View
8
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
1
Activity A.T2.1 Stakeholders training and hands on workshop on Start-up Ecosystem Canvas
DELIVERABLE: D.T2.1.1 Startup Ecosystem Canvas Model (local and Alpine)
Final Document
Responsible: WP2 Lead IMC University of Applied Sciences Krems
CONTEXT:
Based on the value chain opportunities developed in WP 1, this document is intended to be used as a
guiding map for the stakeholder training and hands on workshop on the Startup Ecosystem Canvas.
Moreover, it is intended as a glossary for the O.T.2.2 AS Scale(Up) Action Plan and the O.T.2.3 AS Scale Up
Open Platform. This is a working document and thus open for discussion. Suggestions, recommendations
and edits are more than welcome.
APPROACH
• The mapping information was developed through research and a literature review integrating the
Start up/scale up policy assessment tool that each PP has filled in having in mind the features of its
own ecosystem.
• Moreover results from a Meeting on October 5, 2017 with the managing director from the Austrian
Startup Ecosystem (www.austrianstartups.com) Markus Raunig were integrated.
• Furthermore, it can be used as reference for the didactical design of the Activity A.T.2.2
Stakeholders Training and its deliverables.
• This document is intended to be integrated on the Project Website http://www.alpine-
space.eu/projects/scale-up-alps/en/home
2
Concept Mapping of Resources for Entrepreneurs on their Growth Journey
Concept mapping as Activity A.T2.1 involves three phases within the project: 1) developing questions to
generate ideas about the SCALE(UP) Alps project's purpose and function, 2) gathering input from local
stakeholders and Alpine stakeholders and sorting ideas into themes, and 3) generating concept maps which
will be relevant for the Local Action plan – road Map (D.T2.3.1) and the Alpine Action Plan Road-Map
(D.T2.3.2).
1. Concept Mapping as Basis for a logically organized Map
Concept mapping is a method to represent an individual’s or group’s thinking in form of a picture or a map
(Trochim, 1989). Concept maps display all the ideas a group or individual has to a certain topic and indicate
relationships between ideas. Besides, if necessary, the maps can show relevance and importance of the
ideas (Davies, 2011). Concept maps tend to start with one word or phrase which is the focus of the map
(Novak, 1990). The concept mapping process includes six steps, which are shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: The Concept Mapping Process
Source: Created by the author after Trochim, p.3 1989
The concept mapping process is accompanied by a facilitator who either is an outside consultant or an
inside group member. The concept mapping process starts with the preparation phase and three major
tasks. First, the facilitator selects, with the parties involved, the participants of the process. Second, they
define a focus and dimensions of what will be conceptualize. Third, they establish a time schedule for the
mapping process. During the generation step, all participants produce various statements to the agreed
focus. People are encouraged to generate a large number of statements without any criticism or validation
of the statements. In the structuring phase, the participants rate their statements and evaluate how the
statements are in relation to each other. Next, the representation step several analysis are conducted. First,
statements are depicted as separate points in a point map. Statements that are sorted together frequently
are shown as points close to each other. Second, the results of this scaling are grouped together into
clusters. These clusters are the outcome of the analysis and are considered as concepts.
3
In the interpretation phase, the facilitator and the participants work through each concept map and agree
on an appropriate name and interpretation for each cluster. Finally, in the utilization step the participants
come back to the starting point and reflect on how the concept map can be used in their focus area
(Trochim, 1989).
For the Scale(Up)Alps project concept mapping was chosen as a methodology for two reasons. First, it is
primarily a group process and so it is especially well-suited Scale(Up)Alps for the project where project
partners of different European regions collaborate. Second, it uses a very structured facilitated approach.
2. Concept of Entrepreneurship
The study of entrepreneurship is multilayered and touches many different disciplines. There is a vast
amount of scientific entrepreneurship literature and a myriad of definitions (Campall & Mitchell, 2012).
