i

Vrije University Amsterdam and University of Amsterdam

MSc Entrepreneurship Master Thesis

Exploratory research of Dutch technology incubators: examination of the

factors defining successful incubation of technology start-ups and how they

relate to entrepreneur’s expectations?

Name: Martin Dostal

Student number: 11085223

Date of submission: 27.7.2016

Supervisor: Dr. Mirjam Leloux

ii

Executive Summary

Many researches are dealing with the impacts of incubation programs on incubated start-ups; however,

limited attempt has been made to define and analyse factors that lead to successful incubation of

technology start-ups within high-tech incubators. The aim of this thesis is to clearly outline elements

and aspects that majorly contribute to a successful incubation of given firm and, at the same time,

provide practical implications for researched incubators. The empirical data is collected through nine

semi-structured interviews with entrepreneurs who experienced incubation program of three technology

incubators: Yes!Delft, BTC Twente and Ace Venture Lab. The theoretical framework is based on

existing academic literature out of which three core assumptions that guide the research are deduced:

access to financing, customer acquisition and access to skilled workforce, out of which, according to

the findings only the last two can be fully supported.

Firstly, researched tech incubators are generally perceived as ineffective in the acquisition of funding.

Although their tenants acknowledge the importance of funding, majority of them did not use the

opportunity to exploit incubators’ network of investors. Secondly, despite having insufficient networks

that would directly help their tenants to acquire new customers, incubators offer business education,

which is perceived by their tenants as crucial because it helps them to attract new clients independently.

Lastly, the connection of the incubator with the university is highly valued by interviewed

entrepreneurs. They are able to exploit technical facilities of affiliated institutions and at the same time

they are able to attract skilled and technically experienced workforce.

Therefore, the success factors outlined from the discussion section are: 1. Connection with the

university; 2. Business support; 3. Access to funding.

Even though all incubators offer these services to some extent, their practical execution is imperfect

and could be improved; thus, set of practical recommendations was created.

iii

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Background and motivation ......................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Problem statement and research outline ....................................................................................... 2

1.3. Research Question ....................................................................................................................... 2

1.3.1. Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 3

1.4. Structure ....................................................................................................................................... 3

1.5. Limitations ................................................................................................................................... 3

2. Literature review ................................................................................................................................. 5

2.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 5

2.2. General taxonomy of incubators .................................................................................................. 5

2.3. High-tech incubators .................................................................................................................... 8

2.3.1. Technology ventures ............................................................................................................. 8

2.3.2. High-tech incubators ............................................................................................................. 9

2.4. Incubation process ..................................................................................................................... 11

2.4.1. Incubator’s offerings ........................................................................................................... 12

2.5. Factors of successful incubators ................................................................................................ 15

2.6. Theoretical framework ............................................................................................................... 16

2.6.1. Key performance indicators ................................................................................................ 17

2.7. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 18

3. Methodology and research design ..................................................................................................... 19

3.1. Research design and strategy ..................................................................................................... 19

3.1.1. Reliability ............................................................................................................................ 20

3.1.2. Validity ............................................................................................................................... 20

3.2. Sampling .................................................................................................................................... 21

3.2.1. Limitations ........................................................................................................................... 22

3.3. Cross-comparison ...................................................................................................................... 23

3.4. Data collection ........................................................................................................................... 23

3.5. Methods of analysis ................................................................................................................... 24

4. Results ............................................................................................................................................... 27

4.1. General motivations ................................................................................................................... 27

4.2. Financial resources ..................................................................................................................... 29

4.2.1 Process of funding securement ............................................................................................ 29

4.2.2. What was useful to secure the funding ............................................................................... 30

4.3. Business development ................................................................................................................ 32

4.3.1. Customer acquisition........................................................................................................... 32

iv

4.3.2. Business support ................................................................................................................. 33

4.4 Access to skilled workforce ........................................................................................................ 34

4.5. Evaluation .................................................................................................................................. 36

4.5.1 Biggest added value ............................................................................................................. 36

4.5.2. Missing elements................................................................................................................. 37

5. Discussion and Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 39

5.1. Assumptions ............................................................................................................................... 39

5.1.1. Financial Resources ............................................................................................................ 39

5.1.2. Customer acquisition & business development .................................................................. 40

5.1.3. Access to skilled workforce ................................................................................................ 40

5.2. Influence of expectations ........................................................................................................... 41

5.3. Success factors ........................................................................................................................... 42

5.4. Practical implications ............................................................................................................. 43

5.5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 44

5.6. Limitations and future direction ................................................................................................. 44

References ............................................................................................................................................. 46

Appendices ............................................................................................................................................ 53

Appendix 1 - Interview protocol ....................................................................................................... 53

Appendix 2 - Description of researched start-ups ............................................................................. 55

Appendix 3 - Description of incubators ............................................................................................ 58

Appendix 4 – Interviews’ transcription ............................................................................................ 60

v

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1 ................................................................................................................................................... 6

Figure 2 ................................................................................................................................................... 6

Figure 3 ................................................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 4 ................................................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 5 ................................................................................................................................................. 11

Figure 6 ................................................................................................................................................. 12

Figure 7 ................................................................................................................................................. 13

Figure 8 ................................................................................................................................................. 16

Figure 9 ................................................................................................................................................. 20

Figure 10 ............................................................................................................................................... 22

Figure 11 ............................................................................................................................................... 24

Figure 12 ............................................................................................................................................... 25

Figure 13 ............................................................................................................................................... 26

Figure 14 ............................................................................................................................................... 28

Figure 15 ............................................................................................................................................... 29

Figure 16 ............................................................................................................................................... 32

Figure 17 ............................................................................................................................................... 34

Figure 18 ............................................................................................................................................... 36

Figure 19 ............................................................................................................................................... 38

Figure 20 ............................................................................................................................................... 41

Figure 21 ............................................................................................................................................... 42

vi

Preface

I would like to express my eternal gratitude to my friends and family, who despite my objections,

supported me throughout the process of thesis. I would also like thank to all the strange and fascinating

people who embraced me in the beautiful city of Amsterdam and adopted me as their own. Lastly, I

must share my thanks with our saviour, the lord Jesus Christ, who, with his everlasting grace, showed

me the courage to get to the end of this challenging and beautiful academic journey.

Another person I would like to express my gratitude to is my supervisor, Mirjam Leloux. She skilfully

guided me through the process and when I was not sure about the direction of my thesis she got me

back on track and made me focus on the important stuff.

Lastly, I would like to thank to all the interviewed entrepreneurs. Their willingness to help and to

provide me with their unique experiences was amazing and I am very grateful for it. The interviews

often turned into casual and very interesting conversations and for that I also share my thanks!

1

1. Introduction

1.1. Background and motivation

“Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.”

Seneca

Entrepreneurship is a driving force of local economic development (Murray, 2001). As such, it is an

emerging area of focus among politicians, academics and general public (Gartner, 1990). Considering

the declining, weak, and pessimistically viewed condition of post 2008 European economy,

Entrepreneurship is considered a tool that could boost and revive stagnating local economies, which

eventually lead to the development and exploration of programs that would nurture aspiring

entrepreneurs (Wiggins and Gibson, 2003).

Emerging enterprises face many challenges, such as undercapitalisation, poor management or

competition, which may cause venture failure (Verma, 2004). In the Netherlands, over 6000 new

enterprises went bankrupt in 2015 according to the Chamber of Commerce (2015). In order to increase

the chances of succeeding and reduce potential challenges, Dutch government has developed

institutions such as incubators, accelerators and science parks through which they support and nourish

entrepreneurship. Incubator is defined as a ‘catalyst tool for economic development which provides

entrepreneurs with a range of business resources and services’ (NBIA, 2007). First incubators emerged

in the United States in the late 50s-early 60s and since then they have spread out to the rest of the world.

In the Netherlands there were 57 business incubators in 2015, which in comparison to 850 incubators

in the United States is more, considering the ration of incubator per capita (Dutch Incubation

Association, 2015; Wiggins and Gibson, 2003). Furthermore, Dutch incubation scene has, according to

Salido et al. (2013), the highest entrepreneurial activity in the European Union. With its 10% of the

adult population being active in some sort of entrepreneurial endeavour it surpasses other European

pro-entrepreneurship countries such as the United Kingdom (9%), Germany (5%) or Sweden (6%). On

more recent note, in 2016 Amsterdam has been ranked as the third most popular start-up location in

Europe with Berlin being the first and London the second (Thannhuber et al. 2016). On top of that,

Dutch start-up population has grown by 31% since 2015, which is significantly higher than comparable

countries such as the UK (17%) or Germany (11%). Altogether it means that the idea of incubation in

Europe and in the Netherlands in particular is not entirely new; however, its renaissance started in early

90s and as a field it experiences immense growth since then (Allen and McCluskey, 1990; Barrow,

2001; Bergek and Norrman, 2008; Lalkaka and Bishop, 1996).

Incubators did not become just a useful tool for government bodies to support entrepreneurship, they

also became a tool to interconnect universities and private investors (Hoffman and Radojvich-Kelley,

2012). Technology based universities in particular benefit from the growth of entrepreneurship and

incubators. As they are actively involved in various types of technology research that requires public

2

but also commercial funding, they are a suitable place for an incubator that connects commercial and

public sphere (Fini, Grimaldi, and Sobrero, 2009; Lalkala, 1996; Siegel, Veugelers, and Wright, 2007).

