NATIONAL Benchmark 16/17 · ubi global contributors george gogolev, director of communications, rvc denis matvienko, head of innovation communities development, rvc mikhail erman,

NATIONALBenchmark

IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF UNIVERSITY-LINKED BUSINESS INCUBATORS AND ACCELERATORS

RUSSIA

report16/17

CONTACT US UBI Global

[email protected] Stockholm, Sweden

PUBLISHED DECEMBER 2016© 2016 UBI Global, RVC and HSE{Inc}

This publication is a creative work copyrighted by UBI Global, RVC and HSE{Inc} and fully protected by all applicable copyright laws. Reproduction or translation of any part of this work without the permission of the copyright owner is unlawful. Requests for permission or further information should be addressed to the Permission Department, UBI Index AB, Jakobsbergsgatan 22, Stockholm, Sweden.

AUTHORS HOLGER MEYER, GLOBAL INSIGHTS AND RESEARCH MANAGER, UBI GLOBAL

NICK STAFUNSKI, SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER, UBI GLOBAL

CONTRIBUTORS GEORGE GOGOLEV, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS, RVC

DENIS MATVIENKO, HEAD OF INNOVATION COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT, RVC

MIKHAIL ERMAN, CEO, HSE{INC}

EKATERINA LYAMSHINA, MANAGER, HSE{INC}

PREPARED BY UBI GLOBAL WITH SUPPORT FROM RVC AND HSE{INC}

DECEMBER 2016

NATIONAL BENCHMARK REPORT 2016/17

IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF UNIVERSITY-LINKED BUSINESS INCUBATORS AND ACCELERATORS

Russian National Benchmark 16/17 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

RANKING AND BENCHMARKING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

RESEARCH DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3. INSIGHTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9LANDSCAPE OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

VALUE FOR ECOSYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

VALUE FOR CLIENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

ATTRACTIVENESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

CROSS-NATIONAL COMPARISONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

4. RANKINGS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

5. RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

6. PARTICIPANT DIRECTORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

4 - Introduction Russian National Benchmark 16/17

1 INTRODUCTIONCreating and maintaining healthy innovation ecosystems that draw and retain entrepreneurs is a fundamental prerequisite for staying competitive in the knowledge-based economy of the 21st century. Consequently, govern-ments around the world are committing substantial resources to creating and implementing effective and efficient inno-vation development strategies. Academic assessments of these strategies have consistently shown that well-designed entrepreneurship support programs have a particularly high correlation with economic growth.

Not surprisingly, the number of such programs has skyrocketed since the launch of the first business incubator in 1959. Of all the incubation and acceleration programs deployed, those connected to institutions of higher education have been par-ticularly successful in establishing themselves among the most competitive and effective alternatives for the development of new entrepreneurial ideas.

In fact, collaborations between universities and incubation or acceleration programs frequently develop into symbiotic win-win partnerships. The programs benefit from easy access to talent, research support, and infrastructure. The universities gain channels that allow them to apply and test academic research findings in practice, to impart generated knowledge on their surrounding ecosystems, and to establish industry connections. Working together, innovation programs and universities can thus strengthen their respective profiles and position themselves as leaders at the nexus of education and entrepreneurship.

Assessing and evaluating the impact of these pioneering organizations is a crucial prerequisite for understanding the state of global, regional, and national innovation ecosystems.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDYIn line with global developments, Russia’s innovation ecosystem has rapidly evolved over the past few years. The country’s diverse incubation and acceleration programs have not only adapted to emerging trends but developed their own — often very successful — innovation strategies. Given these developments, it comes as no surprise that Compass’ Global Startup Ecosystem Ranking 2015 lists Moscow as the 13th best startup ecosystem in the world.

Despite the remarkable evolution of Russia’s innovation ecosystem, to date no attempt has been made to system-atically analyze and evaluate the state of the ecosystem in general and the performance of the country’s incubators and accelerators in particular. To remedy this shortcoming, The Russian Venture Company (RVC) and the Business In-cubator of the Higher School of Economics (HSE {Inc}) have engaged UBI Global to conduct a pioneering in-depth mapping and performance analysis of business incubators and accelerators in Russia. The study was designed to:

Identify the strengths and shortcomings of Rus-sian business incubators and accelerators

Compare Russian incubators and accelerators to international reference groups

Identify top performing Russian innovation pro-grams and highlight their best practices

1 It is important to note that the Russian sample includes both 59 university associated as well as 13 university-unaligned incubators and accelerators, while all other samples encompass only university associated programs.

The overarching goal was to help the assessed incubators and accelerators to improve their efficiency, effective-ness, and competitiveness on national, regional, and global levels, thus laying the foundation for the future de-velopment of the ecosystem itself. This report provides an in-depth overview of the study. Section 2 introduces the uti-lized research methodology. Section 3 discusses the most important findings of the study. In doing so, it compares the Russian business incubators and accelerators to inter-national reference groups.1 Section 4 presents an overview of the top-performing Russian incubators and accelerators identified by this study. Finally, Section 5 provides recom-mendations on how to utilize the findings to increase the competitiveness of the Russian innovation ecosystem.

The insights generated by this study are of value not only for incubator and accelerator managers, governments, researchers, and investors but — equally important — for budding Russian startups in search for the best-suited

5 - Introduction Russian National Benchmark 16/17

The Russian Venture Company (RVC) is a government fund of funds and a development institute of the Russian Federa-tion — one of Russia’s key tools in building its own national innovation system. RVC’s main objectives are:

✓ Encouraging the creation of Russia’s venture capital industry. The company performs the role of the state foundation of ven-ture capital funds, through which the state stimulates venture capital investments and financial support for the high-tech sec-tor as a whole, as well as a role of the industry development state institute of venture investment in the Russian Federation.

