education innovation and entrepreneurship initiatives  
Secondary data supported the theoretical grounding of the study and helped in framing objectives, research  
questions, and the theoretical model.  
Sampling Design  
A purposive sampling technique was adopted to select higher education institutions with active Institutional  
Innovation Councils. Respondents were chosen based on their involvement or participation in IIC activities. The  
sample size was determined to ensure adequate representation of students and faculty members for meaningful  
analysis.  
Tools for Data Collection  
Structured questionnaire using a five-point Likert scale (Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree)  
Interview schedule for qualitative inputs  
Observation of selected IIC activities and programs  
Data Analysis Techniques  
Descriptive statistics such as percentages, mean scores, and standard deviation were used to analyze  
demographic details and general perceptions.  
Inferential statistical tools such as correlation and regression analysis were employed to examine relationships  
between IIC activities and innovation and entrepreneurship outcomes.  
Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify recurring patterns, challenges, and best  
practices.  
Statistical analysis was carried out using appropriate software tools.  
Ethical Considerations  
The study ensured confidentiality and anonymity of respondents. Participation was voluntary, and respondents  
were informed about the purpose of the study. Data collected were used solely for academic and research  
purposes.  
Limitations of the Methodology  
The study is limited to selected higher education institutions and relies on self-reported data, which may involve  
response bias. However, the use of mixed methods and multiple data sources helps enhance the validity of the  
findings.  
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION  
Demographic Profile of Respondents (Overview Analysis)  
The respondent profile indicates balanced participation from undergraduate and postgraduate students, along  
with faculty members actively involved in IIC activities. A significant proportion of respondents had participated  
in at least one IIC-organized program such as innovation challenges, entrepreneurship workshops, or industry  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 972  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
interaction sessions. This diversity of respondents strengthens the reliability of the findings, as perceptions are  
drawn from multiple stakeholder groups.  
Effect of IICs on Innovation Culture  
Analysis: Descriptive analysis shows high mean scores for statements related to innovation awareness and  
creative engagement. A majority of respondents agreed that the establishment of IICs has positively influenced  
the innovation culture within their institutions. Students reported increased exposure to idea generation  
platforms, while faculty members observed improved interdisciplinary collaboration.  
Discussion: These findings suggest that IICs function as a formal institutional mechanism that integrates  
innovation into academic life. The presence of structured activities has shifted the focus from purely curriculum-  
driven learning to experiential and problem-oriented learning. This supports innovation ecosystem theories,  
which emphasize institutional support as a prerequisite for fostering creativity and innovation.  
Impact of IIC Activities on Skill Development  
Analysis: Statistical analysis reveals a positive correlation between participation in IIC activities and the  
development of innovation-related skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving, and design thinking.  
Respondents who participated in multiple IIC programs reported higher confidence levels in applying theoretical  
knowledge to real-world problems.  
Discussion: The results indicate that experiential learning initiatives facilitated by IICs significantly enhance  
students’ innovation capabilities. This finding aligns with experiential learning and constructivist theories, which  
argue that learning through practice improves skill acquisition. IIC activities thus act as effective pedagogical  
tools in complementing traditional classroom instruction.  
Influence on Entrepreneurial Awareness and Intention  
Analysis: Regression Analysis demonstrates that exposure to IIC-led entrepreneurship development programs  
significantly predicts entrepreneurial intention among students. Variables such as mentoring support, start-up  
awareness sessions, and interaction with entrepreneurs show a strong positive influence on students’ inclination  
toward entrepreneurship.  
Discussion: The findings confirm that IICs play a crucial role in nurturing entrepreneurial mindsets. By  
providing structured exposure to business planning, funding mechanisms, and start-up ecosystems, IICs reduce  
perceived risk and uncertainty associated with entrepreneurship. This outcome supports entrepreneurship  
intention models, which emphasize the role of education and institutional support in shaping entrepreneurial  
behavior.  
Industry–Academia Collaboration Outcomes  
Analysis: Respondents moderately agreed that IICs have improved industry–academia interaction. Descriptive  
statistics indicate that guest lectures, internships, and collaborative projects were the most effective modes of  
engagement. However, variability across institutions was observed, suggesting inconsistent industry  
participation.  