It is apparent that universities, incubators and entrepreneurship are interconnecting themes that, with

the growth of entrepreneurship in the Netherlands, became hot issues in the eyes of researchers and

practitioners, which along with following gap in the literature, was the motivation for this research.

1.2. Problem statement and research outline

Due to the growing phenomena of entrepreneurship and business incubation, academic researchers have

explored this field in depth over the past decade (Dempwolf et al. 2014). The general impact of

incubators on their clients, local economies and/or stakeholders has been researched thoroughly;

however, the incubation process of technology incubators in relation to its impact on the survival,

growth, market readiness and technology development of its clients is covered insufficiently. Moreover,

the success of an incubation program is vaguely defined and is measured based on criteria that is

developed individually by each incubator. Limited attempt has been made yet to explore the factors that

would be leading to successful incubation of technological ventures. This thesis captures this gap in

academic research.

According to Studdard (2006) and Arlotto et al. (2011), one of the suitable approaches to determine the

effectiveness of an incubator would be to evaluate and assess the success of its incubates. Considering

the limited amount of research in this field the research should be of exploratory character. That would

enable the researcher to understand existing connections and dig deeply into the area of high tech

incubation. Therefore, to determine the success factors of tech incubators, existing literature is widely

explored and based on that there are investigated which core areas have to be selected and explored

through further qualitative research. In other words, based on the literature the researcher creates

assumptions that are consequently investigated through incubated start-ups. Building on that the

researcher attempts to create conclusions that would determine the success factors of researched

incubators.

1.3. Research Question

‘Exploratory research of Dutch technology incubators: exploration of the factors that define

successful incubation of technology start-ups and how they relate to entrepreneur’s expectation?’

To capture the gap in the academic research outlined above, the aim of this research is to bring clarity

in the field of technology incubation by exploring factors that are leading to successful incubation of

technology start-ups in Dutch technology incubators. According to the existing literature,

entrepreneur’s expectations of the services offered by incubators are, to a certain degree, mismatched

from the actually received and consumed services; therefore, it is theoretically and practically relevant

to evaluate if incubates’ expectations are in line with the offerings of respective incubators.

Furthermore, it is aimed to explore the relation of ‘theory and practice’ by following theoretically

3

developed assumptions in the research design. On top of that, it is intended to determine impacts of

incubation programs on their tenants and then to conduct a cross-analysis of comparable institutions

and the literature. This way it is possible to add new theoretical concepts on to the current literature and

to create practical recommendations that would offer the incubator’s managers benchmark implications

to sustain or improve their services.

1.3.1. Objectives

- Understand the relation of an incubator and its clients and outline factors defining the successful

incubation

- Investigate the offerings of Dutch high-tech incubators and compare them to the expectations

of their clients

- Explore strong and weak aspects of individual incubators and develop practical

recommendations that would improve their functionality

1.4. Structure

In order to introduce the topic, provide relevant background and overview existing academic literature,

this paper starts with the classification of existing incubators. Further on, the literature explores basic

offerings of technology incubators. Selected incubators for this research are publicly operating

institutions that collaborate with Dutch technology universities. These organisations also share

similarities in terms of their focus, organisational structure, offerings, goals and objectives. Next section

elaborates on the methodological tools used in this research. As it is an exploratory study, qualitative

approach including semi-structured interviews was chosen as an appropriate way to reach the results

(Zikmund et al., 2013). Coding strategy as well as existing methodological limitations are presented.

Following section presents the results of 9 interviews that were conducted with entrepreneurs from three

incubators: Yes!Delft, Ace Venture Lab and BTC Twente. The structure of the results section reflects

the previously outlined assumptions, but at the same time, new findings are also compared and

contrasted. The discussion section explores the meanings of the results and it compares them to the

literature. Lastly, the researcher outlined existing limitations as well as possible future research

directions along with practical implications that could be adopted by researched incubators.

1.5. Limitations

First limitation is concerned with the sample size. Despite conducting 9 interviews with entrepreneurs

from 3 different Dutch technology incubators, this sample size is considered as insufficient to create

conclusions that would represent the whole spectrum of technology incubators. Moreover, in order to

allow for comparison of external incubators, a robust framework was applied in the selection of

researched incubators, yet the extent of applicability reaches just the Dutch environment, averting the

4

overall European context. Thus, the main limitations of this research lies within its ability to be

generalised.

Nonetheless, this study aims for deeper understanding of selected incubators, their processes and

potential factors affecting their success. It does not necessarily have aspirations to create implications

widely generalizable to different contexts and environments. It is a qualitative, in-depth research that

explains given topic, offers propositions and creates a ground for future researchers.

5

2. Literature review

2.1. Introduction

Incubator was defined by Hackett and Dilts (2004) as ‘an enterprise that facilitates the early stage

development of firms by providing office space, shared services and business assistance’. Verma (2004,

p.3) defines incubators ‘…as an organization, which offers a range of business services, and access to

small space on flexible terms, to meet the needs of new firms. The package of services offered by a

business incubator is designed to enhance the success and growth of new enterprises, thus maximising

their impact on economic development.’ Altogether, incubation and business incubators are considered

as a basic tool to support entrepreneurship, innovation, business development, as well as to boost

regional employment (Hacket and Dilts, 2004; Isabelle, 2013; Vema, 2004). By ‘nurturing’ early staged

company, incubator helps to overcome issues such as managerial incompetence, financial constraints,

lack of networks and expensive commercial renting space (McAdam and McAdam, 2008). In general,

incubators try to minimise the risks of market that constrain young entrepreneurs (Van Gelderen et al.

2005). It was found by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD 2002)

that 50-60% of new European enterprises do not survive their first seven years and even though some

authors like Tavoletti (2013) doubt the usefulness of incubators in supporting starting ventures, other

authors, such as Prosser (2014); Watson et al. (1998) claim that incubators are relevant in the

development of new businesses in their infancy period. On top of that, Schwarz and Hornych (2008);

Ferguson and Olofsson, (2004) and Lofsten and Lindelof (2002) claim ‘that on-park firms have higher

survival rates, higher growth rates in terms of employment and sales and a wider market distribution

than comparable off-park firm’. In other words, incubators have generally positive impact on the

development of young enterprises. Nevertheless, as there are various types of incubators it is important

to overview and distinguish among them in order to clearly outline the type of incubator researched in

this thesis.

2.2. General taxonomy of incubators

Despite the fact that ‘incubators’ is not a new topic in the academic literature, a clear consensus on the

classification of different business support institutions has not been created (Dempwolf et al., 2014;

European Commission, 2002; Hackett and Dilts, 2008; Isabelle, 2013). Because of that different

institutions and scholars use various tools to create a taxonomy of incubators; thus, this section provides

brief overview of the most relevant approaches.

6

At first, a distinction between incubators and accelerators is created by Dempwolf et al. (2014) who

defined the main similarities and differences between them in Figure 1. Despite the fact that both entities

strive for the business development and job creation they have different approaches. Accelerators,

unlike incubators, directly invest their funds in exchange for equity stakes in their clients’ future profits;

thus, accelerators generally aim to be for-profit, whereas incubators generally work on the non-for-

profit basis. Moreover, the acceleration program is shorter (3-6months) than incubation programs (0-5

years) (Adkins, 2011; Dempwolf et al., 2014). Nevertheless, as pointed out in the next paragraph, these

differences also depend on further factors, such as geographical location.

Another definition was created by the European Commission whose taxonomy is based on the

management support and the technological level of given incubator (Figure 2). This distinction allows

for differentiation among incubator in terms of their technological and business offering to their clients.

The upper left corner represents low technological and low management support, whereas incubators

in the bottom right corner offer both high management and technological support. The grey rectangle

symbolises incubators that are generally referred to as business incubators (Aerts et al. 2007; European

Commission 2002).

Figure 1

(European Commission, 2002)

Figure 2

7

In contrast to the taxonomy developed by the European Commission, Aernoudt (2004) has created a

classification according to incubator’s philosophy, objectives and industry sector (see Figure 3). This

allows us to see more clearly the goals of individual incubators as well as their involvement with public-

private sector.

Important classification is offered by Grimaldi and Grandi (2005, p.112-113) who considered the main

offerings and the main shareholders (creators) of the incubator. There are four main categories:

1) Business Innovation Centres (BICs) (offering elementary services to their tenants)

2) University Business Incubators (UBIs) (transfer of academic research knowledge to

commercial projects)

3) Independent Private Incubators (IPIs) (created by individuals to assist starting enterprises)

4) Corporate Private Incubators (CPIs) (created by large corporations to support new, innovative

business ideas).

Another aspect differentiating incubators is their approach towards selecting their clients. In simple

terms all incubators have two basic types: ‘survival of the fittest’ or development of individual

entrepreneur (Bergek and Norrman, 2008). Survival of the fittest assumes that those, who already

created a start-up and survived the very initial phases are more likely to succeed in further stages of the

business development. The second approach considers the entrepreneur as a main resource and it aims

to support and develop his/her capability to its fullest.

