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.