✓ Performance of the functions of the National Project Office of the Technology Initiative (NTI), in particular: provision of project management, organizational, technical and expert-analytical support, information and financial support in the development and implementation of action plans, and projects for the implementation of action plans.

rvc.ru / en

program. Of course, this study can only serve as an initial step in a larger effort to comprehensively map and analyze the vast and diverse Russian incubation ecosystem. Further

research is encouraged to explore individual findings more exhaustively, identify longitudinal patterns, and design re-fined development strategies.

UBI Global is a thought leader in performance and impact analysis of business incubators and entrepreneurial ecosystems. The company conducts the largest global benchmark of business incubators — assessing over 500 incubation and acceler-ation programs from 70 countries. UBI Global’s primary focus is to help entrepreneurial ecosystems become more efficient and competitive through data-driven insights and best practices.

In consultation with researchers, practitioners, and industry experts, the company has developed a unique and highly robust methodology to conduct accurate benchmarks and impact studies of entrepreneurial ecosystems. The resulting research has been featured on BBC Radio, Chicago Tribune, Le Figaro, Der Standard, Huffington Post, Irish Times, France 3, and other media outlets.

ubi-global.com

HSE Business Incubator was founded in 2006 by students and professors of the National Research University — Higher School of Economics in Moscow. The first university-based business incubator in the country, in 10 years it has become a catalyst for entrepreneurship and innovation in Russia. HSE {Inc} was ranked #14 top university business incubator by UBI Global in 2015.

inc.hse.ru

6 - Methodology Russian National Benchmark 16/17

DEFINITIONS

2 Alternatively the average performance score of top-performing programs was used for benchmarking processes and comparisons that focus on relative performance vis-a-vis top programs.

For benchmarking and ranking purposes, the university-linked innovation programs were divided into four distinct categories:

1. University Business Incubator

Any incubation program that is directly managed by one or more universities or is formally affiliated with one or more universities

2. University Associated Business Incubator

Any incubation program that works closely with one or more universities but is not formally affiliated with any university

3. University Business Accelerator

Any acceleration program that is directly managed by one or more universities or is formally affiliated with one or more universities

4. University Associated Business Accelerator

Any acceleration program that works closely with one or more universities but is not formally affiliated with any university

This study focuses explicitly on assessing the performance of university-linked incubators and accelerators. Consequently, the 13 university-unaligned programs were not included in the ranking process, but served primarily as a reference group.

RANKING AND BENCHMARKINGThe UBI Global research framework was developed to benchmark and subsequently rank university-linked innovation pro-grams. While individual incubators and accelerators are benchmarked against all participating programs, they are ranked within their respective categories.

Ranking comprises the process of ordering all programs in a category according to their performance. It allows for the identification of top-performing incubators and accel-erators. The average performance score of all ranked pro-grams2 is used as the benchmarking reference line.

Benchmarking is the comparison of one particular pro-gram to this reference line. It uses each program’s abso-lute performance score (calculated in the ranking process) and identifies the ratio of this score and the reference line.

RESEARCH DESIGN

1 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK

UBI Global’s proprietary benchmarking and ranking methodology uses 41 key performance indicators (KPIs) to assess the 59 university-linked and 13 university-unaligned innovation programs’ performance in three distinct categories:

1. Value for the Russian Ecosystem

2. Value for the Startup Clients

3. Attractiveness of the Incubator/Accelerator

Figure 1 illustrates how the 41 KPIs are grouped in seven subcategories, ranging from Economy Enhancement to Post Incubation Performance.

2 METHODOLOGY


2 DATA COLLECTION

An adequate sample size is essential for the establishment of a representative overview of the state of a national innovation ecosystem. Consequently, a comprehensive survey was designed by UBI Global to collect the necessary data from all Rus-sian incubation and acceleration programs that fit the definition of the four innovation program categories defined above.

3 Two of the originally assessed 60 university-linked and 14 university-unaligned incubators asked to be excluded from the report.4 The data for these samples was collected between March 2015 and August 2016.

UBI Global’s network partner HSE {Inc} administered and distributed the survey by email to all identified eligible pro-grams. Respondents who could not be reached by email were contacted by phone. 74 programs3 submitted complete data, which HSE {Inc}, in turn, provided to UBI Global for analysis.

All international data that was used in this study for comparative purposes was retrieved from UBI Global’s incubation network database.4 The Global reference group encompasses 369 incubators and accelerators. 124 of the programs are located in Europe, 116 in Latin America, 63 in North America, 33 in the Asia Pacific (APAC) region, 21 in Africa, and 12 in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA).

3 DATA ASSESSMENTThe collected data was screened for inconsistencies, outliers, pattern and duplicate entries, and other anomalies. Flagged entries were clarified in follow-up email and phone conversations. Whenever necessary, additional verification and support documents were requested. Subsequently, the data was normalized.