Lastly, sources of funding define whether the incubator is privately or publicly funded, which ergo

characterise their goals (Zedwitz, 2003). Private incubators (created for example by a corporation) aim

to enhance their return on profit, whereas public ones (created by local or regional government) aim to

support employment, entrepreneurship, innovation in given region and transfer of academic knowledge

(Aerts et al. 2007; Dempwolf et al., 2014). It is in the interest of government organisations to implement

university knowledge into marketable products and effectively commercialise their research projects

(Zedwitz, 2003).

(Aernoudt, 2004) Figure 3

8

Each typology offers a different approach towards evaluating the functions, performances and outcomes

of individual incubators. Different types of incubators are intertwined in terms of the funding, selection

criteria and involvement with educational institutions. The understanding of the taxonomy and different

ways incubators are structured, it sheds light on the developments and functions of technology

incubators, but at the same time the bigger picture of this thesis is offered.

2.3. High-tech incubators

The previous section outlines different types of incubators in order to create general background;

however, as this research is concerned with the incubation within technology incubators, the following

section is concerned with technology oriented ventures and incubators. As classical and technology

ventures have different development and life-cycle, functions of incubators are and must also be

different; thus, it is important to outline the differences and characteristics of tech ventures and,

consequently to define technology incubators and their offerings. In this way it is possible to determine

how technology incubators appropriately adapt to the needs of high tech start-ups and to address how

and in what specific ways technology incubators match new venture support requirements.

2.3.1. Technology ventures

High-tech industry is a highly growing sector that increasingly attracts attention of government and

private sector as well as academia; however, defining a ‘typical’ high-tech enterprise itself is not easy

as majority of them cross borders with traditionally established industries. Despite that, as can be seen

in Figure 4 Zakrzewska-Bielawska (2010) created an overview of characteristics of a high-tech

company. The common characteristic of high-tech businesses is in their effort to constantly innovate,

accumulate knowledge, cooperate with research institutions and acquire high capital investments in the

development of their product or services (OECD, 2009; Zakrzewska-Bielawska, 2010). Furthermore,

considering the amount of R&D required to get the product or service on the market, the development

process is generally extensive in comparison to other industries. On the other hand, the economic returns

of specific high tech sectors, such as software development, IT or human-health biotech, can be

significan’tly larger than traditional sectors (such as agriculture) (Chung-seng, 2000; Maier, 2002;

Natterlund, 2014).

9

2.3.2. High-tech incubators

In the taxonomy it can be seen that technology incubators have high level of technological support

(European Commission, 2002), focus on technology and innovation (Aernoudt, 2004) and focus on

transfer of academic knowledge to commercial sector (Grimaldi and Grandi, 2005). Definition used by

OECD (2010) states that ‘technology incubators, a variant to classical business incubator, assists

technology-oriented entrepreneurs in the start-up and early-development stage of their firms by

providing workspace, shared facilities, and a range of business support services’.

It is increasingly popular for incubators to choose a specialisation; therefore, there is growing number

of biotech/ life science, healthcare, software, mobile applications or ICT incubators (Cordis, 2002;

Isabelle, 2013). Due to the fact that ‘no two incubators are alike’ (Allen and McCluskey, 1990, p. 64),

the high-tech facilities, like science parks, technology and innovation centres are grouped together

through their common characteristics. They are highly specialised institutions that generally facilitate

innovation through technological knowledge transfer between commercial and public sector. In many

Figure 4 (Zakrzewska-Bielawska, 2010)

10

respects they are the same as classical business incubators according to Aernoudt (2004); Bergek and

Norrman (2008); Sa and Lee (2012) and van Zedwitz (2003) as they provide:

1) Business support (coaching by experts in business development)

2) Physical spaces (office space and other resources to support new enterprises)

3) Networking (offering of internal/external network list)

4) Access to financial resources (direct or indirect funding opportunities)

The difference among standard incubators, according to Bergek and Norrman (2008) is selection,

business support and networking. However, the essential differences of regular and high-tech incubators

lie in the basic differences of regular and high-tech businesses because the latter requires large amount

of initial investments to cover expensive equipment, labs meeting legal standards and long term product

development emerging from ongoing academic research (Tavoletti, 2013; Bee, 2004; Zakrzewska-

Bielawska, 2010). In other words, high-tech incubators would be characterised as highly specialised,

generally non-for-profit, predominantly government funded institutions with close ties to universities

and with a strict, highly focused selection process (McAdam and McAdam, 2008). In accordance with

the definition, Isabelle (2013) argues that only certain types of enterprises should consider entering the

high-tech incubation program. It is suitable for:

- Early staged start-ups with long term development

- Sectors with longer time to market

- Sustainably oriented firms

- More focused on economic development

- Generally non-for-profit, older establishments.

In relation to the Netherlands, there are only few places that play a central role in high-tech incubation,

in particular, University of Amsterdam, University of Twente, Delft University of Technology and

Eindhoven University of Technology. Due to the top-notch academic research that is being facilitated

at these universities, larger numbers of university spin-offs requiring business and technology support

are produced. In order to facilitate required services, regional governments in collaboration with

universities has developed high-tech incubators that reside within the university campuses, or in nearby

Science parks. Direct affiliation of universities and high-tech incubators offers solid access to the latest

research, technologies, computing facilities and further educational services to clients of given

incubator (Mian, 1996). Furthermore, Young-Ho Nam (2000) found that publicly funded or co-funded

spaces are more favourable to incubation than private spaces, which is another factor contributing to

the excellent high-tech incubation scene in the Netherlands.

11

2.4. Incubation process

Even though the incubation process for most of the incubators is highly similar containing the same

elements, each author uses a different approach. Accordingly, Bergek and Norrman’s (2008) three step

model (Figure 5) is chosen as a basic framework to describe the incubation process; however, in order

to provide more profound picture other authors and approaches are implemented in the description of

incubation.

Firstly, during the selection process, the applying start-up goes through a screening process, which,

along with the exit strategy, is considered by Aerts et al. (2007) and Lee and Osteryoung (2004) as one

of the most important decisions in the incubation process. High-tech incubators target specific, early

stage technology projects; therefore, they have the advantage of providing services to a homogenous

group, which effectively allows them to achieve higher economies of scale (Hansen et al., 2000; Ratinho

et al., 2011). The universal rule that all incubators follow, regardless of their internal policies, is to

select projects that are in line with their goals and long term strategy (Bergek and Norrman, 2008;

Hackett and Dilts, 2004). As such, they are able to deliver on their goals, which is crucial for acquiring

public support (Lalkala, 1996).

Secondly, the business support comprises of several interconnected areas. Bergek and Norrman (2008,

p. 24-25) argue for business support (entrepreneurial training and business development advice,

accounting, legal matters, advertising and financial assistance), legal advice (helping incubates to

interpret, understand and even influence the institutional demands such as regulations, laws, traditions,

values, and cognitive rules) but also infrastructure (office spaces, support service, network provision),

which is not portrayed in the Figure 5. This is in accordance with Al-Mubaraki and Buslet (2013, p.365)

who outline four types of services that help new businesses to grow: start-up consulting and business

planning, consulting regarding business development and growth, consulting how to access financing,

and training and networking.

Thirdly, through mediation, the incubator interconnects its incubates with relevant stakeholders,

innovation systems and other beneficial networks. The incubator serves as a bridge between the

incubate and its environment (Bergek and Norrman, 2008). In case of technology incubators, it would

be the provision of technological and financial networks, linkage of its clients and finally, access to

affiliated university, which is described by Lowegren (2003) as crucial for early staged high-tech start-

ups.

Figure 5

12

Last part of the incubation process, that is not mentioned in the Figure 5, is a robust exit policy and

graduation of clients. The goal of the exit policy is to secure sufficient turnover of tenants but also to

evaluate whether the objectives and targets were met (Ratinho, 2011; Rothaermel and Thursby, 2005).

Graduation policies of individual incubators are different varying from predetermined time limit to

policies based on client’s growth and development (Isabelle, 2013). In general terms, incubation

programs are designed to provide sufficient time and support for the client to realise its potential and to

become self-sustaining business that does not require additional help. As the development cycle of high-

tech enterprises is longer, they often receive cheaper, subsidies services of the incubator even after the

graduation and after leaving incubator’s physical space (OECD, 2010). Furthermore, graduation is often

closely linked to the acquisition of further financing that sustains ongoing R&D.

Additional model clearly outlining the incubation process and factors affecting it was created by Lalkala

(1996) and can be seen in Figure 6. Although this model contains factors outlined by Bergek and

Norrman’s (2008) framework, it is more expressive in terms of portraying the influences of the external

and internal environments; if these factors combine favourably, conditions leading to successful

incubation can be co-created.

2.4.1. Incubator’s offerings

As briefly outlined in the business support and mediation, it becomes apparent that the intersection of

existing literature in terms of incubation offerings lies within business support, physical facility,

network provision, access to financing and reputation (Aernoudt, 2004; Bergek and Norrman, 2008;

(Lalkala 1996) Figure 6

13

Lalkala, 1996; Mbaraki and Buslet, 2013; Verma, 2004). These areas are summarised in the Figure 7

and explored in more detail below; however, it is important to say that, in spite of describing generally

valid offerings, in practice each of them must be adjusted to individual needs of specific client because

each entrepreneur and project itself is unique (Vohora et al., 2004).

