Search results

The purpose of this article is to develop an integrative framework of accelerator design to answer the question of what activities accelerators perform and how they function within a structured framework. Research on the functioning of accelerators as a mechanism for startup engagement produced multiple empirical results. However, the comparability of relevant research is strongly limited, currently hindering theoretical developments. Existing accelerator design models often differ and only partially overlap, which leaves extant literature with a fragmented and discordant conceptual understanding.

Based on a meta-synthesis method using qualitative analysis of 36 accelerator design articles, an integrative framework is developed. After identification of relevant literature, a renowned method for extracting, coding and synthesizing data on individual and cross-study level is applied to identify accelerator design constructs. Eventually, identified accelerator design constructs are integrated into a framework resting on the activity system lens of business model design.

The article reconciles fragmented knowledge on accelerator design and shows how accelerator design can be holistically conceptualized by 32 key activities clustered in eight design dimensions. The framework is complemented by an initial guideline for measurement. The findings further highlight formerly disregarded aspects of governance and community formation from a processual and structural perspective.

This article is the first to present a comprehensive picture of accelerator design integrating multiple empirical findings of prior research into a single coherent framework. This framework offers a shared foundation for future research exploring the delineations, functioning and impact of accelerators. From a practical perspective, the article provides managers of accelerators a guide to design, review and improve programs according to their value creation goals.

Social entrepreneurs want to help solve social and environmental issues by applying entrepreneurial solutions. However, social entrepreneurs usually find it more challenging to measure their success because of the metric that is being measured is not only for financial gain but also for social and environmental change. The analysis of how they manage and achieve their impact goals, which are restricted by limited knowledge and resources, is unfortunately not always the highest priority particularly in the early stage of their entrepreneurial journey.

Frequently, by generating social and economic value, business decisions and actions are in opposition (Dawan & Alter, 2009). This opposition translates into calculated trade-offs. At times decisions may be adequate that forsake social impact in order to gain market share or increase profit margins and increase social value creation in the long run. Conversely, the scope of social impact may be expanded at a financial cost (Braun, 2020).

What also often happens in our experience is that more social businesses claim their impact without clear justification based on measurement. And even worse is that many social entrepreneurs are not equipped with the right mindset and tools to understand how to measure, manage and maximise their impact.

Also, the situation with COVID-19 pandemic makes it even more pressing now that businesses must be held accountable for their actions; decisions solely relying on financial gain are even less relevant during this time. The pandemic will likely create even more inequality, with evidence emerging that those at the bottom of pyramid are being more severely affected. Casualties will be even more with the virus spreading faster on the bottom-of-the-pyramid communities, and we have seen that hospitals and proper medical care are being allocated improperly with several privilege for some people with more resources. The implication of these inequalities will have a profound impact on every level and aspect of communities.

Here in this chapter, we will discuss the challenges through our experiences in practicing impact management and why it's very important to be done at all levels of the entrepreneurial stage even from the upstart and what can be done better to help social and all entrepreneurs to strive.

Institutional complexity shapes what is perceived as possible by framing cultural debates about practices, but organizations in turn shape how logics interpenetrate fields, suggesting that we must consider both the degree of compatibility between logics and the degree of practice variation in a field. Our exploratory study of three entrepreneurial impact finance organizations considers how they situate their practices between the market and community logics. We offer a recursive view that considers how multiple institutional logics shape practices and how entrepreneurial organizations adapt and invent new practices that, through their continued use, can influence the institutional complexity of a field.

This study was designed to detect the failures in Iranian accelerators. This paper attempts to identify these effects from the perspective of accelerator managers and founders of startups. The main goals of this article are as follows: (1) What are the failures of Iran's acceleration programs from the perspective of accelerator managers? (2) What are the failures of Iran's acceleration programs from the perspective of startup teams? (3) What are some of failures of the acceleration programs that both groups agree on?

It has been attempted to conduct semi-structured interviews with managers of corporate accelerators on the one hand and startups accelerated in these accelerators on the other. The interviewees were selected using snowball method and consisted of 9 accelerator managers out of 7 accelerators and 15 startups based on 5 accelerators. The analysis of the information extracted from the interviews and coding of the failure identified in the accelerators was performed using the thematic analysis method. In order to assess the validity of this study, an entrepreneurial doctoral student was asked to codify the interviews individually to compare the extracted codes.

