Search results

Startup ecosystems and traditional economic development models have historically excluded non-traditional, alternative, and diverse entrepreneurs. These ecosystems often ignore the authentic groups of entrepreneurs and businesses that make a community unique and instead try to encourage only high-impact, high-growth tech startups. By only focusing on this narrower scope of a defined startup ecosystem versus an entrepreneurial ecosystem, smaller cities (and alternative marketplaces) face extreme challenges and miss opportunities for enhanced economic development. This chapter includes a case study of Tucson’s entrepreneurial ecosystem and the evolution of the entrepreneurial support organization Startup Tucson from one focused only on startups to a now industry-agnostic driver of inclusive ecosystem building. An account of this transition is provided for review, including the community-based feedback process used by the organization to redefine its goals. By adopting a broader definition of entrepreneurship and supporting entrepreneurs truly rooted in Tucson’s strengths, Startup Tucson has seen more diverse businesses (and ventures of all types) and founders opting-in to the ecosystem, thereby increasing the Tucson’s economic development. This case study will provide those interested in ecosystem development with ideas on how to implement ecosystems within alternative markets.

Startups play a significant role in improving societies. This paper concentrates on the concept of “startups” and attempts to present a more comprehensive view of this phenomenon. Also, the focus of this paper is on investigating enterprising communities and the startup ecosystem in Iran.

The existing literature is carefully reviewed, definition and views are explored and the story of this phenomenon is told from the formation to the exit stage. The author elaborates the existing stages and challenges of startups in Iran. To do so, 65 tech startup founders are interviewed. Semi-structured interviews (SI) were based on previous studies mentioning the lifecycle of the startups, and were fully recorded. Moreover, secondary sources of data (SS) were used to support the findings.

The paper classifies the extant theories of startups in two levels, i.e. macro level, and micro and meso levels. Also, it defines some steps for the formation of startups and studies the Iranian startup ecosystem. Last but not the least the paper contributes to the startup ecosystem of Iran which is changing disruptively, especially in the last couple of years.

Findings of this research shed light on the existing ecosystem of startups in Iran, which is rarely studied in previous research. Lack of enough evidence in the existing literature of startup ecosystem in Iran was the most significant limitation of the research which increased the need for more investigation and elaboration.

The paper contributes to understanding the startup ecosystem in Iran, and the challenges.

With practical entrepreneurship capabilities becoming ever more important for all university graduates, whether they are starting their own business or adding value to an organisation by innovating, improving, and problem-solving, what role do business incubators (BIs) play in helping to develop these capabilities for students? This chapter aims to better understand the role of BIs as extra-curricular entrepreneurship activity in universities through a narrative account of business incubation practice in three institutions – two in England and one in Australia. Utilising a practice-led methodology, the study is underpinned by social capital theory and a critical realist ontological perspective on incubation’s mechanisms, processes, and structures. Across these examples, there are common underpinning principles of entrepreneurial learning and socio-economic development. However, there are differences in implementation regarding space for incubation. Where the BI is on campus and closely integrated with extra-curricular entrepreneurship activity, this results in a cohesive graduate startup community and ongoing peer support. With no BI present, the opposite is observed. The chapter argues that without the infrastructure to build and maintain a community of nascent entrepreneurs to benefit from sustained peer learning, there can be negative impacts on the entrepreneurs and a visible gap affecting the entrepreneurial ecosystem. The chapter concludes with a practice note providing practical considerations for university BIs in communicating the significance of the incubator peer group to prospective entrepreneurs to improve realistic expectations and potentially improve their reach to entrepreneurs who may be experiencing isolation during their startup journey.

There is a dearth of research about how startup companies use public relations in their tenuous and critical first few years of existence. While there does exist a small body of literature focused on how startups should use marketing, the public relations literature is limited (exceptions: ter Halle, Beekhoff, and Ruel, 2016; Schlierer, Hans-Jörg, et al., 2012).

The leaders of startups usually have very limited resources, and that includes very few personnel to whom they can delegate responsibilities. Unlike the C-suite leaders in a more established business, the startup leaders are almost solely responsible for crafting the messaging and communication strategy of the startup. Being tasked with not only the management and growth of the business as well as all things marketing, public relations and brand strategy, the leaders of startups, having limited time and resources, often focus on what they view as the most pressing tasks (usually related to product development or financing) (Halle, Beekhoff, and Ruel, 2016).

Given the lack of previous research on the subject and the unique insight that startup leaders can provide, the research focused on:

• RQ1. How do startup leaders conceptualize Public Relations?

• RQ2. What value do startup leaders place on Public Relations?

RQ1. How do startup leaders conceptualize Public Relations?

RQ2. What value do startup leaders place on Public Relations?

In the fall of 2017, semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with 12 leaders of startups in St Louis, Missouri. The answers were thematically analysed (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The responses were analysed using the constant-comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) allowing researchers to identify recurring patterns in the interviews. After the initial coding was complete, axial coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) was conducted, making connections between the initial themes. The emergent themes from each question are discussed in the results section and the implications for the fields of PR and entrepreneurship will be covered in the discussion section. Some of the key findings are that many startup leaders do not understand what PR is, they don’t understand its benefits and they cannot differentiate PR from marketing.