Richard Cantillon recognizes entrepreneurs as participants in market exchanges at their own risks in order
to make profits. He was the first who stated that entrepreneurs face risks and have to bear uncertainty
(Cantillon, 1959). In Schumpeter’s concept, entrepreneurship is seen a mechanism to create changes in the
economic system through innovation. For Schumpeter, development is a dynamic process, which disturbs
and interrupts the economic status quo. Entrepreneurs are change agents and catalysts for creative
destruction (Schumpeter, 1934). As an innovator the entrepreneurs finds new combinations which can be
introduction of a new good or quality of a good, introduction of a new method of production, opening of a
new market, utilization of a new source of supply or carrying out of some new organizational forms of the
industry (Schumpeter, 1934). A different approach takes Morrison (2000) and focuses in her approach on
the cultural component of entrepreneurship. The profile that emerges in the study leads to the assumption
that an entrepreneur is someone who “is intelligent and analytical; is an effective risk manager and
networker; possesses a strong set of moral, social and business ethics; exhibits a basic trader’s instinct; and
is dedicated to live-long learning in its many forms”(Morrison, 2000, p. 68). Closing the subject, it has to be
stated that there is not one thing that is really defining an entrepreneur. They all come in various shades
and colors.
3. Concept of Startups
A great variety of definitions for startups exists. Regarding the focus on scaleability Blank focuses on the
businesss model and argues that “a startup is an organization formed to search for a repeatable and
scalable business model” (Blank, 2010). Entrepreneurial behavior and a drive for novelty and innovation are
important traits for startups. Therefore, the following comprehensive definition is proposed: “A startup is a
team of entrepreneurial talent with innovation in process, in identifiable and investable form, in progress
to validate and capture the value of the innovation – with target to grow fast with scalable business model
for maximum impact” (StartupCommons, 2017). To summarize, main characteristics are significant growth
in scales and use of innovative technologies or business models. Besides, startups tend to be newly
founded organization and are not older than ten years (DSM, 2016).
4
Figure 2: Startup Development Phases
Source:
StartupCommons, 2017
Although every startup is unique and has its own challenges we can nevertheless identify different phases
of startup development from a theoretical based perspective. This comprehensive framework documenting
the needs of a startup also serves as a framework for Scale Ups. In the ideation phase, an individual has an
initial business idea and displays entrepreneurial drive. However, there is no confirmed commitment or
team structure yet established. During the conception phase a mission, key milestones and strategy to
reach common goals are established. At the commitment stage, the founders develop their product or
service and sign a shareholder agreement, which defines milestones, time and money use. Key
performance indicators and first growth and revenue are elements of the validation phase. In this phase,
startups search for financial investments for equity, revenue share or future revenue. The scaling period is
characterized by high growth and market traction. Furthermore, the startup try to attract funding in order
to hire new talent and to improve overall quality. During the establishing phase, continued growth and
financial funding is expected. Depending on the mission, the company tries to keep a startup spirit. At this
point, the cofounders and investors either exist the startup or continue to work for the established
company (StartupCommons, 2017).
4. Concept Entrepreneurial Ecosystems
Entrepreneurial ecosystems are spaces in which the combination of social, cultural, political and economic
forces enable the development and growth of new ventures. Furthermore, entrepreneurs and other actors
are stimulated to fund, start or assist in ventures (Spigel, 2015). Components of an entrepreneurial
ecosystem included formal and informal networks, physical infrastructure and a culture of community
(ibid). Spilling (1996) argues that for a successful entrepreneurial ecosystems the ventures develop close
ties with their environment from which they benefit during the development of their business. Bell-
Masterson and Stangler (2015) developed four indicators to measure the vibrancy of an entrepreneurial
ecosystem.
Figure 3: Measuring Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Vibrancy
5
Source: Own representation based on Bell-Masterson & Stangler, 2015, p. 2
Entrepreneurs are key success factors of the ecosystem. Therefore, their density and employment rate are
important. Fluidity encompasses the geographic mobility and reallocation of people. Entrepreneurs need
people as resources and an ecosystem that offers job opportunities and high growth firms succeeds.
Furthermore, figure tow shows that the connections between actors in the entrepreneurial ecosystem
matters. A dense network increases the strength of a system. Finally, an entrepreneurial ecosystem should
be diverse in industries and the talent that works in the ecosystem (Bell-Masterson & Stangler, 2015).
5. Concept Clusters of Innovation (COI) and Networks of Clusters of Innovation (NCOI)
The idea of clusters of innovation (COI) emerged through the concept of business clusters. Traditional
business clusters are regions with a high concentration of companies and institutions in a particular field.
The companies benefit from the network amongst others through an easy access to information, proximity
to customers and suppliers and the external economies of scale (Porter, 1990). Clusters of innovations are
defined by the stage of development and innovation, rather than a specific industry. The four main
characteristics are mobile assets, entrepreneurial behavior, global strategic perspective and alignment of
goals (Engel & del-Palacio, 2009).