Incubator’s offerings

Business

education Physical facilities Networking

Access to

financing Reputation

Figure 7

Business education is the provision of business development knowledge in form of coaching

and training (Hansen et al., 2000; Scillitoe and Chakrabarti, 2010). Coaching attributes to the fact that

an expert in a given field is assigned to the tenant to provide one-on-one support aimed to accelerate

client’s learning process in terms of business planning, leadership and sales (Aerts et al., 2007). Part of

business support is also the acquisition of specific skills such as accounting and legal matters, which is

particularly important for pro-tech oriented entrepreneurs. It can be argued that high-tech entrepreneurs

have the knowledge and capability to develop an innovative product; however, as these people are

usually technologically educated, they lack the business development knowledge (Studdard, 2006).

Scillitoe and Chakrabarti (2010) pointed out that incubated ventures have tendencies to focus on

mastering their products, services or inventions without fully understanding and exploring their target

market (Lee et al., 2000). In other words, the aim of high-tech incubator is to facilitate the transfer of

business knowledge to the entrepreneur so that the client is capable of developing a viable, functioning

business with a product or a service that is attractive to the market as it satisfies the needs of its target

audience (Natterlund, 2014). That means that quality business coaching should lead to business growth

and development.

Physical facility is one of the basic services offered by most of the incubators. It includes the

provision of working spaces, such as offices, under favourable conditions (either for free or discounted

rent price) (Ratinho, 2011). In terms of high-tech and biotech industry they for instance need equipped

laboratories or research equipment, which can be either facilitated through a partnership with a

university, or it can be part of the incubator itself (Grimaldi and Grandi, 2005; Lowegren, 2003).

Furthermore, due to high concentration of sector like enterprises, a clustering effect is created that is

positively related to business and technology knowledge transfer, cross-fertilising technologies or

networking, which ultimately leads to increased productivity (European Commission, 2002; OECD,

2010). Another positive aspect related to the concentration of ‘like-minded’ people is linked to their

shared experience of starting high-tech enterprise. Watson et al. (2008) notes that one of the critical

factors entrepreneurs face while starting their business is the feeling of loneliness. In many respects this

may be reduced by their close social circles, such as family; however, shared working spaces have

positive impacts on the emotional equilibrium of its tenants (McAdam and McAdam, 2008; Watson et

14

al., 2008). Furthermore, Isabelle (2013) suggests that ‘technology entrepreneurs rarely succeed in

isolation’; thus, the support offered by high-tech incubator is necessary for their development.

Networking is crucial for starting a business. It is recognised by McAdam and McAdam (2008)

that being part of, or in close proximity to a high-tech incubator has positive impacts on interpersonal

interactions, which effectively lead to internal as well as external networking in and outside the

incubator. Sa and Lee (2012) argue that the importance of network for high-tech companies is dependent

of the type of the network. They outlined three types:

1) Advisory: formal channels providing professional services such as legal counsel, business

consultancy and/or financial advice

2) Spin-off: include parent university or corporation from which the firm emerged, the relationship

with previous academic or industrial partner is critical as it serves as ongoing source of

information and resources

3) Strategic: ‘based on intentional alliances among organisation to share information, financial

assets and other resources to reduce risk and enhance firm’s competitive position’ (Gulati et al.,

2000; Wincent, 2008).

Furthermore, it was assessed by (George et al., 2002) as well as Scillitoe and Chakrabarti (2010) that

part of networking is also technical assistance, which includes ‘access to university research activity

and technologies, laboratories and workshop spaces and facilities, industry contacts, technology transfer

processes, research and technology supply pipelines, intellectual property protection and technological

know-how skills’ (p.157). Technology ventures often do not have sufficient technology know-how to

bring the innovation to the market; thus, there is in a need of external assistance (Deeds et al., 1999).

Empirical evidence suggests that networks are critical for the development of tenant companies;

therefore, incubators actively promote networking and further mutual interconnection of their clients

and their external networks (Hansen et al., 2000; McAdam and McAdam, 2008).

Access to financing is of key importance for a starting venture as it offers financial stability as

well as further development and growth of the company (Aernoudt, 2004). It is even more critical for

high-tech start-ups because, as noted before, the research and development of a product or a service is

extremely costly and time consuming. Tollman et al. (2001) mentioned that the R&D process of high-

tech or biotech firm can take up to 15 years with estimated costs reaching up to £600 million; therefore,

it is essential for an emerging project to secure funding to reach next phase of its development (Tavoletti

2013; Bee, 2004). The acquisition of funding is often done through the external partners of given

incubator, or through the corporation from which given start-up emerged. Incubator itself can have its

own financing scheme, however, it is more important to have quality network of investors that are, on

a regular basis, introduced to its incubates.

Reputation goes hand in hand with financing because well-known incubators are more likely

to attract more appealing venture capitalists and angel investors. As entrepreneurial firms have

15

difficulties with reputation due to their high level of volatility, incubator’s reputation has a strong impact

on it (Aldrich, 2000). They are not considered as trustworthy clients in comparison to larger and more

established organisational structures; therefore, the acceptance into the incubation program provides the

enterprise with an existing reputation of an incubator (Aldrich and Martinez, 2001). It is obviously

dependent on the good name of the incubation institution; however, in general, an incubator offers

credibility and reduces the risk involved with the investment into early staged company (Studdart,

2006). Furthermore, good reputation of an incubator bestows its incubate with higher credibility, which

may be eventually beneficial in the acquisition of customers (Aldrich, 2000).

All of the coaching elements are crucial for firm’s survival; therefore, it would seem fundamental that

early stage firms obtaining incubation support would have higher survival rate than those that do not.

However, according to Ratinho et al. (2013) and Aernoudt (2004) the difference may not be as explicit.

In their studies they discovered that when tenanting start-ups faced a problem it was generally not solved

due to the advice of the incubator. This may be partly accounted to the unwillingness of the tenants to

share their problem with their coaches; nonetheless, even when they did, the problem was mainly solved

through their own human capital. As a consequence, Ratinho et al. (2011) assumed that there might be

a mismatch not just in tenant’s perspectives of their problems and actual needs, but also between the

actual support of the incubator and client’s actual needs. So that the next section focuses on the areas

of the incubation process that positively affect the success outcomes of the incubation process.

2.5. Factors of successful incubators

Success is broadly defined as ‘a result or outcome, or a favourable or satisfactory result or outcome’

(Saarien, 1996). Lalkaka (1996) claims that the performance of an incubator should be measured by the

survival rate of the incubated business. In contrast to that, Campbell and Allen (1987) argue that the

incubator’s success should be measured against the goals and objectives that the incubator is trying to

achieve. It is apparent that the literature, once again, does not provide any unanimity regarding the

criteria necessary for the success of incubators, leading to several measurement systems and indefinite

conclusions (Verma, 2004). Even though no conclusive standardised evaluation method have been

agreed upon, the literature indicates strong connection between the success of a client and an incubator;

thus, that the success of an incubator depends on the success of its incubates (Franco-Santos et al.,

2007).

Successful outcome depends on the mix of different, yet intertwined services offered by the incubator.

Nonetheless, it is yet unknown which in particular are the most relevant to incubated companies.

Natterlund (2014) acknowledges wider implications of incubators on incubates. She argues that high-

tech ventures are usually founded by researchers, scientists or other technology focused people who

have little or no business knowledge. For that the business coaching is a key element of incubation

process but at the same time Yagüe-Perales et al., (2012) place the same importance on funding

acquisition and networks creation. Furthermore, in spite of the recent open innovation movement, she

16

brings up an element of patenting an intellectual property, which according to Zidorn & Wagner (2012)

is also a key success factor for technology start-ups. Other authors emphasise, apart from already

described factors, the element of selection. Aerts et al. (2007), Verma (2004) and Isabelle (2013) argue

that robust selection criteria that aligns accepted projects in line with the goals and objectives of given

incubators, are crucial for further success of the venture and the incubator. In contrast to that, Studdard

(2006, p.211) conducted a research where he tried to understand ‘how the entrepreneurial firm’s

acquisition of business processes knowledge from interaction with incubator management positively

impacts on new product development, increased technical competence, enhanced reputation and lower

costs of sales to customers’. Despite potential biases coming from the single-response, self-reporting

data, he concluded that the only significan’t gain technology ventures get through the interaction with

the incubation manager is improved reputation (Studdard, 2006). Incubator’s good reputation increases

the chances to appeal to more attractive VCs and angel investors, which eventually leads to higher

chances of receiving necessary funding.

2.6. Theoretical framework

Theoretical framework aims to offer clarification of how the practical research of this thesis is

constructed and what is the operationalisation process of the research question. Considering previously

outlined literature, in this further section, the three core assumptions identified are explicitly discussed.