VALUE FOR ECOSYSTEM VALUE FOR CLIENTS ATTRACTIVENESS

Economy Enhancement

Jobs created

Sales revenue

International sponsors

International partners

Self-generated revenue

Talent Retention

Non-locals that remains in the region

Applications accepted

Non-local applications

Incubator Offer

Incubator Investment

Applications received

University staff

Program adaptation

Clients graduated

Post Incubation Performance

IPOs

Clients acquired

Clients profitable

Clients growing

Clients surviving

Clients terminated

Competence Development

Coaching hours

Mentoring hours

Utilize coaching

Utilize mentoring

Coaches

Mentors

Training modules

Access to Funds

Total investment attracted

Avg. size of investment

Investors invested

Investors

Clients seed funded

Clients who need funding

Seed capital firms

Contacts with investors

Access to Network

Contacts w. corporations

Events

National sponsors

National partners

Alumni network

Government

Research centers

3 Categories

7 Sub-categories

41 KPIs

FIGURE 1: RESEARCH FRAMEWORK COMPONENTS


In consultation with industry experts and UBI Global’s Research Advisory Board, individual KPIs were assigned weights that reflect their relative importance. The normalized KPI scores were cumulated to calculate each program’s subcategory scores. These were utilized to calculate preliminary performance scores in the three impact categories listed above, which in turn were cumulated to arrive at a preliminary score for each assessed incubator and accelerator. At this stage, top per-formers were asked to provide supporting documentation on selected KPIs. Adjusted for program type, size, age, sector, and ecosystem, the scores served as the foundation for the incubator and accelerator rankings presented in Section 4 of this report. Figure 2 illustrates the assessment and ranking process. Combined and individually, the two Russian samples were subsequently compared to international reference groups.

1DATA

COLLECTION

Collection of per-formance data from 60 university-linked and 14 university-un-aligned Russian incu-bation and accelera-tion programs

2DATA

TREATMENT

Data cleaning, treat-ment and normal-ization

3SCORE

ATTRIBUTION

Calculation of prelim-inary performance score for each participant

4

VALIDATION

Request for support-ing documentation on selected KPIs from top performing incuba-tors to validate their performance

5

RANKING

Adjustment of the cumulated scores on 5 additional variables; incubator type, size, (ecosystem), age, and sector to calculate final rankings

Analytics and ResearchAnalytics and Research

FIGURE 2: ASSESSMENT AND RANKING PROCESS

4 LIMITATIONS

UBI Global’s research framework was designed to holistically assess incubator and accelerator performance. Providing an intuitive methodology to compare incubators and acceler-ators worldwide along multiple dimensions, it utilizes KPIs that are established in the industry. However, opinions differ regarding the relative importance of individual KPIs. Conse-quently, this study represents one intuitive option of compre-hensively modelling the reality of the Russian incubation eco-system and does not claim the prerogative of interpretation.

Most calculations informing this study are based on sur-vey data that was collected and provided by UBI Global’s network partner HSE {Inc.}. To minimize potential bias, over- and underreporting, and extrapolation errors, partic-

ular care was given to the verification of the top programs’ self-reported data through follow-up interviews, cross-ref-erencing, and comparisons with UBI Global’s University Business Incubation Database.

Due to the very young age of many of the programs and their current and former startup clients, data quality and long-term availability differed significantly from program to pro-gram. Consequently, particular care was given to fairly and conservatively extrapolate existing data wherever necessary.

Finally, the small size of some of the samples used in this study needs to be taken into account when assessing the implications of the presented findings.

9 - Insights Russian National Benchmark 16/17

LANDSCAPE OVERVIEW

The 72 incubation programs under observation are located in 42 regions across Russia. Figure 3 illustrates that the vast majority of the programs agglomerate in the Volga and Central Federal Districts of the country and tend to be clustered in innovation hubs such as Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kazan, or Samara.

3 INSIGHTS

It is important to note that the sampled Russian univer-sity-linked programs are on average only four years young, while the university-unaligned Russian programs have an average age of eight years. Consequently, contextu-alization is of paramount importance when comparing their performance to that of their older peers from the other sam-ples. For instance, the average age of the programs in the Eu-ropean and Global samples is nine and ten years respectively.

Like their international peers, the analyzed Russian incu-bation and acceleration programs are characterized by a large variety of missions, setups, sizes, and capabil-ities. For instance, the average annual operational budget of the Russian sample is just over $265,0005. However,

5 All financial data in this report is presented in US Dollars.6 Top-performing programs are defined as the top 10% percent of the assessed programs with regard to final performance score.

individual budgets range from $50,000 to $2.8 million, with a median of $125,000.

The overall KPI data distribution indicates that Russian incubators and accelerators have developed business models that differ from those of their international peers in important ways. Russian programs tend to rely less on university funding than their Global and European peers. Instead, they focus to a larger degree on service fees and event revenue as sources of income. Moreover, as Fig-ure 4 illustrates, top-performing Russian programs6 were highly successful in establishing corporate sponsorships and service fees as important sources of revenue, while reducing their reliance on government subsidies.

Moscow area – 13 St. Petersburg area – 18

FIGURE 3: GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF THE 72 INCUBATION AND ACCELERATION PROGRAMS THAT PARTICIPATED IN THE RUSSIAN NATIONAL BENCHMARK 2016 / 17


In line with global trends, many Russian programs tailor their offerings to tech startups. For instance, 34 % of the sampled incubators and accelerators indicated that they focus on information and communications technology (ICT) ventures. 39 % of their European and 48 % of their Global peers have a similar focus. Interestingly, 17 % of assessed programs stated that they support start-ups operating in any sector, while only 2 % of the programs have an explicit focus on the cleantech sector.

7 The small sample size of the MENA region needs to be taken into account when interpreting these results.

Interestingly, four out of five (83 %) clients of the sam-pled Russian programs physically enroll in their re-spective programs. In contrast, only 67 % and 72 % of the clients of their European and Global peers physically enroll, with an increasing number of entrepreneurs opting for vir-tual enrollment.