Discussion: While IICs have created platforms for industry engagement, the depth and sustainability of  
collaboration remain uneven. Institutions with established industry networks reported better innovation  
outcomes. This finding highlights the importance of long-term strategic partnerships rather than event-based  
interactions, reinforcing the triple-helix model of innovation involving academia, industry, and government.  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 973  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
Intellectual Property Awareness and Commercialization  
Analysis: The analysis shows moderate mean scores for IPR awareness and patent filing initiatives. Although  
respondents acknowledged increased knowledge about intellectual property rights due to IIC programs, actual  
outcomes such as patent filings, start-up registrations, and commercialization activities were relatively limited.  
Discussion: This gap between awareness and output indicates that while IICs have succeeded in sensitizing  
stakeholders about IPR, additional institutional support is required to convert innovations into commercially  
viable outcomes. Dedicated incubation facilities, legal assistance, and funding support could strengthen the  
commercialization pipeline.  
Institutional Support and Implementation Challenges  
Analysis: Factor analysis identifies institutional leadership, funding availability, faculty involvement, and  
infrastructure as key determinants of IIC effectiveness. Respondents from institutions with strong administrative  
backing reported significantly higher satisfaction and outcomes compared to those with limited support.  
Discussion: The findings emphasize that the success of IICs depends not only on policy frameworks but also on  
internal institutional commitments. Challenges such as limited financial resources, time constraints for faculties,  
and lack of professional mentors hinder the full realization of IIC objectives. Addressing these constraints is  
essential for sustaining innovation ecosystems.  
Overall Discussion of Findings  
The overall analysis indicates that Institutional Innovation Councils have made a meaningful contribution to  
enhancing innovation awareness, skill development, and entrepreneurial orientation in higher education  
institutions. The results are consistent with existing literature that highlights the importance of structured  
innovation mechanisms in academic settings. However, the findings also reveal that the long-term impact of IICs  
depends on effective implementation, continuous stakeholder engagement, and strategic integration with  
institutional goals.  
Future Implications  
The findings of the present study have significant implications for policymakers, higher education institutions,  
faculty members, and students in strengthening the role of Institutional Innovation Councils (IICs) as drivers of  
innovation and entrepreneurship. Based on the results and analysis, the following future implications are  
proposed:  
Policy-Level Implications  
The study highlights the need for continuous policy support to strengthen the effectiveness of Institutional  
Innovation Councils. Future policies should focus on providing sustained funding, performance-based  
incentives, and flexible guidelines to encourage innovation-driven outcomes. Integrating IIC performance  
indicators into national accreditation and ranking frameworks such as NAAC and NIRF can further motivate  
institutions to prioritize innovation and entrepreneurship activities.  
Institutional Development Implications  
Higher education institutions should move beyond event-based implementation of IIC activities and adopt a  
long-term strategic approach. The integration of IIC objectives into institutional vision, curriculum design, and  
academic planning can enhance their impact. Establishing dedicated innovation centers, incubation hubs, and  
technology transfer offices will help institutions convert innovative ideas into scalable entrepreneurial ventures.  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 974  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
Curriculum and Pedagogical Implications  
The results suggest the need to embed innovation and entrepreneurship education within the formal curriculum.  
Future academic programs should incorporate design thinking, problem-based learning, and start-up projects as  
credit-based courses. Faculty development programs focusing on innovation pedagogy and entrepreneurial  
mentoring can further enhance teaching effectiveness and student engagement.  
Faculty and Capacity-Building Implications  
Faculty members play a crucial role in the success of IIC initiatives. Institutions should encourage faculty  
participation through recognition, workload adjustments, and research incentives related to innovation and  
entrepreneurship. Continuous capacity-building programs, exposure to industry practices, and collaboration with  
start-up ecosystems can strengthen faculty competencies in mentoring innovative projects.  
Industry–Academia Collaboration Implications  
The study indicates that stronger and more sustained industry partnerships are essential for improving innovation  
outcomes. Future IIC initiatives should focus on long-term collaborations with industries, start-ups, and research  
organizations. Structured mentorship programs, joint research projects, and industry-sponsored innovation  
challenges can enhance practical exposure and commercialization potential.  
Innovation Commercialization and Start-up Ecosystem  
To bridge the gap between innovation awareness and entrepreneurial output, institutions must strengthen support  
systems for commercialization. Future initiatives should include seed funding, legal and IPR assistance, access  
to venture capital networks, and incubation support. This will enable students and faculties to translate innovative  
ideas into successful start-ups and intellectual property assets.  