Each incubator has its own ways of defining success, which means that there could be used various

approaches. Deducing from the literature, the most suitable approach for this research is to define the

success of an incubator through the success of its clients, which also means that these assumptions aim

to capture the growth and development of incubated ventures. Thus, apart from capturing the growth of

the venture and consequent success of the incubator, these assumptions also serve as a framework that

creates boundaries of theoretical concepts, which are further explored in the methodology section along

with the rationale for conducted interviews.

Thus, in other words, as summarised in the Figure 8, the framework of this research is based on the five

offerings, which are operationalised into three assumptions that guide the researcher through the

practical aspects of this research. In terms of coding and further data analysis, the researcher used the

offerings to code the data (see Figure 11, 12 and 13) and the assumptions to structure the results;

however, the methodology section offers more clarity about the actual data analysis.

Incubator’s offerings

Business

education Physical facilities Networking

Access to

financing Reputation

Core assumptions

Financial resources Customer acquisition Access to skilled workforce

Figure 8

17

2.6.1. Key performance indicators

In order to be able to determine whether the incubator delivers on its tenant’s expectations, it is

necessary to examine the progress and development of incubates within an incubation program. Due to

the chosen approach that the success of incubators is dependent on the success of its clients (Ratinho,

2011; Weiblen and Chesbrough, 2015); there are used specific performance factors that indicate and

qualitatively analyse the growth of given start-up. Rashty (2013) described the key performance

indicators as methodological tools useful to evaluate the performance of given company. Despite its

corporate origins, key performance indicators are being increasingly adopted by entrepreneurs as it

allows them to create tangible evaluations of their progress. There are three conditions: they should be

relevant to the business, responsive (if things go wrong the factor should be negatively affected) and

lastly, they should be easy to understand (Crichton, 2014).

Previous section explores incubator’s offerings, which are used as the basis for the development of a

framework that operationalises the research question. Due to the diversity in services offered by

technology start-ups, the operationalisation of outlined areas must be approached carefully as research

outcomes should be universal to the technology incubation sector. Having that in mind, there appear

only few key indicators relatable to incubator’s core deliverables (Aldrich and Martinez, 2001; Lalkala,

1996). These key indicators are outlined in form of assumptions that eventually create the framework

guiding the researcher through the practical research.

Firstly, it was pointed out that technology firms are relying on the R&D to cultivate their products and

services; thus, access to funding is critical for their success.

Secondly, successful businesses are characterised by existing customer base and (potential) revenues,

which is directly related to the capability of the incubator to coach its clients to sell their product,

services and consequently develop and expand their business.

The third success factor is defined by the growth of the company. As the company expands, there is a

need for more employees, which means that successful company is more likely to grow in terms of their

employee number. Filling up the vacancy spaces is a challenge that can be overcome through

incubator’s networks and favourable location (cluster effect); therefore, elements of location and

networks are included in the third success factor.

Moreover, location and networks are factors intertwining all three success factors meaning that they are

also affecting the first and the second factor. All three factors are summarised below.

1) Financial resources: Tavoletti (2013) argues that for early stage high-tech venture the key factor

is the access to capital and/or the access to networks that would provide the financial resources.

Regardless of the specific objectives of individual incubators, one of the mutual aims is to help

its incubates to secure financing for next stage of their development; thus, there is developed

the first assumption:

18

Assumption 1: Inclusion of the incubate in the incubation program positively affects their acquisition

of financing and/or access to financing.

2) Customer acquisition: Exiting ventures should, at minimum, have a minimum viable product

and/or service that would firstly: serve as a credibility tool for their investors and, at second:

create initial revenues that would indicate whether the market positioning is correct (Hackett

and Dilts, 2008). Some early staged ventures operate on customer acquisition basis before they

reach revenues from their products; thus, this assumption was extended to the acquisition of

customer. That, as well as the revenues, signal the market readiness and appropriate positioning

of the product or service. As outlined in the previous section of business coaching, incubation

programs offer comprehensive business education that should lead to positive business growth

and development; therefore, that leads to the second assumption:

Assumption 2: Business coaching has positive impacts on the customer acquisition and consequent

sales performance of the incubate.

3) Access to skilled workforce: The growth of a company naturally produces larger amount of

work; thus, it can be assumed that successful firms increase their number of employees.

Furthermore, as technology incubators are usually located in clusters, or in close proximity to

technology ventures and research universities, incubates should be provided networks relevant

to them in terms of technical and business offerings (Singh and Jain, 2003) and as such, they

can be used for business as well as organisational development. That leads to third assumption:

Assumption 3: The growth of the venture causes increased workload; thus, the entrepreneur is in need

for skilled workforce, which is likely to be acquired from the incubator’s networks and/or as a result

of incubator’s favourable location and affiliation to the university.

2.7. Conclusion

In this section, there is reviewed existing literature as well as outlined the theoretical framework used

for this research. Firstly, there is explored the taxonomy of incubators along with their different

characteristics. After outlining factors considered in the selection of incubator for this researched, the

focus is narrowed down to the technology incubators and high-tech early staged ventures. Once

clarifying the differences of technology and classical businesses, the incubation process is depicted,

which consists of five main areas: business support, access to financing, reputation, networking and

physical facilities. These factors are operationalised in further part, which deals with factors that define

the success of an incubate and consequently the incubator itself. It was taken from the literature that the

success of an incubator can be assessed through the success of its clients; thus, there have been pointed

out three critical assumptions: financial resources, customer acquisition and access to skilled workforce,

which characterise the growth and development of a venture. These assumptions are used as a ground

base for developing the methodological guide steering the researcher through conducted interviews.

19

3. Methodology and research design

This section aims to clarify the methodological tools used in this exploratory research. It builds on

previous sections by implementing the core assumptions into the design of the semi-structured

interviews that are used for exploring the aims of this research. Furthermore, aspects of validity and

reliability are explored in order to create realistic expectations of the results. The literature review

outlines the theoretical background of incubators and this section presents the researched incubators

along with the limitations this type of sampling contains. Lastly, the strategy to process and analyse the

data is presented. It uses the theoretical framework as a guide to structure the data and create relevant

codes, which are discussed in next sections of this thesis.

3.1. Research design and strategy

The elementary question that must be asked by any researcher is whether to choose qualitative or

quantitative research method. Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses but the decision to

go for one or the other depends on the question asked. Closer comparison of both methods can be seen

in the Figure 9 extracted from Hoeber (2012).

Quantitative Qualitative

General - Confirm hypothesis about a

specific phenomenon and

develop generalisation that

contribute to theory

- Seeks precise measurement

- Data analysed by statistics

(objective)

- Explore a specific phenomenon

(complete, holistic and detailed

description)

- Understand human or social

behaviour and reason that govern

such behaviour

- Data is analysed in an

interpretative and subjective way

Data

gathering

instruments

Experiments, questionnaires, surveys Observations, structured/semi-

structured/unstructured interviews, focus

groups, case studies

Question

format

Close ended Open ended

Data format Numerical Textual

Strengths - Research results have

statistical significance

- Can generalize research

findings when the data are

based on random samples of

sufficient size

- Data collection and data

analysis are relative less time

consuming

- Useful for describing complex

phenomena

- Provides understanding and

description of people’s personal

experiences of phenomena

- Can describe in rich detail as they

are situated and embedded in local

contexts

Weaknesses - The researcher might miss

out on phenomena occurring

(confirmation bias: focus on

hypothesis testing rather than

hypothesis generation)

- Data might not be generalised to

other people and contexts

- Data is more easily influenced by

the researcher’s personal biases

- Data collection and data analysis

are more time consuming

20

(Bryman, 2008; Carr, 1994; Hoeber, 2012; Miles and Huberman, 1995)

Figure 9

The purpose of this study is to research the factors affecting the successful incubation of technology

incubators. Due to the fact that the field of high-tech incubators and their internal processes is widely

under-researched, an exploratory, qualitative approach is chosen. As stated by Easterby-Smith et al.,

(2008) and Rudestam & Newton (2001) ‘qualitative research is examining the meanings and relations

through the attention to words as opposed to numbers’. In other words, qualitative research deals with

the ‘why’ of given problem by focusing on the description, discovery and explanation rather than

quantitative measurements of a certain phenomenon (Collins and Hussey, 2009; Holliday, 2007).

Because of the ability to appropriately describe the research area and to develop understandings of

unknown variables that potentially affect the results, the most suitable research method for this thesis

is an inductive qualitative approach (Saunders et al., 2009). It allows for exploration of the client-

incubator relationships, entrepreneur’s expectations vs. delivered reality as well as the successful

outcomes of given incubation program. As a practical outcome, a set of implications for incubator’s

managers is created to improve their offered services.

In this research, semi-structured interviews are selected in order to create focus on topics that have been

explored in the literature review. Furthermore, open-ended questions that enable the researcher to

explore areas outside of created framework are used (Easterby-Smith et al., 2008). This type of

interview is considered by Saunders et al. (2009, p.601) as a ‘wide-ranging category of interview in

which the interviewer commences with a set of interview themes but is prepared to vary the order in

which questions are asked and to ask new questions in the context of the research situation’. In this

manner it is possible to explore the ‘how’s’ and ‘why’s’ of a given issue and to understand the

interconnection of factors that affect the outcome of technology incubation process.