VALUE FOR ECOSYSTEMThe Value for Ecosystem category assesses the analyzed programs’ contributions to their national innovation ecosystem. Eight KPIs, grouped in the subcategories Economy Enhancement and Talent Retention are used to calculate incubators’ and accelerators’ performance score in this category.

Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the Russian sample’s average performance compared to the average performance of the interna-tional reference groups. In both subcategories, the Russian average is lower than the global average. Incubators and accel-erators from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and Asia Pacific (APAC) regions outperform programs from the other regions with regard to Economic Enhancement.7 In contrast, European programs lead in Talent Retention, again followed by the APAC sample.

29

14

57

14

57

14

43

86

14

14

11

39

39

54

26

59

35

8

19

10

22

48

48

34

60

37

17

15

17

20

43

45

36

56

30

13

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Other

Donations

Event revenue

Space rental

Service fee

University funding

Government subsidy/grant

Corporate sponsorship

Return on equity

Global avg.

Europe avg.

Russia avg.

Russia top avg.

FIGURE 4: INCUBATOR AND ACCELERATOR BUSINESS MODELS: SOURCES OF FUNDING (%)

Russia avg. Russia top avg. Europe avg. Global avg.


When interpreting these results, it is important to account for the significant differences in age, available resources, and incubator missions. At $550,000 and with a median of $300,000, the average budget of the Global sample is more than twice as large as the average budget of the Russian sample. Even more noteworthy, only 31 % of the sampled Russian programs maintain a seed fund compared to their European (53 %) and Global (51 %) counterparts.

Moreover, the Russian sample differs from the reference groups in that it encompasses university-linked and univer-sity-unaligned incubators. Average performance between these two sub-samples varies notably with regard to a number of KPIs. For example, together 72 assessed Rus-sian programs helped create on average 309 startup jobs over the past five years, compared to 342 for the European and 493 for the Global sample.

36,1

42,1 42,038,1

46,2

39,4

49,5

41,3

Russia Europe North America

APACLatin America Africa MENA Global

FIGURE 5: SUBCATEGORY - ECONOMY ENHANCEMENT

Economy EnhancementMeasures the economic impact generated by the incubator

KPIsJobs createdSales revenueInternational sponsorsInternational partnersSelf-generated revenue

47,5

56,6

49,351,5

56,3

46,2

54,0 53,0



Applications accepted Non-local applications

Talent RetentionMeasures the incubators contribution to talent (work force) in the region

KPIsNon-locals that remain in the region

FIGURE 6: SUBCATEGORY - TALENT RETENTION

Talent RetentionMeasures the incubators contribution to talent (work force) in the region

KPIsNon-locals that remain in the regionApplications accepted Non-local applications


345336

373

489

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

FIGURE 7: AVERAGE NUMBER OF JOBS CREATED OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS

Russia avg. Russia uni avg. Europe avg. Global avg.

Jobs created — 5 yrs.The total number of people hired/em-ployed by the incubation program and its client startups, in the last 5 year

VALUE FOR CLIENTS

The Value for Clients category assesses the analyzed programs’ ability to provide quality services to their startup clients. 22 KPIs, grouped in the subcategories Competence Development, Access to Funds, and Access to Network are used to calculate incubators’ and accelerators’ performance score in this category. Figures 8, 9 and 11 illustrate the Russian sample’s performance in comparison to international averages.

51,8

56,759,7

54,157,8

54,7

64,1

56,6



Competence DevelopmentMeasures incubators ability to impart relevant skills to its client startups

KPIsCoaching hoursMentoring hoursClients utilizing coachingClients utilizing mentoringCoachesMentorsTraining modules

FIGURE 8: SUBCATEGORY - COMPETENCE DEVELOPMENT

However, as Figure 7 illustrates, Russian university-linked programs helped create 376 jobs on average, more than the European sample’s average. In contrast, the average number of jobs created by university-unaligned programs over the same period was only 52.


39,3

45,6 47,2

38,7

44,9

36,7 38,2

43,2



Access to FundsMeasures incubators ability to provide relevant access to funds to its client startups

KPIsTotal investment attractedAverage size of investmentInvestors invested InvestorsClients who need fundingSeed capital firmsContacts with investors

FIGURE 9: SUBCATEGORY - ACCESS TO FUNDS

In all three subcategories, the Russian average is lower than the global average. The MENA and North America regions achieved the highest average scores with regard to Competence Development. The gap between the average performance scores of top programs and the entire sample in this subcategory is comparatively small for all regions.

6

23

27

5

30

20

10

0

FIGURE 10: INVESTMENT ATTRACTED OVER THE LAST 5 YEARS


Investment attracted — mUSDThe aggregated amount of invest-ment (funds) attracted by the incu-bation program in the last 5 years (in USD $). All sources may include ven-ture capital firms, business angels, corporate investment, government investment etc

The North American and European samples reach the highest average with regard to Access to Funds. The low average scores across samples indicate that incubators and accelerators across the world face significant challenges in helping their clients obtain funding. Despite the fact that the Russian programs as a group outperform Latin America, Africa, and MENA in this subcategory, their clients struggle to secure adequate investments.

For instance, the average number of investors in their networks (12) is significantly smaller than the European (55) and Global (64) averages. Relatedly, as Figure 10 illustrates, they and their client startups have attracted less funding from in-vestors ($5.1 million) over the past five years than the European ($27 million) and Global ($23 million) reference groups.


