Scientific research has become a recognized academic mission within universities since the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The combination of teaching and research remained the dominant university paradigm until the late 1990s, when this “unquestionable” model was influenced by a new dynamic: the emergence of entrepreneurial universities ( O’Reilly, et al., 2019, Al-Sabaawe et al., 2024).

The entrepreneurial role of universities has gradually become accepted as a third mission, alongside the two traditional missions of teaching and research. Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000) argue that this new dynamic represents the emergence of the “second academic revolution,” essentially referring to the transformational process through which public policies sought to transform universities from ivory towers into institutions that were more engaged in the economy and more subject to public accountability. Although the idea of universities collaborating with industry is not new, the second academic revolution was characterized by the establishment of a formal institutional framework for such collaboration through public policy ( Jacobsson, 2002). Etzkowitz (2013) identifies three stages of entrepreneurial university development.

Stage 1 (University Entrepreneur I): The academic institution begins to adopt a strategic vision for its overall direction and acquires a partial ability to determine its priorities, either by generating its own resources through donations, tuition fees, and grants or by negotiating with funding agencies. Stage 2 (University Entrepreneur II): The university plays an active role in commercializing the intellectual property generated by the activities of faculty, staff, and students, thus strengthening its relationship with the knowledge-based economy ( Siegel et al., 2007). Phase Three (University Entrepreneur III): The university plays a proactive role in improving the effectiveness of the regional innovation ecosystem, often in collaboration with the industry and government. The university seeks to become an economic and developmental actor in its local environment. While these phases typically occur in the aforementioned sequence, they may develop in a different order or simultaneously, with the university directing its intellectual resources toward transforming knowledge into economic outcomes without losing its own intrinsic cognitive value.

The forthcoming idea highlights that entrepreneurial universities represent a fundamental shift in the philosophy of higher education, from a model focused on producing knowledge for the sake of knowledge to seeking to harness knowledge as an economic and social force contributing to sustainable development and regional innovation.

According to Leih and Teece (2016), the concept of leadership in the university context is closely intertwined with strategic management, as both influence resource generation and allocation. Cyert R. 1990, p. 29 defined leadership as "the ability to focus the attention of organizational participants on problems deemed important by the leader.” Many researchers have recognized the essential role of leadership in university success. However, other researchers have noted that the control of university leaders is limited by external events and the complex nature of university decision-making, in contrast to the greater influence often wielded by senior leadership teams in for-profit institutions ( Leih, and Teece, 2016 P: 185). Apart from the debate over the true extent of influence, some argue that university administrators have become overly focused on external pressure, financial stability, and ensuring efficiency and accountability. This focus is no longer sufficient to meet modern challenges. Therefore, scholars have suggested the Dynamic Managerial Capabilities Framework as a new approach ( Adner & Helfat, 2003; Teece, 2007; Helfat & Martin, 2015). Consequently, supporting university leadership effectively identifies opportunities, sets priorities, implements strategies wisely, and transforms quickly.

Dynamic managerial capabilities (DMC) are derived from general dynamic capabilities theory and refer to the “abilities managers possess to build, integrate, and reconfigure organizational resources’ ( Adner & Helfat, 2003; Helfat & Martin, 2015; Teece et al., 1997). These capabilities enable managers to modify firms' resource bases and determine how to adapt, renew, and maintain their competitive advantage in dynamic and changing environments. Therefore, the variance in performance outcomes across firms is strongly linked to differences in managerial decisions and the ability to reconfigure resources. Superior dynamic managerial capabilities enable managers to reshape their organizations more effectively in line with changing environmental conditions and direct internal resources toward external opportunities.

The literature highlights three key factors that constitute the core pillars of managerial dynamic capabilities: human capital, social capital, and cognition ( Adner & Helfat, 2003). Each of these elements contributes in a unique way to enabling managers to sense, seize, and transform opportunities within their organizations.