3.1.1. Reliability

Reliability of the research refers to the capability to repeat the study with the same results (Bryman,

2008). In terms of an unstandardized research methods this may be an issue because the environment

and circumstances could have changed while re-doing the same research in different time. It was stated

by Saunders et, al. (2009) that it would be unrealistic to try to ensure replicability of this type of research.

In accordance to that, Marshall and Rossman (1999) claim that the hardships to replicate this type of

research should be distinctively outlined. By clearly explaining and rationalising the used strategies,

research design, methods, data collection and analysis; it makes it possible to re-analyse the data by

other researchers and; thus, increase the reliability of the research.

3.1.2. Validity

Validity is defined by Saunders et al. (2009; p.603) as ‘the extent to which data collection method or

methods accurately measure what they were intended to measure, and the extent to which research

21

findings are really about what they profess to be about’. There are three major aspects to validity:

internal, external and construct. Firstly, construct validity tests whether the selected method actually

measures what we think it measures (Greener, 2008). High construct validity is ensured by personal

contact with the interviewees and, by having open ended questions that allow for further explanation of

areas that emerged throughout the conversation. Secondly, internal validity relates to the causality, so

that, does factor A cause factor B to happen? (Bryman, 2008; Ritchie and Lewis, 2006). In relation to

this study it would be elaborated as: how sure can we be that the incubation of technology start-ups

actually affects their successful growth and development, and, do analysed success factors actually

reflect the success of the start-up and eventually of the incubator? Throughout the literature review

assumptions that correspond with the views of academic literature on the success factors have been

pointed out. However, the researcher also bears in mind that there can be other, unknown factors that

can impact the incubator-incubate relationship and its possible outcomes. Thirdly, external validity, also

referred to as generalisability, relates to the extend the result of the research could be applied to other

contexts (Greener, 2008; Saunders et al., 2009). In order to provide external validity, three independent

incubators and their incubates have been researched. Furthermore, cross-comparison of collected data

and the literature ensures the objectivity of the results. On the other hand, the sample of researched

companies is not wide enough to draw conclusions generalizable to wider contexts. Those results are

bounded to the Dutch technology incubation scene and, to certain extend, to similar European

technology incubators.

3.2. Sampling

The sample for this research was obtained from nine start-ups that are being incubated in three

comparable incubators: ACE Venture Lab (associated with the University of Amsterdam), YES!Delft

(associated with the Delft University of Technology), BTW Twente (associated with the University of

Twente). The areas of resemblance include their affiliation to universities, comparable internal

structure, and focus on high-tech projects. University-incubator ties are depicted through close

cooperation, usage of university facilities and lastly by locating the incubator in the surroundings of the

university. Furthermore, all incubators have the status of public entity. They are supported by public

organisations like the affiliated university and local municipality. Minor economic contribution comes

from the rent of their physical facilitates. Moreover, all three institutions provide comparable services:

business support, networking, physical facilitates and access to external financing. Slight existing

disparity among them is that BTC Twente and Ace Venture Lab, unlike Yes!Delft, aim to create short

term profit, which would allow further development of the incubator.

As can be seen in the cross-comparison section these incubators were selected non-randomly based on

the taxonomy developed in the literature review and based on their similarities. Selection of start-ups

within these incubators was subjected to researcher’s aspiration to obtain relevant data that would also

comprehensively represent different stages of the incubation process. West and Noel (2009) argue that

22

selected samples should have sufficient knowledge about the researched area, which can be fulfilled by

interviewing ventures that cover all stages of the incubation. In that way all levels of the incubation

process are captured, which should offer relevant information (Pena, 2002). The outcome of the

incubation process in general is three folded: business failure (discontinuation of the entrepreneurial

effort); decline (business is still running but the reality is not meeting the expectations and the firm has

poor results); stability and growth, which is self-explanatory (Pena, 2002). So that to seize experiences

that somehow reflect successful outcomes, only companies that are still running are selected.

Altogether, the sampling was approached in a holistic way as the researcher aimed to avoid one sided

reflections of companies that would only be graduated or newly found. In the Figure 10 a list of

companies interviewed is presented along with their incubation stage and the commence of their

incubation process. As can be seen, each incubator, apart from BTC Twente, has a mix of graduated-

senior-new companies. As Ace Venture Lab is only three years old, no company has graduated yet;

however, companies experiencing all other stages, apart from graduation, are captured and researched.

That way sufficient validity of maintained. Appendix 2 offers more elaborate description of individual

start-ups.

Figure 10

3.2.1. Limitations

The main limitation of the researched sample is, as noted before, its size. Firstly, there were researched

only the clients of given incubators, not the incubator’s managers itself. Secondly, Yes!Delft as well as

Ace Venture Lab have both 4 respondents that represent the full incubation cycle; however, the

researcher was able to secure only 1 interview from BTC Twente. Due to unclear separation of tenants

and incubated companies on BTC’s websites, as well as the inability of the BTC’s management to

provide the researcher with a list of incubated companies, the researcher was unable to reach sufficient

number of relevant incubated companies and secure interviews. As the amount of interviews within this

incubator negatively impacts the internal and external validity the reader must bear in mind that the

Incubator Company Incubation process Incubation stage

YES!Delft

(started in 2005)

Conference compass 2010-2015 Graduated

Elemental 2009-2015 Graduated

Adjuvo Motion Since 2015 New

Delft Inversion Since 2013 Senior

ACE Venture Lab

(started in 2013)

MyReputationLab Since 2015 New

3D Universum Since 2014 Senior

Metrica sports Since 2013 Senior

Scyfer Since 2014 Senior

BTC Twente

(started in 1981)

Ecovat Since 2013 Senior

23

generalisability of results on the BTC incubator is limited. On the other hand, the validity is ensured

through the selection process of researched incubators. As it was based on their similarities it would

mean that even in spite of the low number of interviews the results can be applied to the context of

BTC. Furthermore, iterative cross-comparison with existing literature provides a check that validates

the results in terms of their application to other contexts.

3.3. Cross-comparison

Description of individual incubators can be found in the Appendix 3. The idea of this paper is based on

the assumption that the success factors affecting successful outcomes of an incubation process can be

singled out and, consequently, benchmark practices can be outlined and transferred into other

comparable institutions. However, as Allen and McCluskey (1990) pointed out, incubators are unique

as each incubator has different stakeholders, resources and location. Altogether it is hard to apply to

generally developed theories and practices on them. On the other hand, other authors (Tavoletti, 2013;

Hackett and Dilts, 2008; McAdam and McAdam, 2008) argue that generally developed theories and

benchmark practices can be applied to comparable institutions under the condition that individual

management acknowledges outlined differences as well as geographic and cultural differences. In order

to create basis for comparison and increase the applicability to other incubators, areas of business

development, physical facilities, access to funding, networking and selection criteria are diluted into

three researched assumptions in this thesis.

3.4. Data collection

As mentioned previously, data is collected through qualitative, semi-structured interviews chosen due

to its ability to provide data traditionally rich in detail and descriptive in terms of given phenomena

(DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). To better understand the factors that influenced the success of

given start-up and, whether these factors comply with the literature, there were interviewed founders

and/or managers of given venture. Researcher gained access to these ventures through the websites of

researched incubators, websites of given ventures and through his initiative.

The interview protocol consists of briefing, four research areas and debriefing; altogether 13 questions

and 8 sub-questions (see Appendix 1). It follows the previously created framework of 3 core

assumptions.

In the briefing the researcher and the research itself were introduced to the interviewee. Second section

consist of four main areas that follow the outlined 3 assumptions from the literature review.

- General questions: It covers the background and original intentions of the interviewee to enter

the incubator

- Financial resources: The influence of the incubator on the financial well-being of the venture

is examined in this section.

24

- Customer acquisition: In here are examined the impacts of the incubation program on the

acquisition of new customers, and potentially on generated revenues

- Access to skilled workforce

- This section explores the development of interviewee’s company through the growth of newly

employed workers. There are also researched the implications of incubators’ location and/or

networks on the acquisition of new employees’

- Conclusion: It sums up the interview by asking question related to the general satisfaction with

the program.

In the Debriefing section there is expressed gratitude to the interviewee and it is also used as a closing

tool for the interview.

3.5. Methods of analysis

To analyse and code the data, a qualitative data analysis program Atlasti 7 was used. First, the researcher

went through the data and coded the most relevant themes and areas that seemed to be important for the

business development of a venture. Emerged codes were then put into second level codes, which, as

pointed out in the theoretical framework, follow the offerings of incubator; thus, business education,

physical facilities, networking, access to financing and reputation. Considering that the interview guide

was constructed in accordance to the previously outlined assumptions that follow the structure of

incubator offerings, emergence of these themes confirms the consistency in the researcher’s approach.

Once the secondary codes were assembled there emerged a duality of the data.

As can be seen in Figure 11, codes were divided into ‘what was brought by the entrepreneur’ and ‘what

was facilitated through the incubator’. According to chosen approach the success of an incubator is

dependent on its clients, which eventually means that existing influences are two sided: incubator’s

Figure 11

Incubator's input

Finance acquisition

Networking

Customer acquisition

Business coaching

Location

Entrepreneur's input

Finance aquisition

Networking

Customer acquisition

Evaluation

25

influence of the entrepreneur and the entrepreneurs own input. Splitting them in two parts allows the

researcher to perceive the data from both sides and distinguish the success factors for individual

entrepreneurs. It was found that each code has a spectrum of influences varying from very positive to

very negative; thus, for the incubator’s input (Figure 12) there are selected the most appropriate quotes

that represent both extremes. In terms of Entrepreneur’s input (Figure 13), the two most representative

quotes are selected.