41,044,2 45,5

39,6

44,9

39,542,6 42,4



Access to NetworkMeasures incubators ability to provide its client startups with quality access to the market place

KPIsContacts with corporationsEventsNational sponsorsNational partnersAlumni networkGovernment contacts Research centers

Moreover, Russian university-linked programs were less likely to invest in their clients directly (32 %) than Global (34 %) or European (41 %) programs. However, university-unaligned programs were more likely (53 %) to do so.

North America and MENA have a slight lead with regard to Access to Network performance data, which is characterized by comparatively little cross-sample variation. Russia again outperforms Latin America and Africa. An important area in this subcategory where Russian programs are particularly active is event organization. Figure 12 illustrates that incubators and accelerators in the European and Global samples organized on average 31 and 33 events per year respec-tively. In contrast, Russian programs arranged 48 events.

3133

48

60

40

20

0

50

FIGURE 12: AVERAGE NUMBER OF EVENTS ORGANIZED BY THE PROGRAMS


FIGURE 11: SUBCATEGORY - ACCESS TO NETWORK

Events — 1 yr.Number of events organized and co-organized by the incubation program


These activities not only help raise awareness, provide networking platforms, and generate interest in entrepreneurship but also serve as important sources of revenue: 39 % of Russian incubators and accelerators stated that event revenue was a key source of funds. In contrast, only 22 % of the European and 19 % of the Global programs indicated that event revenue was a key source of income for them. Not surprisingly, the Russian programs spent on average 18 % of their budget on event organization, while their European and Global peers spent only 9 % and 10 % of their respective budgets.

ATTRACTIVENESSThe Attractiveness category assesses the analyzed programs’ ability to produce successful startups and draw talented entrepreneurs. 11 KPIs, grouped in the subcategories Incubator Offer and Post Incubation Performance are used to cal-culate incubators’ and accelerators’ performance scores in this category. Figures 13 and 15 illustrate the Russian sample’s average performance in comparison to the averages of the international reference groups.

In both subcategories, the Russian average is lower than the global average. The APAC and MENA regions lead with regard to the Incubator Offer subcategory, in which the gap between top-performing programs and regional averages is compara-tively small for all regions.

53,3

60,2

51,955,1

66,1

54,0

65,3

57,5



FIGURE 13: SUBCATEGORY - INCUBATOR OFFER

Incubator OfferMeasures the quality of the incubator services and premises

KPIsIncubator investmentApplications receivedUniversity staffProgram adaptationClients graduated

Despite the fact that the Russian programs do not reach the average performance scores of most reference groups in this subcategory, they have successfully established themselves as attractive options for young entrepreneurs. This is evident in the average number of the applications they receive. Russian programs receive on average 181 applications per year (Figure 14), move than their European and Global peers, who receive 153 and 145 applications respectively. Interestingly, this performance is driven to a large degree by university-unaligned incubators.

The APAC and European samples lead in the Post-Incubation Performance subcategory. However, a larger percentage of startup clients of Russian incubators and accelerators generate a profit within five years post-graduation (27 %) than those of their European counterparts (19 %). At the same time, more incubated Russian startups cease to exist in the same period (22 %) than ventures incubated by European programs (17 %).


181

145153

133133

200

150

100

50

0

Global avg.Europe avg.Russia avg.Russia uni. avg.

Dealflow – 1 yr.

The total number of applications received by the incu-bation program per year, using the year 2015 as a reference. An application is considered as formal paper/online application received as an official request to enter the incubator’s program. Oral or informal discussions with prospective clients do not constitute formal applications.

FIGURE 15: SUBCATEGORY - POST-INCUBATION PERFORMANCE


Dealflow – 1 yr.The total number of applications received by the incubation program per year, using the year 2015 as a ref-erence. An application is considered as formal paper/online application received as an official request to enter the incubator’s program. Oral or informal discussions with prospec-tive clients do not constitute formal applications

50,9

57,0

51,1

55,8

61,1

55,951,9

55,8



FIGURE 14: AVERAGE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS RECEIVED PER YEAR

Post Incubation PerformanceMeasures incubators ability to produce growth companies

KPIsIPOsClients acquiredClients profitableClients growingClients survivingClients terminated

CROSS-NATIONAL SUBCATEGORY COMPARISONSThis subsection compares the Russian sample’s average subcategory performance scores to samples from Brazil, Canada, and Taiwan. As Figure 16 illustrates, the state of the developing Brazilian incubation ecosystem (average total performance score: 48.1) is in many ways comparable to the developing Russian incubation ecosystem (48.7). In contrast, the highly de-veloped incubators and accelerators of Canada (52.3) and Taiwan (56.8) are among the most mature, effective, and efficient entrepreneurship environments in the world. For example, the direct comparison reveals notable differences in perfor-mance of up to 33 % (Economy Enhancement) between the Taiwanese and Russian average subcategory scores.


36

4852

39 41

53 51

34

5349

38 37

5155

4448

60

44

5257

54

48

5760

4448

6764

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Economy Enhancement Talent Retention Competence Development

Access to Funds Access to Network Incubator Offer Post Incubation Performance

FIGURE 16: SUBCATEGORY PERFORMANCE - RUSSIA VS. BRAZIL, CANADA, AND TAIWAN

Russia avg. Brazil avg. Canada avg. Taiwan avg.