In a cluster of innovation, resources such as people, money and technology are mobile and thereby
facilitate rapid innovation and experiments, spillovers, the creation of new ventures, scaling and failure
(Freeman & Engel, 2007). In a cluster of innovation, the entrepreneurial process is a mean to experiment
new business models, develop new markets, commercialize new technologies and create new firms.
Additional, a dense venture capital network enables the entrepreneurial activity. Clusters of innovation
display a high startup growth, because startups capitalize on the proximity of well-funded and connected
startups, proximity of other successful entrepreneurs and the proximity of suppliers and specialized service
providers (Engel & del-Palacio, 2009). Startups in clusters of innovation have an international perspective,
because they use from their inception international resources and markets in other countries. Mobile
resources in startups can cross regional boarders and they use international cooperation for their benefit
(Knight, 1996). A global perspective can help startups to raise capital, save costs and attract an
international workforce (Saxenian, 1989). In a cluster of innovation interests align, which increase
collaboration. This includes inter-firm collaboration, cooperation between suppliers and customer,
6
cooperation between investors and collaboration between competing startups. Members in a cluster of
innovation build a community are more likely to work together (Kenney & Florida, 2000).
Network of cluster of innovation describes all formal and informal relationships and connections between
individuals, firms and startups, universities, research centers mature corporations, affinity groups and other
actors between clusters of innovation (Engel & del-Palacio, 2009).
6. Concept Startup Ecosystem
A startup ecosystem is a segment of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. In general, the startups’ specific
characteristics define their ecosystems (Motoyama & Knowlton, 2014). The ecosystem consists of people
who are part of startups and different types of organizations in a location, which can be physical or virtual.
Members of this ecosystem constantly interact and aim to create new ventures. The numerous
organizations have specific roles in the startup ecosystems and assist the startups in specific development
stages (StartupCommons, 2017).
People in the startup ecosystem are connected through shared activities, events, locations, interactions
and a feeling of community (StartupCommons, 2017). Successful startups, which emerged from the
ecosystem, are the measurement of competence and effects of the system (Krajcik & Formanek, 2015).
The following subchapters give a comprehensive overview of a startup ecosystem’s components.
7. Concept Entrepreneurs
The personality characteristics of entrepreneurs are explored by researchers and can be summarized as
need for achievement, locus of control, risk taking and ability to bear uncertainty, work values and
innovativeness (Smith-Hungter, Kapp, & Yonkers, 2003).
First, the need for achievement is major motivational key for entrepreneurial behavior. The need for
achievement is the degree of how much a person feels the urge to excel and achieve a specific goal. People
with a high need for achievement believe they are responsible and have control over their success and they
spend large amount of time accomplishing targets important to them(McClelland, 1961).
Second, locus of control is concept that describes how people perceive their influence and control over the
outcome of their accomplishments. Individuals with an internal locus of control believe that they have
control over their destiny (Rotter, 1966). According to Rotter (1966) the need for achievement is related to
the belief of internal locus of control. People with an external locus of control assume that environmental
factors are strongly influencing the outcome of their actions. They do not take over responsibility and they
do not think that they have the ability to control external factors (Mueller & Thomas, 2000).
Third, entrepreneurs take different risks with their business ventures. Becoming an entrepreneur has
consequences for personal financial situation, career opportunities, family, relatives and personal psychic
well-being. In every entrepreneurial business activity an amount of uncertainty is involved. The
entrepreneurs have to decide how much risk and uncertainty they are able to bear (Kent, Sexton, & Vesper,
1982).
7
Fourth, in order to examine the entrepreneurs’ characteristics, their individual value systems must be taken
under consideration (Smith-Hungter et al., 2003). According to Kisfialvi (2002) entrepreneurs prioritize
goals based on past experiences and an entrepreneur’s personal values. “Each entrepreneur brings their
own unique set of personal motivations and characteristics to interact with their specific host society and
business environment, which is then translated into entrepreneurial activities and behavior” (Morrison,
2000, p. 65).
Fifth, according to Gartner (1989) innovativeness and problem solving are at the core of entrepreneurial
capabilities. Entrepreneurs face a variety of challenges when they implement new ideas. Furthermore, a
majority of entrepreneurs are characterized by sensation-thinking problem solving styles (Hoy & Hellriegel,
1982). Not all entrepreneurs are innovative per se. The innovation level of entrepreneurs depends on their
education and experience(Maxwell & Westerfield, 2002).