Managerial human capital includes knowledge, skills, and expertise acquired through education, training, and prior work experience, which forms the basis for effective decision-making and resource management. Differences in human capital among managers generate variance in performance outcomes at the firm level and can represent a source of competitive advantage if they are rare, valuable, and difficult to imitate or replace ( Castanias & Helfat, 2001; Helfat & Peteraf, 2015).

Managerial social capital refers to the network of relationships and connections that enables managers to access valuable information, resources, and opportunities. Through internal and external connections, managers can enhance information flow, improve collaboration, strengthen the organization's decision-making capabilities, and improve its performance ( Hitt et al., 2002; Adner & Helfat, 2003).

Managerial cognition represents mental models, belief systems, and cognitive structures that shape how managers perceive, interpret, and respond to strategic challenges. Cognitive capabilities influence decision quality, strategic insight, and the ability to adapt to environmental changes ( Adner & Helfat, 2003; Helfat & Peteraf, 2015).

Capacity building in higher education is defined as “a process aimed at enhancing the capabilities of individuals, institutions, and systems within the higher education sector to perform their functions, solve problems, and achieve goals in a sustainable manner” ( Power et al., 2015, pp. 45–46). This process includes activities that contribute to raising the quality of education, scientific research, management, and governance within higher education institutions, thus enhancing their role in achieving national development goals, particularly in low- and middle-income countries ( Van Deuren, 2013).

According to Power et al. (2015), capacity building in higher education comprises three main components: human capacity, which includes the skills, competencies, values, and attitudes of academics, administrators, and researchers. Institutional capacity: This includes administrative and governance systems, infrastructure, and regulatory and policy frameworks. Environmental Capacities: These include the societal, physical, and contextual factors that create a supportive environment for higher education institutions ( Weber & Duderstadt, 2004).

Based on Yin (2003, 2009, 2018), a single-case design is adopted to examine how the dynamic managerial capabilities of campus leaders enable institutional capacity building in a post-conflict environment. According to Eisenhardt (1989), case study design allows a deep contextual understanding of leadership behavior, resource orchestration, and capability development within a fragile institutional setting.

The University of Fallujah, located in the city of Fallujah in the Anbar Governate of western Iraq, supports tertiary education in Fallujah and the surrounding areas in this city. The university was in infancy in 2014, as Da’esh first swept through this city, plunging the region into years of occupation and conflict. Following the defeat of Da’esh, the University of Fallujah leaders aim to rebuild the physical and human capacity of the university.

Drawing on the literature on Strategic Management and the Entrepreneurial University approach, qualitative and quantitative tools were used for collecting and analyzing data. The Higher Education Institutions Capacity Assessment Tool will be used as the primary tool to collect data ( IREX, 2016). HEICAT is a very flexible analysis tool (self-assessment method) that offers a qualitative data collection framework. Furthermore, it provides a quantitative matrix for scoring university performance, as well as a template for providing a detailed view of strategic analysis. Consequently, the tools will precisely diagnose the strategic position of the academic institutions under consideration across a range of academic functions, and consequently enable the administration to formulate strategic plans to gain and sustain their long-term performance.

This approach is informed by the dynamic-managerial-capabilities perspective, which views leadership as an ongoing act of interpretation and coordination under constraints ( Adner & Helfat, 2003; Teece, 2007; Helfat & Martin, 2015). Ethical clearance was secured from the university and the participants provided informed consent. Combining several data types allows for both validation and reflective engagement by institutional actors.

This study was based on the application of the Higher Education Institutional Capacity Assessment Tool (HEICAT) at the University of Fallujah from December 2019 to January 2020. The assessment process was carried out using a systematic approach for sample selection and data collection to ensure a realistic representation of the university's academic and administrative leadership levels.

Purposive sampling was used to include key academic and administrative leaders involved in the university's post-conflict reconstruction. The number of participants was (40) individuals, which was distributed as follows:

University President, Vice Presidents (for Academic Affairs and Administrative Affairs), Deans and Vice Deans of Colleges, Heads of Academic Departments, Administrative Staff Members representing Quality Assurance, Scientific Research, Planning, and Career Development Units.