FIGURE 17: SUBCATEGORY PERFORMANCE - TOP 10 % RUSSIA VS. TOP 10 % BRAZIL, TOP 10% CANADA, AND TOP10% TAIWAN

49

61

73

46

64

72

62

40

73

56

41

49

5661

78

67

87

49

92

70

82

7269

82

5761

75

84

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Economy Enhancement Talent Retention Competence Development

Access to Funds Access to Network Incubator Offer Post Incubation Performance

Russia top avg. Brazil top avg. Canada top avg. Taiwan top avg.

Figure 17 illustrates how Russian top-performing incubators are compared to their Brazilian, Canadian, and Taiwanese peers.

Russian top incubators and accelerators compare much more favorably with their international reference groups. In fact, they outperform Brazil’s top programs with regard to six of the seven subcategories, Taiwan’s top programs with regard to Access to Network, and Canada’s top programs with regard to the Incubator Offer subcategory.


This insight further highlights the significant performance gap between Russia’s top incubators and accelerators and the country’s average. Figure 18 illustrates the noteworthy gap between the top 10 % of surveyed Russian programs and the national average in all seven subcategories. This gap is further evident in the large spread for both Russian samples — the university-linked as well as the university-unaligned programs.

Russian top-ranked incubators and accelerators outperform the Russian average in the three subcategories Value for Ecosystem, Value for Clients and Attractiveness by 31 %, 38 %, and 28 % respectively. They provide a larger variety of services to their startup clients and have a higher number of coaches and mentors at their disposal. They organize a greater number of events and have established impressive networks of investors, partners, and sponsors whose sizes even significantly exceed global averages. Not surprisingly, the average amount of investment attracted by their client startups over the past five years ($8.3 million) is almost 40 % higher than the national average. Relatedly, the number of client startups that have successfully graduated from top incubation programs is nearly 3.5 times higher than the national average.

51

53

41

39

52

48

36

62

72

64

46

73

61

49

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Post-Incubation Performance

Incubator Offer

Access to Network

Access to Funds

Competence Development

Talent Retention

Economy Enhancement

FIGURE 18: SUBCATEGORY PERFORMANCE - RUSSIA TOP 10 % VS. RUSSIA NATIONAL AVG.

Russia top avg. Russia avg.

19 - Rankings Russian National Benchmark 16/17

The assessment and ranking process outlined above resulted in a clear performance rank order of the 59 assessed uni-versity-linked incuba tors and accelerators. The four categories defined in Section 2 reflect the different missions and modi operandi of different types of incubation and acceleration programs:

1. University Business Incubators (directly managed by or affiliated with a university)

2. University Associated Business Incubators (cooperates but has no formal affiliation with a university)

3. University Business Accelerators (directly managed by or affiliated with a university)

4. University Associated Business Accelerators (cooperates but has no formal affiliation with a university)

UNIVERSITY BUSINESS INCUBATORS1 Business Incubator of ITMO University ITMO University St.Petersburg 2 Business Incubator of Irkutsk National

Research Technical University Irkutsk State Technical University Irkutsk

3 TUSUR Business Incubation Program “Druzhba”

Tomsk State University of Control Systems and Radioelectronics

Tomsk

UNIVERSITY ASSOCIATED BUSINESS INCUBATORS1 Technopark “Zhiguli Valley” Togliatti State University, Volga Region State

University of Service Togliatti

2 Development Corporation of Zelenograd National Research University of Electronic Technology

Moscow, Zelenograd

3 Residentship Program of Ingria Business Incubator

ITMO University, Saint Petersburg State University, HSE, St. Petersburg Polytechnic University

St. Petersburg

UNIVERSITY BUSINESS ACCELERATORS1 Captains Plekhanov University of Economics Moscow 2 iDealMachine ITMO University St. Petersburg3 Accelerator UrFU Ural Federal University Yekaterinburg

UNIVERSITY ASSOCIATED BUSINESS ACCELERATORS1 Acceleration program of Pulsar

Venture Capital Kazan Federal University, Kazan National Research Technological University, Kazan National Research Technical University named after A.N.Tupolev, Kazan State Agrarian University, Kazan State University of Architecture and Engineering, Tomsk State University, Perm State University, Innopolis University, Higher School of Economics, Ural Federal University

Kazan

2 IIDF 100+ university partners Moscow 3 NUMA Moscow Acceleration Financial University under the Government of the

Russian Federation, British Higher School of Design, Moscow Polytechnic University, Bauman Moscow State Technical University

Moscow

4 RANKINGS

FIGURE 19: TOP PERFORMING RUSSIAN UNIVERSITY-LINKED INCUBATORS AND ACCELERATORS

20 - Recommendations Russian National Benchmark 16/17

The results of the Russian National Benchmark Study 2016 / 17 demonstrate that Russian incubators and ac-celerators as a whole — despite notable differences in the size and composition of their client bases, work-forces, resources or budgets — are having a signifi-cant impact on Russia’s economy as well as on emerg-ing generations of young entrepreneurs.

At the same time, it has become evident that the country’s incubators and accelerators as a group face some import-ant challenges, most notably the continuing difficulty for startups to gain access to capital. While they outperform international competitors with regard to a number of key performance indicators, Russian incubators and acceler-ators as a whole do not yet reach the same performance levels as the Global and European reference groups.