8. Concept Funding Organizations
A key role in the startup ecosystem have investors. For startups to grow and succeed in their ventures they
need sufficient funds. Therefore, startup ecosystems try to attract capital and develop initiatives to
increase the number of investors in an ecosystem. Startups can choose between various funding options
amongst others angel investors, venture companies, incubators and acceleration programs (Feld, 2012).
9. Concept Business Angels
Business Angels are individual investors who provide equity capital, management expertise and access to
networks for startups. Business Angeles tend to be wealthy individuals who are often entrepreneurs
themselves and have significant knowledge in founding and developing businesses. Additional to their
financial contributions they take on a consulting role for startups (Brettel, Jaugey, & Rost, 2013).
10. Concept Venture Capital Firms
Venture capital firms are institutional investors who provide startups mainly with capital and management
knowledge. Venture capital firms often provide networks in which startups can benefit from financial,
commercial or technology based connections (Spender, Corvello, Grimaldi, & Rippa, 2017). Venture capital
firms tend to invest in the seed stage when they consider successful startups. These seed-investments face
high risks, because the success or failure of the startup in this early stage is not yet determined. The
startups drive for growth, innovation and entrepreneurial activities are particular interesting for venture
capital firms. Their goal is to receive annual profit shares and increase the value of their shares over time
(Strömsten & Waluszewski, 2012).
11. Concept Accelerators
Accelerators are individuals or organizations who support startups in their early stages. Accelerators
provide amongst others infrastructure, access to networks, knowledge and mentoring and in some cases
8
capital. Accelerator programs are temporary and have a timespan of three to five months. These programs
contribute to a startup’s reputation and assist in finding a venture capital firm or business angel (S. Cohen &
Hochberg, 2014)
12. Concept Incubators
An incubator is an existing business or organization that assists startups to develop (Spender et al., 2017).
They provide services and other elements of support, which include management training, office spaces,
shared administrative services and equipment. Furthermore, incubators give access to networks and can
provide guidance with regards to business planning, finance, marketing, legal consulting or engineering
(Peters, Rice, & Sundararajan, 2004). Incubators built a support environment for startups and help to
reduce the costs of resources and information (Williamson, 1985). Spender et al (2017) differentiate
between three types of incubators: technology incubator, university incubator and industrial incubator.
First, technology incubators are able to improve a startup’s access to capital at an early stage and
encourage, therefore, innovation (Rubin, Aas, & Stead, 2015). Second, universities as incubators can
support startup development in later stages for example during the product development processes (Rubin
et al., 2015). Third, industry incubators are existing companies, which can be co-sponsored by public
institutions. The goals are to stimulate innovation and entrepreneurship through new ventures either
within existing companies or through independent startups. Moreover, industry incubators aim to
accelerate innovation and entrepreneurship in areas were the industry incubators are located (Clausen &
Rasmussen, 2011).
13. Concept Mentors
Mentors are individuals with experience and knowledge who are often entrepreneurs themselves. They
give advice share their expertise with the startups directly. Mentors in a startup ecosystem ensure a cycle
of support, leaning and compensation. Mentors’ contributions are critical to a dynamic startup ecosystem
(S. Cohen & Hochberg, 2014).
14. Concept Mature Corporations
A large corporation and a startup are two different types of organizations. On the one hand, large
corporations have resources, scale and power, which attract startups to collaborate. On the other hand,
large corporations have an interest in the startup’s innovativeness, speed of growth and entrepreneurial
activity. Various models exist for large corporations and startups to engage with each other (Mellewigt,
Madhok, & Weibel, 2007). Amongst others, the corporations can function as internal incubators or build
strategic alliances to create new ventures or spin-offs (Spender et al., 2017). Several larger corporations
offer startup programs in order to foster innovation and increase entrepreneurial activity within their
company. For the outside-in approach, a startups’ technology is made accessible for the sponsoring
corporation. At the inside-out approach, the corporation’s technical platform is used by the startups.
Different from other models, these startup programs do not include a corporate ownership (Mellewigt,
Mahok, & Weibel, 2007).