The first theme, incubator’s inputs (Figure 12) is deduced from the literature review. The finance

acquisition represents the influence individual incubator had on their tenants so it explores the areas of

funding and networks leading to funding. Secondly, the code of networking dives into the quality of

contacts and networks that incubates acquired as a result of the efforts of the incubator. Thirdly, the

customer acquisition was related to the topic of business growth and development. The category of

business coaching offers insights into the actual educational offerings of each incubator. Lastly, the

broader category of physical facilities contains the physical facilities of the incubator itself but also the

location of the incubator in relation to its connection to the university.

The second theme, entrepreneur’s input (Figure 13), is slightly less extensive due to the fact that from

the entrepreneur’s perspective there is no input in terms of business education or location. Due to that

three generally valid codes are valid for both entrepreneurs as well as incubators but one, evaluation,

only captures the entrepreneur’s perception of incubation services. In other words, entrepreneur’s input

in the the growth of the venture is captured through acquiring finances, customers and networking. The

code of evaluation emerged from their desire to provide their overall evaluation of experienced

incubation services.

Incubator's input

Finance acquisition

'and of course finance exposure

goes together with the help on the

financial side...the idea was the money

you can lend'

'Researcher: ...did they help you in

any way with the financing?

Entrepreneur: No'

Networking

'The incubator it is good for

networking if you are looking

for investors'

'So the events they organised I

attended them all but it never really

brought me anything new'

Customer acquisition

'yes, the fact that we are within a community...it

got us some customers'

'It was nice to talk to their networks

but this is a specific product that has

specific clientele so you need to do it

yourself'

Business coaching

'They brought us the knowledge

and the education...they

taught us everything...to

start'

'From the business side the incubator does not provide the

knowledge'

Physical facilitites

'so the rents was the biggest plus along with the

affiliation to the university'

'it wasn't as great as we hoped...it didn't make it

much easier to be close to the university'

Figure 12

26

In conclusion, the data was analysed in a way to allow to differentiate between the selected incubators.

That is particularly important because it enables to create recommendations for individual incubator

that can be consequently compared to other incubators and as such offer more comprehensive solutions.

Existing codes and themes are elaborated on in the results section, which follows the combination of

existing structure developed previously in the theoretical framework, methodology but it also includes

themes emerged from the data. Each table in the result section provides structured, clear summary of

the impacts of the incubation program. That is followed by in-depth description, which includes the

actual quotations and reflections of interviewed entrepreneurs.

Entrepreneur's input

Finance acquisition

'No, the incubator did not play any role there.

We acquired the investors ourselves'

'we started with the money from the

inventor...combined with government

grants...'

Networking

' I already had some contacts from my

previous SightCortp so I knew some people

already'

'during my PhD. we had this network of

companies...and it was very wide network that

we have utilised''

Customer acquisition

'No, the customer came from our

networks'

'...so the most of the customers I had to approach myself'

Evaluation

'I would do it in a different way but I would still join the incubator for sure'

'I think we knew what we could expect and that is what we got

and we are very happy with that'

Figure 13

27

4. Results

This section includes the results of nine interviews conducted with founders or co-founders of nine

ventures that are being incubated in outlined incubators. Each section composes two parts. The table

below summarises the key points and provides easy to understand abstract of each company in relation

to given theme. Then, each table is explained with quotations and clear connection to the data. This way

there are explored the areas of finances, customer acquisition and employment. In order to determine

the success factors of technology incubators it is necessary to evaluate the opinions of each entrepreneur

in each of these areas and then connect them with the theory in the discussion section.

4.1. General motivations

Incubator Company Prior entrepreneurial

experience Reason to join the incubator

YE

S!D

elft

Conference

compass

Founders were researchers.

No experience

Business knowledge & coaching

and connection with the university

and convenient location.

Elemental Founders were researchers.

No experience

Business knowledge & coaching

and previous experience with the

incubator.

Adjuvo Motion Founders were researchers.

No experience

Business knowledge & coaching

and connection with the university

and convenient location.

Delft Inversion Founders were researchers.

No experience

Connection with the university

and cluster of technology start-

ups.

AC

E V

entu

re L

ab

MyReputationLab Founder had a company

before. Rich experience.

Convenient office space, cluster

of technology start-ups and safety

of the environment.

3D Universum

Founder developed and

sold a company. Rich

experience

Convenience of the office space,

connection with the university and

previous experience with the

incubator

Metrica sports Founders were researchers.

No experience.

Office space and business

knowledge & coaching

28

Figure 14

This section describes the amount of experiences and the main motives behind entering the incubation

program. It is important to outline the amount of prior entrepreneurial experience due to its influence

on the motives to enter the incubation. Hence, these motives define the expectations, which later on

determine the satisfaction of the entrepreneur with offered services. It is crucial to understand the

structure and depth of these connections because they ultimately impact the defined success factors.

As can be seen in the Figure 14, the first striking aspect is the coherence in the motives of entrepreneurs

with no or little prior experience. The majority of them is highly interested in receiving and acquiring

the business education and further business support. One entrepreneur noted that ‘we were, like, guys

that work in a lab for all their lives and we had no idea about anything. we didn’t know what kind of

companies there exist…we had no idea about that and nothing’. Majority of entrepreneurs started as

university researchers without a business background and without the necessary skills of

commercialising their ideas on the market. ‘I really had no knowledge about entrepreneurship at all.

And then I got interested and seen that this might be a faster way of getting my ideas to the market,

faster way of getting people to use my ideas than through research’. Furthermore, as each incubator is

situated in close proximity to the university, the location seems to play an important role in the decision

making as these entrepreneurs wished to remain close to their research institution: ‘so the location as

in the physical location is close to where we were so that was very convenient as we didn’t' have to

move to have an office there’. That was rationalised by another entrepreneur who stated ‘You want to

move outside of the academic environment to more entrepreneurial environment where you would find

peers… but also you don’t want to be far from the university’. The desire of the entrepreneurs to leave

the academic environment in order to enter more dynamic business climate, where they could acquire

relevant business knowledge, was predominant among interviewees. The connection to university is an

interconnecting theme because even serial entrepreneurs who started some companies before their

current project consider it as a relevant and important aspect. In particular, founders of two start-ups

from Ace and from BTC who have rich prior experience in starting ventures have their main motivation

to become or remain connected to the university. ‘Of course I have close connection with the university

so for me it was really convenient to have a place that would be this tight with the UvA’. On the other

hand, ‘they offer you the business coaching, which can be really interesting for the young guys who

have no business knowledge’, which demonstrates the different attitude of serial entrepreneurs with

existing experience. It is clear that they are seeking more specific gains in the incubation program, such

Scyfer Founder was self-employed

for short time period.

Modest experience.

Convenient office space, business

support and access to networks.

BT

C

Tw

ente

Ecovat Founder had 3 previous

firms. Rich experience.

Access to financing and

connection with the university

29

as the provision of physical facilitates or access to funding. Renting an office in the incubator’s facility

is not considered as the cheapest option as one entrepreneur described: ‘just renting an office is not

cheap. It is also not very expensive’, however, in combination with the services offered and the fact that

it does not cost them anything in equity to join, they consider it as a good deal. ‘I don’t think it was a

bad choice to come here, mainly because it doesn’t cost you anything in equity. Ok, the rent is a bit

more expensive than the market price, but … it is ok’.

4.2. Financial resources

Figure 15

By understanding how the entrepreneur secured necessary funding, it is possible to determine the

importance and the role of the incubator.

4.2.1 Process of funding securement

Initially, all the entrepreneurs expressed the need to secure sufficient funding prior to the growth of the

company because ‘normally the goal is to get you investor ready as fast as possible to overcome your

valley of death so to speak’. Naturally, the entrepreneur’s pro-activeness is a cornerstone to obtain the

funding. One entrepreneur explained the process: ‘because you have the valley of death, at first you can

Incubator Company Type of financing Influence of the

incubator

YE

S!D

elft

Conference compass Self-financing by the founders and a

no-interest loan

High – provision of

the loan

Elemental Self-financing by the founders,

bootstrapping and government grants None

Adjuvo Motion Self-financing by the founders and

government grants None

Delft Inversion Self-financing by the founders,

bootstrapping and government grants None

AC

E V

entu

re L

ab

MyReputationLab Bootstrapping and self-financing by

the founders None

3D Universum Investment None

Metrica sports Investment and bootstrapping None

Scyfer Bootstrapping and self-financing by

the founders None

BT

C

Tw

ente

Ecovat Self-financing in combination with

government grants None

30

find some friends or fools, but that is not too much money, then you get government grants but then

there is a big gap because the first important sources of funds are for instance, private investors or

VC’. All the ventures, mainly due to not having developed minimum viable product yet, were at the

beginning supported through self-financing of their founders. Those ventures that developed a MVP

from the start managed to organically grow as is illustrated by the lean growth theory (which means

that entrepreneurs support their growth without external investment, through constant acquisition of

new customers) (Ries, 2011). ‘It was really lean...First of all we got a launching customer so that’s

how we started and we only supported ourselves from customers. At the same time, we got a subsidy

from STW, that was our first kind of funding’. Most of the interviewees usually used combination of

funding methods. At first they used self-financing to start the company and to shape the core values of

the firm, which was followed by accessing government grants and/or acquisition of first clients: ‘we

found the company because we were signing a contract with a club. so we did, before founding the

company we went for one year of working nights’ weekends to make the beta, like a very simple MVP,

with the MVP the club basically bought it’. Only after the stage of self-supporting the company the

entrepreneur acquired larger investments or government grants. ‘We started with the money from the

inventor of course, from the founder. Combined with government grants, but government grants offer

you only 50-60%, not the full amount of that you need’. The first stage of self-financing cannot be

affected by the incubation program as it predominantly took place before entering the program;

however, further investments and government grants can be positively affected by the incubator.