While Russia’s top programs can compete with the most successful programs worldwide, the vast ma-jority of the country’s incubators and accelerators are struggling to keep up with the global average. Given the outstanding performance of top Russian incubators, it is highly advisable that other programs in the ecosystem learn from the best practices implemented by this group. Doing so would allow the programs to close the performance gap between Russia and its Global peers and become more com-petitive in the global innovation marketplace. The following recommendations are based on the best practices provided by Russian as well as international top-performing incuba-tion and acceleration programs:

RECOMMENDATION 1: MEASURE AND IMPROVE PERFORMANCEAny attempt to improve an incubation program’s performance needs to be based on a thorough analysis of its strength and weaknesses. Consequently, defining relevant KPIs and setting up a system to consistently measure and monitor perfor-mance over time is a crucial prerequisite. Moreover, providing tangible evidence of the impact of the program, the gener-ated data can be used to inform communication strategies to attract partners, sponsors, and investors, as well as startup clients. Russian and international best practices should be carefully studied and applied in order to overcome the identified challenges and fully develop each program’s potential.

RECOMMENDATION 2: RAISE AWARENESSMany Russian programs are relatively unknown to potential stakeholders and clients alike. In contrast, top-performing programs have developed effective strategies to make their extensive services and successes known. For instance, they routinely organize events that are targeted towards specific audiences and have specific goals. Engaging stakeholders in multiple, tailored ways allows for a higher quantity and quality of deal flow and opens up communication channels with potential partners and sponsors.

RECOMMENDATION 3: NURTURE RELATIONSHIPSIncubation and acceleration programs perform best when they are integrated into well-functioning innovation ecosystems. Top performing entrepreneurship programs worldwide put substantial efforts into maintaining partnerships with other incubation programs, industry associations, investor networks, and corporate sponsors. These connections are vital for learning about best practices, establishing advisor, investor, and customer networks, gaining access to resources, forming

5 RECOMMENDATIONS

21 - Recommendations Russian National Benchmark 16/17

strategic alliances, and attracting future clients. Moreover, they interconnect the different partners among each other, thus generating genuine innovation ecosystems. These ecosystems are underdeveloped in many regions of Russia to date.

RECOMMENDATION 4: CREATE AND SUSTAIN A CULTURE OF INNOVATIONThe world’s leading innovation hubs, from Silicon Valley to Moscow are characterized by and actively cultivate a genuine culture of innovation. Such environments are characterized by the existence of large alumni networks, extensive feeder systems, willingness to volunteer, and a positive outlook on entrepreneurship and innovation. In the words of Paul Graham, co-founder of Y Combinator: “Start-ups beget start-ups. People who work for start-ups start their own. People who get rich from start-ups fund new ones. I suspect this kind of organic growth is the only way to produce a start-up hub because it’s the only way to grow the expertise you need.”

The establishment of such a culture requires time and significant investments. For instance, it is essential to further train incubator staff to be able to provide the highest quality and quantity of services. Moreover, many incubators and accelera-tors need to professionalize their client selection process to increase the probability of graduate success. Each successful graduate in turn contributes to the development of the respective ecosystem by creating jobs and globally competitive com-panies. The successful entrepreneurs at their helm inspire aspiring founders and could bolster the programs’ recruitment, mentoring and promotional strategies.

No advanced economy can thrive without continuing investments in incubation and acceleration programs. It is crucial to implement consistent and long-term policy frameworks that optimize planning security, stakeholder buy-in and return on investment. This benchmark study has revealed that Russian innovation programs, despite their comparatively young ages, limited budgets, and smaller workforces, have achieved remarkable successes in a very short period. Despite the challeng-es they continue to face, they have become indispensable elements of the Russian innovation ecosystem that not only con-tribute to the economic bottom line but encourage, train and support the innovators of tomorrow.

22 - Participant Directory Russian National Benchmark 16/17

6 PARTICIPANT DIRECTORY

INCUBATOR / ACCELERATOR UNIVERSITY CITY

Autonomous Institution Technopark-Mordovia All-Russian Scientific Research Institute of Aviation Materials, Mordovia State University, ITMO University, St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Radio-engineering and Electronics, Saint Petersburg Electrotechnical University

Saransk

Acceleration program “Guide on Innovation 2.0” Bashkir State University, VEGU Academy Ufa

Acceleration program of Pulsar Venture Capital Kazan Federal University, Kazan National Research Technological University, Kazan National Research Technical University named after A. N. Tupolev, Kazan State Agrarian University, Kazan State University of Architecture and Engineering, Tomsk State University, Perm State University, Innopolis University, Higher School of Economics, Ural Federal University

Kazan

Accelerator “Impulse-A” Northern (Arctic) Federal University, Northern State Medical University

Arkhangelsk

Accelerator UrFU Ural Federal University Yekaterinburg

APIT university-unaligned Moscow

Arkhangelsk Business Incubator Northern (Arctic) Federal University Arkhangelsk

Autonomous Non-Profit Organization “Obninsk Business Incubator”

Obninsk Institute for Nuclear Power Engineering

Obninsk

biz14school Schools of Saratov Saratov

Bor business-incubator N. I. Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod

Bor

Business Incubator “LIFT” Astrakhan State University, Astrakhan State Technical University, Astrakhan State University of Civil Engineering

Astrakhan

Business Incubator “Polytechnic” St. Petersburg Polytechnic University St. Petersburg

Business Incubator by the Pikalevo Entrepreneurship Support Fund

university-unaligned Pikalevo

Business Incubator of “STROGINO” Technopark Moscow State University of Railway Engineering, Moscow Institute of Electronics and Mathematics

Moscow

Business Incubator of High Technology Park “IT-park”