9
15. Concept Universities and Higher Education Institutions (HEI)
Universities have a significant impact on the development of a startup ecosystem through research,
education of skilled workers and technology transfer. Furthermore, universities have the ability to create
and disseminate knowledge and play an important role within the community (B. Cohen, 2006). Shah and
Pahnke (2014) developed categories based on how the startups capitalize university resources. New
ventures created by faculty, staff or students as part of academic research programs are so-called
“spinouts” or “academic spinoffs”. “Offshoots” are ventures where the universities provide critical
entrepreneurial knowledge, however, academic research programs are not the source for the innovation.
“Seeds” is an inclusive category whereby the startups are affiliated with the university an benefit from its
networks e.g. alumni club (Shah & Pahnke, 2014).
16. Concept Service Providers
Service providers in the startup ecosystem are organizations or individuals who are experts in their field
and provide various forms of support e.g. accounting, recruiting, marketing or consulting services. Several
service providers adapt their regular practices to better serve a startup’s needs. For example instead of
hourly rates or prompt payments, a flexible approach whereby rewards for the professional are tied to the
success of the start-up (Engel & del-Palacio, 2009).
17. Concept Governments
Federal and local governments have an increasing interest in startups and entrepreneurial activities.
Startups create employment and increase economic growth. Therefore, governments try to foster startup
ecosystems through tax rates and incentives, provide financial support through subsidies and grands and
try to reduce bureaucratic hurdles. Governments often support research and provide incubation spaces (B.
Cohen, 2006). Negative effects of government involvements are regulatory activities or short-sighted tax
regulations which create barriers for startups (Feld, 2012).
18. Concept of Scaleups
The term scaleup describes companies who aim at significant and consistent high growth (Isenberg &
Onyemah, 2016). According to the OECD (2008, p.61) these high growth firms are “an enterprise with
average annualized growth (in number of employees or turnover) greater than 20% per annum, over a
three year period, with a minimum of 10 employees at the beginning of the growth period”. A different
approach uses the Startup Europe Partnership (SEP) program. They define a scaleup as a startup that raises
over 1 million US Dollars (SEPMonitor, 2017). Various elements influence the success of a scale-ups
including market conditions, regulation, finance, management and strategic choices (Duruflé, Hellmann, &
Wilson, 2017).
10
19. Financing Scale-ups
Depending on the stage of the new venture, the financing options change. Figure four gives a
comprehensive overview of a typical life-cycle combined with financing stages of a new firm. During the
seed stage, financing mostly comes from informal investors such as the founder, family, friends (3 Fs). As
discussed above, common outside investors for startups are amongst others business angels, accelerators,
venture capitalists and corporate investors. The focus of this project is on the expansion phase and the
scaling process. Therefore, financing options for scaleups are discussed in more detail.
Figure 4: Life-cycle of a firm with stages of financing
Source: OECD (2013) after Natusch (2003)
Duruflé et al. (2017) identify four key requirements for scaleup investors: deep pockets, smart money,
networks and patient money. Scaleups require significant and large funding, therefore, a scaleup investor
needs to have the ability provide first significant funding and second, if needed additional funding. An
investor’s knowledge, business expertise and entrepreneurial experience are key components successful
investments in scaleups (Zarutskie, 2010). These skills add supplementary value and are referred to as
smart money. Furthermore, the business and financing networks of an investor could give a scaleup access
to resources (Duruflé et al., 2017) and help with challenges such as need for talent, access to international
markets, need for strategic partners and regulatory hurdles (Hochberg, Lindsey, & Westerfield, 2015).
Finally, patient money indicates that scaleups involve long-term investments and are characterized as high-
risk. In contrast, the investors have a limited patience and the scaleups have to create liquidity
opportunities.
11
20. Startup Ecosystem Mapping
Source: http://startupeuropeclub.eu/mapping-of-europes-startup-ecosystem/ [retrieved 2/10/2017]
Different approaches exist to date in order to map the startup ecosystem. The map shown above is a static
illustration of Europe including a broad overview of examples of companies. The advantage of this
illustration is the simplicity but its adaptation is time consuming and needs regular updates.
A second example for presenting the startup ecosystem is by building an infographic as it has been done in
the example of the Danish Startup Ecosystem. This map basically represents a list of logos which are
accumulated in different areas of activities (e.g. co-working spaces). We find a similar example in the
SCALE(UP) ALPS region Austria where different institutions are presented with their logos and grouped
based on their function (e.g. education, networking, etc.).