Finally, 34 problems have been identified that are divided into four main themes related to mentorship, acceleration program, acceleration structure and infrastructure and internal startup team problems. Overall, the greatest agreement among the failures identified as wrong orientation by untrained mentors, the lack of complementary in ability and skills of team members, the lack of knowledge of mentors, the lack of acceleration managers in entrepreneurship and the lack of a proper leader in startup teams.

This study aimed to investigate the failures of corporate accelerators in Iran as a developing country, which is the first survey in Iran. We have many researches about the pathology and identify failures of accelerators, but in corporate accelerators, little research has been done. The authors have a classification of failures in corporate accelerators by using thematic analysis. In this study, accelerators' managers and founders of startups were interviewed and 34 failures were identified.

Seed accelerators (SAs) appear as a more advanced version of business incubators. These for-profit organizations in exchange of equity, help setting new start-ups by providing mentoring and funding during its first months. Due to their emergent nature, the impact and expectations of SAs remains largely unknown. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to throw new light on this field by empirically assessing for the first time the performance and prospects of these organizations through a survey of 116 SAs.

A model based on the Business Incubators literature is built with four categories covering size, location, age and profitability variables, leading to two hypotheses to be tested empirically over a survey of 116 SAs.

Some remarkable findings arise after implementation of both bivariate and multivariate analysis. The results confirm a higher size and performance in the US and in the oldest SAs at statistically significant levels.

The study is not free from limitations but the findings make a contribution to the still scarce existing literature on SAs, and provide some managerial implications to their stockholders, to investors and to entrepreneurs.

The findings concerning performance indicators are especially helpful for investors, primarily concerned with the percentage return on investment factor, the period and the investment rounds needed to achieve exit. Another key issue is the SA's role as an employment seedbed. At first glance, the amount of employment, both overall and per company, might seem small given the young age of these firms. The impact of SAs on the generation of new employment is difficult to measure as it usually takes place in further stages of development of the tenant companies, the so-called scale-up process. Nonetheless, at present, the number of new companies being born is remarkable and, in terms of employment, the results are indeed promising. Our findings also offer important implications for entrepreneurs, venture investors and policy-makers. To entrepreneurs, our findings offer insight on the expectations to hold in the accelerator programs.

For policy-makers and would-be accelerator founders, our results support the idea shared in the literature that accelerators can be an effective entrepreneurial intervention, even in small entrepreneurial ecosystems, compared to the strongest entrepreneurial hubs (Hallen et al., 2017).

SAs are a very recent phenomenon which is blooming all over the world, especially in developed countries. SAs are therefore considered a key agent in the prospects of any entrepreneurial ecosystem. However, no studies have so far analysed the impact and performance of this emerging instrument. This is precisely the main purpose of this paper, to offer for the first time an approximate and exploratory assessment on the impact and prospects of SAs, based on a database.

種子促進中心，以企業孵化中心的更高級版本的形態出現。這些營利組織、在企業剛開始營運的首數個月內提供指導及資金，以換來股權。由於種子促進中心是從未有過的，故其影響及人們寄予的期望大致仍為未知之數。因此，本研究旨在這範疇內提供新的知識，以實證方法，透過調查116間種子促進中心，首次對這類組織的表現及前景進行了評估。

研究人員根據關於企業孵化中心的文獻建立了一個模型，內容包括四個範疇，﹔涵蓋的變量為：規模大小、地域位置、經營年期及盈利狀況。這模型提供了兩個以實證方法、透過調查116間種子促進中心來進行驗證的假設。

透過進行二元及多元分析取得卓越的研究結果。研究結果確認了在美國的種子促進中心及歷史最悠久的種子促進中心在統計意義上顯著地呈較具規模及表現更佳。

本研究不是沒有局限的。唯研究結果為現時在種子促進中心方面的探討仍稀少的文獻提供了貢獻，亦為種子促進中心的股東、投資者及企業家提供了管理方面的提示。

與表現指數相關的研究結果對投資者尤為有用。他們主要的關注是投資因素的回報率，進行轉讓所需的時間及籌集投資總額。另一主要問題是種子促進中心作為就業苗床所扮演的角色。乍看之下，如考慮到這些公司短暫的歷史，無論整體的就業數量、或是以每間公司計算的就業數量都看似微小。種子促進中心在製造新工作方面的影響是難以量度的。這是因為新工作的產生通常出現在租戶公司發展的進一步階段內, 這就是所謂放大過程。但目前誕生的新公司的數目另人注目。而且, 以就業方面來說，效果實在是相當不錯的。我們的研究結果也為企業家、風險投資者及政策制定者提供重要的暗示。對企業家而言，我們的研究結果為他們就促進中心方案應持甚麼期望提供了啟示。