Social and Regional Development Implications  
Institutional Innovation Councils have the potential to address local and regional challenges through socially  
relevant innovations. Future IIC activities should encourage community-based innovation projects, rural  
entrepreneurship, and sustainable development initiatives. This approach will enhance the societal relevance of  
higher education institutions and contribute to inclusive economic growth.  
Research and Evaluation Implications  
The study opens avenues for future research to explore longitudinal impacts of IIC initiatives on innovation  
outcomes, start-up success rates, and employability. Comparative studies across disciplines, regions, and  
institutional types can provide deeper insights into best practices. Developing standardized evaluation  
frameworks will help measure the long-term effectiveness of IICs.  
Overall Implication  
Overall, the future success of Institutional Innovation Councils depends on sustained institutional commitment,  
strategic integration, and continuous evaluation. By strengthening policy support, institutional infrastructure,  
and stakeholder engagement, IICs can play a transformative role in shaping innovation-driven and  
entrepreneurship-oriented higher education systems.  
CONCLUSION  
The present study examined the role of Institutional Innovation Councils (IICs) in enhancing innovation and  
entrepreneurship in higher education institutions. The findings clearly indicate that IICs serve as a vital  
institutional mechanism for promoting an innovation-oriented culture, fostering entrepreneurial mindsets, and  
bridging the gap between academic learning and real-world applications. Through structured programs such as  
innovation challenges, entrepreneurship development initiatives, industry interactions, and intellectual property  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 975  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
awareness activities, IICs have significantly contributed to nurturing creativity and problem-solving skills among  
students and faculty members.  
The study reveals that participation in IIC activities positively influences innovation capabilities and  
entrepreneurial intentions, thereby preparing students to meet the demands of a knowledge-driven and  
competitive economy. Moreover, Institutional Innovation Councils have strengthened industry–academia  
collaboration by facilitating experiential learning opportunities and mentorship support. However, the findings  
also highlight that the effectiveness of IICs varies across institutions, largely depending on leadership  
commitment, resource availability, faculty engagement, and infrastructural support.  
Despite the progress made, challenges such as limited funding, inconsistent industry participation, and gaps  
between innovation awareness and commercialization outcomes persist. Addressing these challenges requires a  
strategic and integrated approach that embeds innovation and entrepreneurship into institutional planning,  
curriculum frameworks, and faculty development initiatives.  
In conclusion, Institutional Innovation Councils have the potential to act as catalysts for institutional  
transformation in higher education. When effectively implemented and adequately supported, IICs can  
significantly contribute to building a sustainable innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystem that aligns higher  
education with national development goals. Strengthening IIC frameworks will not only enhance institutional  
performance but also empower students and faculties to become active contributors to economic growth and  
societal development.  
REFERENCES  
1. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and  
“Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–  
123.  
2. Fayolle, A., & Gailly, B. (2015). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial attitudes  
and intention: Hysteresis and persistence. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(1), 75–93.  
3. Guerrero, M., Cunningham, J. A., & Urbano, D. (2016). Economic impact of entrepreneurial universities’  
activities: An exploratory study of the United Kingdom. Research Policy, 44(3), 748–764.  
4. Liñán, F., & Fayolle, A. (2015). A systematic literature review on entrepreneurial intentions: Citation,  
thematic analyses, and research agenda. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 11(4),  
907–933.  
5. Nabi, G., Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N., & Walmsley, A. (2017). The impact of entrepreneurship  
education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management  
Learning & Education, 16(2), 277–299.  
6. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., Fini, R., Geuna, A.,  
Grimaldi, R., Hughes, A., Krabel, S., Kitson, M., Llerena, P., Lissoni, F., Salter, A., & Sobrero, M.  
(2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry  
relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423–442.  
7. Ministry of Education, Government of India. (2020). National Innovation and Startup Policy (NISP) for  
Students and Faculty. New Delhi: Government of India.  
8. All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). (2018). Institutional Innovation Council (IIC)  
Guidelines. New Delhi: AICTE.  
9. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). (2020). Intellectual property and education. Geneva:  
WIPO.  
10. Audretsch, D. B., & Thurik, R. (2001). What’s new about the new economy? Sources of growth in the  
managed and entrepreneurial economies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(1), 267–315.  
11. OECD. (2019). University–industry collaboration: New evidence and policy options. Paris: OECD  
Publishing.  
12. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University  
Press.  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 976