12
Source: https://medium.com/@InnoOverblik/danish-startup-ecosystem-map-e3dd32a3ce56 [retrieved
05/10/2017]
Source: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3oeaQ8YoXYzV1ZRR1d4dHBqa00/view [retrieved 05/10/2017]
13
Another approach for a startup ecosystem map is presented in a case study about the Startup ecosystem in
St. Louis. This map goes beyond a simple geographic map presenting location of startup but integrates a
network perspective by showing linkages between the support institutions in the ecosystem.
Source: https://itenstl.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/09/examining_the_connections_within_the_startup_ecosystem.pdf, p. 12
[retrieved 5/10/2017]
Source: https://itenstl.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/examining_the_connections_within_the_startup_ecosystem.pdf, p. 13
[retrieved 5/10/2017]
14
Adding to that three perspectives are taken into this ecosystem mapping approach: 1. The linkages
between the startup companies, 2. The linkages between the support institutions and 3. The linkages
between the startup companies and the supporting institutions.
This mapping approach misses a fourth dimension which are research institutions that play an important
role in innovation systems as mentioned in the recent literature: The innovation ecosystem comprises two
distinct, but largely separated economies, the research economy, which is driven by fundamental research,
and the commercial economy, which is driven by the marketplace (Oh et al., 2016, p. 1).
Finally there are startup ecosystem mapping approaches that are dynamic and allow the user to apply
selection criteria. One such example has been done in the SCALE(UP) Alps partner region Austria. This map
was developed by the Austrianstartups organization. It is available in two different versions. Looking at the
front end it uses different symbols representing different institutions of the ecosystem. Moreover it allows
a dynamic approach as the user can add information to this map and also search for existing institutions in
this ecosystem. This could be used as a Start-up Ecosystem Canvas model for the whole project area for
three main reasons:
1. It is a dynamic approach and the map is easy to update.
2. It represents the Ecosystem with all its offers.
3. It relates to a map as you can zoom in and zoom out and therefore creates an overview of density
of activities around certain regions (e.g. for Austria – Vienna, for Germany – Munich). This also
allows to see where the impact hubs for Scaleups are located within the partner regions.
Source: https://www.austrianstartups.com/ecosystem/ [retrieved 05/10/2017]
15
References
Bell-Masterson, J., & Stangler, D. (2015). Measuring an entrepreneurial ecosystem.
Blank, S. (2010, 14.09.2017). Retrieved from https://steveblank.com/2010/01/25/whats-a-startup-first-
principles/
Brettel, M., Jaugey, C., & Rost, C. (2013). Business Angels: Der informelle Beteiligungskapitalmarkt in
Deutschland: Springer-Verlag.
Campall, N., & Mitchell, D. (2012). A (partial) rieview of entrepreneurship literture across disciplines.
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, 1, 183-199.
Cantillon, R. (1959). Essai sur la nature du commerce en général (Essay on the nature of trade in general).
London: Frank Cass and Company.
Clausen, T., & Rasmussen, E. (2011). Open innovation policy through intermediaries: the industry incubator
programme in Norway. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 23(1), 75-85.
Cohen, B. (2006). Sustainable valley entrepreneurial ecosystems. Business Strategy and the Environment,
15(1), 1-14.
Cohen, S., & Hochberg, Y. V. (2014). Accelerating startups: The seed accelerator phenomenon.
Davies, M. (2011). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: what are the differences and
do they matter? Higher education, 62(3), 279-301.
DSM. (2016). Deutscher Startup Monitor 2016. Bundesverband Deutsche Startups e.V. (BVDS) Retrieved
from http://deutscherstartupmonitor.de/
Duruflé, G., Hellmann, T. F., & Wilson, K. E. (2017). From start-up to scale-up: examining public policies for
the financing of high-growth ventures.
Engel, J. S., & del-Palacio, I. (2009). Global networks of clusters of innovation: Accelerating the innovation
process. Business Horizons, 52(5), 493-503. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.06.001
Feld, B. (2012). Startup communities: Building an entrepreneurial ecosystem in your city: John Wiley & Sons.
Freeman, J., & Engel, J. S. (2007). Models of innovation: Startups and mature corporations. California
Management Review, 50(1), 94-119.
Gartner. (1989). Some Suggestions for Research on Entreprneurial Traits and Characteristics.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27-37.
Hochberg, Y. V., Lindsey, L. A., & Westerfield, M. M. (2015). Resource accumulation through economic ties:
Evidence from venture capital. Journal of Financial Economics, 118(2), 245-267.
Hoy, F., & Hellriegel, D. (1982). The Killmann and Herden model for organizational effectiveness criteria for
small business managers. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 208-322.