對政策制定者及未來的促進中心始創人而言，我們的研究結果支持文獻所說：促進中心、與最強大的企業樞紐比較之下，即使是在細小的企業生態系統裏，可以是有效的企業介入 (哈倫等人,2017)(Hallen et al., 2017) 。

種子促進中心是一個頗為近期才出現的現象。這現象在全球興盛起來，特別是在發達國家。因此，種子促進中心被認為是可為任何一個企業生態系統帶來前景的主要媒介。唯至今仍未有分析這新興工具的影響及表現的研究。這正正就是本研究的主要目的，就是首度根據一個數據庫，為種子促進中心的影響及前景提供一個適當和探索性的研究。

Business accelerators have recently received increasing attention as important cogs in business ecosystem development. However, their exact role in the ecosystem is not yet well known, especially outside the IT sector. The purpose of this study is, therefore, twofold: to determine the position of life science accelerators in the business ecosystem and the attributes of support for companies and to identify key features of the life science accelerators that contribute to the change in business ecosystems.

The authors offer an exploratory case study of five life science business accelerators and analyze the main factors affecting the companies and the whole business ecosystem. The authors build upon the scarce literature on business accelerators and consider a new type of accelerator that specializes in life science projects and study its role in the transformation and evolution of the life science industry.

The authors have defined the role and key parameters of life science accelerators that influence the existing business ecosystems: (1) cooperation with other regions and countries, (2) development of entrepreneurial skills among participants of the business accelerators program and (3) a project on demand-based approach.

The key parameters of the life science accelerators allow to concentrate these efforts on the activities that are most demanded by the market. Business accelerators can increase the created value for other program participants.

An extensive literature in organizational theory discusses how established organizations shape and maintain their boundaries but offers little guidance as to how organizational boundaries emerge in the first place. This paper examines boundary formation in business startups using a nationally representative dataset of U.S. nascent entrepreneurs. We propose several distinct roles for individuals entering into entrepreneurial activity, distinguishing between “insiders” (owner-managers) who commit both time and financial resources to these startups and “outsiders” (including passive investors and advisors) who offer more limited resource commitments. Two important criteria demarcating organizational insiders and outsiders in emergent organizations are functionality and perceived trustworthiness. Our results suggest that boundary formation is more often based on a potential member's trustworthiness, as perceived by peers, than functionality, emphasizing considerations such as transaction cost minimization and uniqueness of resource contributions. We propose several mechanisms that may account for this result among nascent entrepreneurs, including a lack of economic sophistication, calculative trust, and the importance of social solidarity for founder recruitment.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the antecedents and performance outcomes when startup firms in the US banking industry hire industry consultants.

This study uses a sample of prospective startup banks that applied for a new bank charter application in Florida between 1996 and 2005. Logistic regression, ordinary least squares or ordered logistic regression models were used to test hypotheses.

Analysis suggests complexity and regulatory change are factors in a founder’s decision to hire a consultant. Consultants have a positive impact on firm financial performance but not on a composite multifactor measure of performance. Additional analyses suggest the effectiveness of consulting assistance hinges on specific attributes of the consulting firm, but cumulative consulting experience is not one of these attributes.

This study focuses on the impact of consultants on new venture performance in a single industry using archival data. Additional research is likely needed to test the generalizability of the findings in other research contexts and examine motives beyond the financial ones investigated in this study.

Results suggest that hiring a consultant at startup can satisfy financial stakeholders, but, in a regulated industry, hiring a consultant at startup does not improve a composite, multifactor measure of performance that is important to industry regulators. When deciding whether to commit scarce resources to hiring consultants, founding teams should be clear which external stakeholder and which measure of performance they are seeking to improve.

While the business advisory role of informal players such as family and friends and more formal players such as board members and federal, state or local governments have been well documented, little attention has been paid to the contributions of industry consultants in startup firms. These overlooked intermediaries play an important role in the successful launch of a new firm. This study examines when and why such advisors might create value for new firms.