Kazan Federal University Kazan, Naberezhnye Chelny

Business incubator of HSE HSE — Higher School of Economics Moscow

Business Incubator of Irkutsk National Research Technical University

Irkutsk State Technical University Irkutsk

Business Incubator of ITMO University ITMO University St. Petersburg



Business Incubator of Perm City university-unaligned Perm

Business Incubator of Perm National Research Polytechnic University

Perm National Research Polytechnic University

Perm

Business Incubator of Plekhanov University of Economics

Plekhanov University of Economics Moscow

Business Incubator of St. Petersburg State University of Economics

St. Petersburg State University of Economics Vsevolozhsk

Business Incubator of The Chechen State University Chechen State University Grozny

Business Incubator of Vsevolozhsk Russian State University for the Humanities, Vsevolozhsk branch

Vsevolozhsk

Development Corporation of Zelenograd National Research University of Electronic Technology

Moscow

Business Incubator StartLab Far Eastern State Transport University Khabarovsk

Business Incubator, Vologda Region Vologda State University Vologda

Business-Energy Ivanovo State Power Engineering University Ivanovo

Business-incubator IT-park ALANIA North Caucasus Mining and Metallurgical Institute

Vladikavkaz

Business Incubator of Academpark Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk State Academy of Architecture and Fine Arts, Novosibirsk state university of economics and management, Novosibirsk State Technical University, Novosibirsk State Agrarian University, Siberian State University of Water Transport, Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University, Siberian Transport University, Siberian State University of Geosystems and Technologies, Siberian State University of Telecommunications and Information Sciences

Novosibirsk

Captains Plekhanov University of Economics Moscow

Centre for the Development of Small Business and Consumer Market

university-unaligned Kingisepp

Educational program “Pusk” Vyatskaya State Agricultural Academy Kirov

Formula BIOTECH 2016 Moscow State University Moscow

Foundation for SME Development — Microfinance organization Gatchina

university-unaligned Gatchina

Fregat Moscow State University, Sevastopol branch Sevastopol

Glazov Business Incubator university-unaligned Glazov

GUP RK “RP “Business-incubator” Syktyvkar State University Syktyvkar



GVAccelerator Moscow State University, HSE — Higher School of Economics

Moscow

iDealMachine ITMO University St. Petersburg

IIDF 100+ university partners Moscow

Innovation Center MOZGOVO Perm State University Perm

IT-Park 74 Chelyabinsk State University, South Ural State University

Chelyabinsk

Kabardino-Balkarian Business Incubator Kabardino-Balkarian State University Nalchik

Kirishi Business Incubator university-unaligned Kirishi

MFO “Business Development Fund” university-unaligned Priozersk

MGIMO University Business Incubator MGIMO University Moscow

Municipal Autonomous Institution Business Incubator “GCRP”

Novosibirsk state university of economics and management

Novosibirsk

Municipal Budgetary Institution “Biysk Business-Incubator”

Biysk Technological Institute Biysk

NUMA Moscow Acceleration Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, British Higher School of Design, Moscow Polytechnic University, Bauman Moscow State Technical University

Moscow

PERI Innovations Dagestan State Technical University Makhachkala

Possibility Navigator Higher School of Economics, Perm Perm

Republic of Buryatia Business Incubator Buryat State University, East Siberian State University of Technology and Management

Ulan-Ude

Residentship Program of Ingria Business Incubator ITMO University, Saint Petersburg State University, HSE, St. Petersburg Polytechnic University

St. Petersburg

Scientific-educational center “Business-incubator” Oryol State University Oryol

Skolkovo SEED Accelerator Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology Moscow

Slantsy Business Incubator university-unaligned Slantsy

Social Innovations Santa Clara University Moscow, Odintsovo, Rostov-On-Don, Perm, Samara

South IT_Park Southern Federal University Rostov-On-Don

Startup Accelerator RedLamp Petrozavodsk State University Petrozavodsk

StartupSamara Accelerator Samara University Samara

State regional budget institution “Murmansk Regional Innovation Business Incubator”

Murmansk Arctic State University Murmansk

Student Business Incubator NSTU NSTU Novosibirsk State Technical University Novosibirsk



Student Business Incubator OREH North-Eastern Federal University in Yakutsk Yakutsk

Sudogda Business Incubator university-unaligned Sudogda

Technopark “Zhiguli Valley” Togliatti State University, Volga Region State University of Service

Togliatti

The First St. Petersburg Business-Incubator Baltic Academy For Tourism And Entrepreneurship, St. Petersburg State Institute of Mechanical Engineering, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, Russian State Hydro-meteorological University, Herzen University, Saint-Petersburg State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering, National Mineral Resources University, St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, St. Petersburg State University of Trade and Economics, Saint Petersburg State University, Saint Petersburg State University of Aerospace Instrumentation, Saint Petersburg State University of Economics, Saint Petersburg Electrotechnical University, Saint-Petersburg Academic University of Management and Economics

St. Petersburg

TUSUR Business Incubation Program “Druzhba” Tomsk State University of Control Systems and Radio-electronics

Tomsk

Volkhov Business Incubator university-unaligned Volkhov

Win!Cubator university-unaligned Krasnodar

Yekaterinburg Center of Enterprise Development Ural State Economic University Yekaterinburg

Youth Innovation Business Incubator RUDN University

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia Moscow

IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF UNIVERSITY-LINKEDBUSINESS INCUBATORS AND ACCELERATORS

National Benchmark 16/17 Report

Documents

NATIONAL Benchmark 16/17 · ubi global contributors george gogolev, director of communications, rvc denis matvienko, head of innovation communities development, rvc mikhail erman,