The data collection process was supervised by ten lead facilitators, each of whom was responsible for one of the instruments’ five domains: Mission and Strategic Planning, Academic Operations, Workforce Development, Scientific Research, and Quality Assurance. Data collection was based on the HEICAT questionnaire, consisting of 240 items, supported by semi-structured interviews, document analysis, and guided discussion sessions. The questionnaire covered university governance and administration, academic processes, strategic planning, scientific research management, and quality assurance systems.

Facilitators conducted interviews within their respective fields of expertise. The aim was not to present all items to every participant but rather to tailor questions to the respondents’ experiences while ensuring data saturation through the inclusion of multiple perspectives. These responses were supported by documentary and field observations.

After the data were compiled, the facilitator completed a Scoring Matrix using a Likert scale, which assessed the extent to which the “good practice criterion” was met across a range of indicators in each category. Averaging these scores produces a ‘headline’ performance score for each category. For each category, qualitative feedback was also provided, which highlighted particular areas of weakness, strength, and innovation, and identified key barriers to development. Please see Figure 1.

Development needs

The university has a mission, vision, and strategic plan; however, these are not available for a full review. Based on facilitator feedback, the mission in its current state does not tie in all areas of the university, as many institutional practices do not support the university in meeting its overall institutional goals. The strategic plan is not widely known outside of high-level leadership; in fact, many review committees were unaware of the content of the strategic plan. It was noted that the senior administration is currently working toward an updated institutional plan; however, the draft version was not available for full review. Each college has developed individual missions, visions, and goals; however, they continue to operate independently, and current versions do not tie academic functions or colleges to overall institutional goals. The goals and objectives shared in academic colleges are not clear or measurable; this will need revision to be able to measure progress toward meeting goals. While some areas remain a priority, other stated goals may need to be reviewed for relevance, given the current environment, (see Figure 2).

Strengths

While not necessarily aligned with the institutional mission, each college currently has its mission, vision, and strategic goals. These can serve as a basis for which the university can build, conducting vertical alignment of individual college goals with the institutional mission. Forced rebuilding due to the destruction experienced under Da’esh, while incredibly difficult for everyone within Fallujah, also provides an opportunity to restart the university. The university was in its infancy at the time of Da’esh invasion, and practices, policies, and approaches to higher education in this university are still in the process of being built, allowing the university to avoid challenges or issues that may be experienced in other older universities. Centralized policies and procedures under MOHESR are widely known, followed by faculty members. The university administration is engaged and active with a demonstrated commitment to building a high-quality educational institution. Please see Figure 3.

Development needs

As we can see from Figure 3, there remains a need to advocate for greater autonomy over various academic operations of the university, including the academic calendar, curriculum, and assessment, as many of these aspects remain centralized. All academic programs would benefit from developing detailed student learning outcomes, along with alternative strategies for the assessment of learning. In today’s global market, academic programs must focus on building frameworks to support the development of student competencies in line with real-world needs. Once frameworks are developed, the alignment of instruction and assessment needs to be mapped to ensure graduates have baseline competencies that need to be successful locally and globally. Programs would benefit from robust faculty professional development initiatives to support more applied hands-on instructional strategies. Currently, few formal communication streams support overall connectedness across academic programs. Additionally, instruction currently relies solely on classes conducted in person on campus with a few alternate modes of instruction, such as online courses.

Strengths

Academic Operations were the strongest area for the University of Fallujah, with many systems and processes in place despite the disruption caused by Da’esh, providing some information for prospective students as well as limited opportunities for support services. The university has a set of uniformly applied regulations and procedures for grades, degree pathways, processes for credit, etc., that are known to most in the community. University policy and procedure manuals exist, and information is communicated clearly. There is a commitment by the core team of faculty and administrators to invest in improvements in the curriculum and programs. This commitment is evident in the review team during the review process. There is a need to broaden and institutionalize the approach through full university leadership, (see Figure 4).