Isenberg, D., & Onyemah, V. (2016). Fostering Scaleup Ecosystems for Regional Economic Growth
(Innovations Case Narrative: Manizales-Mas and Scale Up Milwaukee).
Kenney, M., & Florida, R. (2000). Venture capital in Silicon Valley: Fueling new firm formation (Vol. 98123).
Kent, C., Sexton, D., & Vesper, K. (1982). Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Kisfalvi, V. (2002). The entrepreneur's character, life issues and strategy making: A field study. Journal of
Business Venturing, 489-518.
Knight, G. (1996). The Born Global Firm: A Challenge to Traditional Internationalization Theory,[in:]
Advances in International Marketing, eds. S. Cavusgil, T. Madsen. In: Emerald Group, Bingley, UK.
Krajcik, V., & Formanek, I. (2015). Regional Startup Ecosystem. European Business & Management, 1(2), 14-
18.
Maxwell , J., & Westerfield, D. (2002). Technological Entrepreneurism Chracteristics Related to the
Adoption of Innovative Technology. SAM Advanced Management Journal 67, 9-21.
McClelland, D. (1961). The Achieving Society. Princton: Van Nostrand Company.
Mellewigt, T., Madhok, A., & Weibel, A. (2007). Trust and formal contracts in interorganizational
relationships—substitutes and complements. Managerial and decision economics, 28(8), 833-847.
Morrison. (2000). Entrepreneurship: what triggers it? International Journal of Entrepreneurship Behaviour &
Research, 6, 59-71.
Motoyama, Y., & Knowlton, K. (2014). Examining the connections within the startup ecosystem: A case
study of st. louis. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 7(1).
16
Mueller, S., & Thomas, A. (2000). Culture and Entrepreneurial Potential: A Nine Country Study of Locus of
Control and Innovativeness. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 51-75.
Novak, J. D. (1990). Concept mapping: A useful tool for science education. Journal of research in science
teaching, 27(10), 937-949.
OECD. (2013). An International Benchmarking Analysis of Public Programmes for High-Growth Firms.
Peters, L., Rice, M., & Sundararajan, M. (2004). The Role of Incubators in the Entrepreneurial Process. The
Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1), 83-91. doi:10.1023/B:JOTT.0000011182.82350.df
Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. Harvard business review, 68(2), 73-93.
Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 80, 80, 1-28.
Rubin, T. H., Aas, T. H., & Stead, A. (2015). Knowledge flow in technological business incubators: evidence
from Australia and Israel. Technovation, 41, 11-24.
Saxenian, A. (1989). In search of power: the organization of business interests in Silicon Valley and Route
128. Economy and Society, 18(1), 25-70.
Schumpeter, J. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest
and the Business Cycle. Cambridge: Harvard Universtiy Press.
SEPMonitor. (2017). Scaleup Europe. Retrieved from
Shah, S. K., & Pahnke, E. C. (2014). Parting the ivory curtain: understanding how universities support a
diverse set of startups. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(5), 780-792. doi:10.1007/s10961-
014-9336-0
Smith-Hungter, A., Kapp, J., & Yonkers, V. (2003). A psychological model of entrepreneurship behavior.
Journal of Academy of Business and Economics, 2, 1-12.
Spender, J.-C., Corvello, V., Grimaldi, M., & Rippa, P. (2017). Startups and open innovation: a review of the
literature. European Journal of Innovation Management, 20(1), 4-30. doi:10.1108/ejim-12-2015-
0131
Spigel, B. (2015). The Relational Organization of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 41(1), 49-72. doi:10.1111/etap.12167
Spilling, O. R. (1996). The entrepreneurial system: On entrepreneurship in the context of a mega-event.
Journal of Business research, 36(1), 91-103.
StartupCommons. (2017, 25.05.2017). From Technology Transfer To Open IPR. Retrieved from
http://www.startupcommons.org/from-technology-transfer-to-open-ipr.html
Strömsten, T., & Waluszewski, A. (2012). Governance and resource interaction in networks. The role of
venture capital in a biotech start-up. Journal of Business research, 65(2), 232-244.
Trochim, W. M. (1989). An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation and
program planning, 12(1), 1-16.
Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic intstitutions of capitalism: Simon and Schuster.
Zarutskie, R. (2010). The role of top management team human capital in venture capital markets: Evidence
from first-time funds. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(1), 155-172.
Recommended