This chapter describes the basic elements of an ecosystem of innovation entrepreneurship ecosystem. Likewise, it discusses the building of ecosystems, technological parks, and their relationship with the industrial clusters. Finally, it analyzes the impact of the ecosystems on the regional environment. Additionally, the chapter will include mini cases and business examples.

This chapter examines the key characteristics of success of the university-wide entrepreneurial ecosystem at Syracuse University. From 2007 to 2012, Syracuse University developed an academic signature in entrepreneurship, innovation, and community engagement resulting from 165 programs that linked the campus and the community. Nine critical factors of success for individual programs were observed. This chapter provides recommendations for establishing an experientially focused university-wide entrepreneurship education program and suggestions on mistakes to avoid.

The purpose of this paper is to use Twitter analytics for analyzing the startup ecosystem of India.

The paper uses descriptive analysis and content analytics techniques of social media analytics to examine 53,115 tweets from 15 Indian startups across different industries. The study also employs techniques such as Naïve Bayes Algorithm for sentiment analysis and Latent Dirichlet allocation algorithm for topic modeling of Twitter feeds to generate insights for the startup ecosystem in India.

The Indian startup ecosystem is inclined toward digital technologies, concerned with people, planet and profit, with resource availability and information as the key to success. The study categorizes the emotions of tweets as positive, neutral and negative. It was found that the Indian startup ecosystem has more positive sentiments than negative sentiments. Topic modeling enables the categorization of the identified keywords into clusters. Also, the study concludes on the note that the future of the Indian startup ecosystem is Digital India.

The analysis provides a methodology that future researchers can use to extract relevant information from Twitter to investigate any issue.

Any attempt to analyze the startup ecosystem of India through social media analysis is limited. This research aims to bridge such a gap and tries to analyze the startup ecosystem of India from the lens of social media platforms like Twitter.

The purpose of this paper is to ascertain the factors determining the choice of sources of finance for a tech startup over its lifecycle.

This study adopts simple random sampling technique to choose 93 sample tech startups in Bangalore. Further, this study employs the primary data collection from the sampled startups under study through a semi-structured questionnaire and in-depth interviews with the founders/CEOs of these startups. Furthermore, it carries out binary logistic regression analysis to primarily examine the likelihood of a tech startup to approach and access a particular source of finance over its lifecycle.

Our results indicate that a tech startup's choice for a financial source varies with its lifecycle stage and financial requirements. We find that while in its early stage, a tech startup's choice of a financial source is limited to business angels (BA), in the growth stage, it approaches the institutional sources, viz. Venture Capital (VC), Corporate Venture Capital (CVC), Banks and Private Equity (PE) firms alternatively. Out of the three major categories of financial requirements: Human Capital (HC), Research Capital (RC) and Social Capital (SC), the requirement for HC and SC is predominantly funded by VCs, while the acquisition of RC is facilitated by early stage investors (BAs) as well as growth stage investors (CVC and PEs).

The research implication of the study lies in bringing out the need to understand both the nature and the quantum of financial requirements of tech startups would influence the sources of finance it would approach and obtain finance for its operations and growth.

The major policy implication of the study refers to the need to promote the diverse sources of finance to meet the diverse needs of finance in different stages of a tech startup's lifecycle. Particularly in an emerging economy, where we do not see the emergence and growth of highly innovative tech startups, the need to promote adequate availability of RC is especially important.

This study makes a key contribution to the entrepreneurial finance literature by empirically investigating the factors determining a tech startup's propensity to approach and access a particular source of finance over its lifecycle.

This paper describes the entrepreneurial ecosystems of three public research universities involved in the National Science Foundation (NSF) Midwest I-Corps TM (trademark symbol) Node. It presents a synthesis of programming, functional structure, commonly referenced university metrics and their limitations in measuring impact on commercialization and regional development.

Based on current literature, university data and discussions with entrepreneurship leaders at the University of Michigan/Ann Arbor, University of Illinois/Urbana Champaign and Purdue University, this paper provides an overview and analysis of entrepreneurial resources and education initiatives.

University contributions to entrepreneurial ecosystems can be described with respect to infrastructure and leadership, technology and talent and culture of innovation. Four main university entities are responsible for driving entrepreneurship initiatives. Identification of these entities, their respective activities and their outcomes allows us to propose a framework for analyzing and measuring university entrepreneurial ecosystem impact.

The paper describes the variety of university-based entrepreneurial initiatives believed to contribute to university entrepreneurial vibrancy and ultimately regional development. It identifies ecosystem stakeholders and provides a framework for examining their role and impact for continuous development.

The research complements prior reviews and empirical studies of university-wide entrepreneurial ecosystems by focusing on programming within and across institutions according to four dimensions (academic, research administration, technology transfer and community engagement) with respect to technology and talent development. It describes similarities across institutions and limitations associated with measuring impact. It provides a foundation for future empirical research related to the impact of NSF I-Corps and entrepreneurial programming in academic settings.