Development needs

The establishment of a Career Development Center, while a key step forward, needs to be augmented by a detailed labor market analysis of the local, national, and global markets to better tailor student support services to real-world needs and opportunities. While there is awareness by the review team of the University Career Development Center, much of the responsibility for work readiness skills acquisition of students seems to fall on the CDC staff. There is a need for academic programs to support applied learning models that lend well to overall workforce development components. The institution could consider embedding ‘transferable skills’ into its curriculum (e.g., through additional courses or specific classroom, teaching, learning, and assessment approaches). While there are few private sector companies in the local Fallujah area, there is a need for closer collaboration with the local market to help shape the development of teaching and learning models that support the close alignment of the relevance of UoF programs to market needs. This collaboration could include the integration of college- or departmental-level advisory panels to provide substantive input for programming. Currently, there are limited avenues through which employers engage in course delivery. The expansion of initiatives such as internships, student innovation projects, design days, guest lectures, site visits, and staff exchanges are needed to further build mutually beneficial ties to the private sector, (see Figure 5).

Strengths

The university has a career development center that trains students in various work readiness skills. Additionally, faculty at various levels are realizing the need to change the cultural mindset at the university level and integrate employment skills into the student experience. The UoF recently participated in a student innovation competition titled ‘Design Day’ to support applied learning. The UoF faculty and CDC staff can build on this experience to expand this real-world experiential learning model to support students’ work readiness, (see Figure 5).

Development needs

Figure 6 illustrates that the university would benefit from the development and dissemination of an institutional research strategy that includes priority areas or fields for research, incentives for faculty research, available resources, and evaluation/promotion criteria based on research outputs. A tiered approach for developing institutional research that encompasses undergraduate research, the development of robust research methodology courses, graduation requirements for student research, and other mechanisms to train future researchers, to build on the previous point, integration of student support positions such as Research Assistants or Graduate Assistants, would provide support for faculty while creating a mentoring environment to support young researchers in their professional growth. To facilitate research growth, a research management office is needed to assist faculty in areas such as locating funding opportunities, managing grants, and other aspects of research management. There is a need to develop a more enabling environment for top researchers that would allow time to focus on institutional research priorities. Examples include the release of time from teaching, small stipends or payments for research, and other incentives. There is a need to develop and institutionalize a research ethics policy to discourage plagiarism by faculty and students and ensure do no harm approaches in research; faculties who may be good researchers are not necessarily effective grant writers and would benefit from institutional support in applying for research grants, fellowships, or other opportunities, which could be incorporated into the curriculum in various disciplines to allow for opportunities for students to conduct basic research during academic study. There is a core need for applied research in various disciplines and fields in post-Da’ esh recovery, particularly in areas such as sociology or psychology. The pre-Da’esh infrastructure to support research had numerous gaps that were exacerbated by the destruction of labs and equipment under Da’esh control.

Strengths

Research and publications are system-wide priorities with an existing criterion for faculty promotion; therefore, it is widely known that faculty should engage in academic research, (see Figure 6).

Development needs

Student records and other key data were kept in hard copies, and many were destroyed. Faculty and administrators currently keep data in paper-based hard copy formats, making it difficult to draw from data for assessing overall university quality of services, as the information and files can be so large that they can be difficult to fully review, as shown in Figure 7. Currently, universities do not use data for decision-making. The University of Fallujah administrators would benefit from open-source electronic data visualization software such as Tableau to review high-level data for decision-making and understanding trends over time. While the quality assurance process is in place, there is a need to develop a comprehensive quality enhancement process that draws from quality assurance findings to systematically map out an ongoing quality improvement plan.

As shown in Figure 7, the university has robust systems and processes in place to collect and review data on institutional quality that are widely known across the institution; each college currently has a quality assurance unit in place responsible for data gathering, is currently in the process of revision, and contains a great starting point to access information. Various teams and units across campuses understand the current data collection process and can continue with little training.