Nevertheless, as can be seen the Figure 15, apart from one venture, none of the start-ups secured their

funding through the incubator, which means that the government grants were found entirely on the pro-

active basis of individual entrepreneurs. The direct involvement of the incubator was summarised by

one respondent after asking, whether the incubator somehow affected their funding: ‘not really, it was

really our own effort…’. On the other hand, BTC as well as YesDelft offer a small loan to their tenants:

‘when part of the incubation program is that you have access to… a bank loan with… the first 3 years

you didn't have to pay it back anything and you didn’t have to pay interest. So it was basically for 3

years it was free money and after 3 years you start paying back and you start paying interest’. Ace, as

the youngest incubator, has not developed direct funding program yet; therefore, its tenants could not

benefit from any sort of direct funding. So that only one incubator, Yes!Delft, has direct means of aiding

its clients in terms of financing.

4.2.2. What was useful to secure the funding

On the other hand, rest of the entrepreneurs did not use the incubator, so that this section elaborates on

elements that affected successful acquisition of their funding, among which is networking, influence of

the business coaching and previous experiences.

Firstly, founders mentioned that the network events organised by the incubator were useful. One

entrepreneur said that ‘every year they have one or two VC events and every year they have one

31

big network event and throughout the year they have, or they participate at other events like,

for instance the new venture business plan competition’ and another one mentioned that ‘the incubator

it is good for networking if you are looking for investors…’; however, the latter entrepreneur also

mentioned that ‘their network is not relevant network to us’. It seems that incubators are aspiring to

play a role in the acquisition of investors and venture capitalists. Yet, their success is not particularly

significan’t considering that those entrepreneurs mentioning the importance of networks in relation to

funding did not use these networks, nor direct support of the incubator in the acquisition of financing.

All the entrepreneurs emphasised the importance of their own networks, pro-activeness and most

importantly, close collaboration with the university. ‘We pay the research club some money in order to

conduct a research and we also do joined effort in the issuing of grants. it is really close collaboration

with writing of grants or getting your name for government and research institutes’. Due to regular

acquisition of grants by universities, the knowledge of these institutions plays an important role for

technology entrepreneurs in the application process for government funding. Furthermore, one

entrepreneur explained the relation of investors - incubator - university. ‘So The Sightcorp got bought

off by investors, who actually buy it for its potential but also for its close connection, affiliation with

university. These corporations they really want to get in the research area as it is a very interesting

place where they can get the best people and the best research. They really value it’. According to him,

investors naturally aim to return on their investment from the actual company, but they also seek to

harvest highly specialised, educated people from these companies or from the research to which they

got access to through the investment. Therefore, although the influence of the incubators was majorly

indirect, their connection with the university as well as their reputation supports their incubates.

Moreover, another respondent with no prior entrepreneurial experience outlined the influence of

business coaching on the acquisition of his funding: ‘Well the nice thing about incubator is that they

provide some advisers so you can have this discussions with the advisers to brainstorm how you can

get your company moving. And they offer you some kind of educational program within the first 2-3

years, incubation program and part of this incubation program, are all kinds of courses on finance, on

writing a business plan, on talking to VCs, getting investments, so basically everything you did not learn

on your technical education background they offer there’. That means that although the incubator did

not play major direct role in the acquisition of funding, their tenants are affected through business

education. In a nutshell, elements of reputation, business coaching and the link with the university are

considered by entrepreneurs as the most important incubator’s offerings that lead to acquisition of

funding.

32

4.3. Business development

Figure 16

4.3.1. Customer acquisition

Acquisition of customers represents the growth of the business and at the same time the readiness of

the company to enter the market. The goal of an incubation program is to get the start-up market-ready;

thus, the ability of the company to sell its products and services presents, to certain extend, the quality

of received business support (Aaboen, 2009). Seven out of nine interviews already have at least one

existing customer, whereas the remaining two, in spite of not having a signed contract, are in the

negotiation part with ‘soon to be customer’: ‘I am in the car heading towards The Hague and in The

Hague we have very good contact with the sustainability officer of the city…’. Therefore, all companies

are successful in terms of developing and growing their business. In terms of incubators’ influence,

there appeared two major disparities between experienced and unexperienced entrepreneurs. As can be

seen in Figure 16, the general influence of the incubator was running from high (2 cases) to low (3

cases) to no influence (4 cases), which means that the influence on customer acquisition is somehow

positive in majority (2+3 to 4). However, the difference comes down to the level of experience; novice

entrepreneurs were generally influenced and benefited from the incubator’s program, whereas

experienced entrepreneurs did not consider the influence of the incubator as relevant.

In particular, only one out of six entrepreneurs with no experience believes that the incubator had no

effect on obtaining new customers: ‘we were signing a contract with a club. so we did, before founding

the company’. It was majorly because the customer was obtained before the company was founded and

before they entered the incubation program. Furthermore, the entrepreneur also claimed that their

customers are from completely different fields, outside of the incubator’s influence. The uniqueness of

the company and its customer base was emphasised by all the entrepreneurs: ‘we are quite different. I

Company Existing

customers

Prior

experience

Influence of

the incubator

Perceived quality of

business coaching

YE

S!D

elft

Conference compass Yes No Low High

Elemental Yes No Low High

Adjuvo Motion No No High High

Delft Inversion Yes No Low High

AC

E V

entu

re

La

b

MyReputationLab Yes Yes None Low

3D Universum Yes Yes None Moderate

Metrica sports Yes No None High

Scyfer Yes No High Moderate

BT

C

Tw

ente

Ecovat No Yes None Moderate

33

think when they received our inquiry to join I think they were hallucinating saying why are they coming

here’ and ‘we have a quite a specific field…’. Even though the remaining five firms admitted low-to-

high involvement of the incubator, only two labelled the influence as high: ‘the fact that we are within

a community where also the science park is really active in ace, part of the ace venture. invite all kinds

of companies to science park telling what things have happened. yeah, it got us some customers’. The

rest of the companies were influenced either by the community, the incubator’s networks or from

incubator’s good reputation. However, the most important element to get customers for unexperienced

entrepreneurs was the aspect of business coaching. It is clear that the direct impact of the program is

considered by the interviewees as generally not very significan’t; nonetheless, the impact of the

education they received as a result of entering the program was marginal for their success: ‘they

had advisers in sales for example so they, because you have to understand that for example negotiating,

something we never did so I had a lot of coaching on coaching on negotiations from Ace. They had a

sale adviser’.

On the other hand, skilful entrepreneurs did not consider the impact of the program as relevant in terms

of customer acquisition. All three of them gained business knowledge as well as networks through their

previous entrepreneurial endeavours, so that they were not able to benefit from the incubator’s offering

as much as those without experience: ‘it was nice to talk to their networks but this is a specific product

that has specific clientele so you need to do it yourself. The incubator helps you with the business aspect,

because when you are a tech guy you don’t know anything about business; For us we attained our

clients ourselves’. That could be also explained through the motivations to enter the program.

Unexperienced clients were aiming to learn about business from a broader perspective whereas serial

entrepreneurs aimed for specific goals, such as networks and/or connection with the university.

4.3.2. Business support

There appeared different levels of satisfaction in terms of the actual business education provided by

individual incubators. Yes!Delft is the most appraised one as all of its tenants labelled its

education/coaching support as high. One entrepreneur explained that: ‘what they brought for us was the

knowledge and the education. That is really... they taught us everything we knew to start and then of

course we founded things along the way. And that was really valuable…’. The offering of Yes!Delft

focuses on unexperienced, ambitious people who, through the program, access the coaching and

consequently, they are able to build their company through their own pro-activeness. Nonetheless, the

aspect that all tenants within Yes!Delft have no prior experience might be a cause of bias because they

naturally require more business support than those with experience. Ace Venture Lab has mixed

feedback as two out of four tenants run businesses prior to this one. Altogether they evaluate the quality

of business coaching as moderate, with existing gaps that should be tackled: ‘so they still need to work

on it. They try to make things good because they are bringing mentors from Silicon Valley, but you still

feel that they need to work on it’. In terms of BTC Twente, one existing interviewee concluded that

34

their motivations to enter did not involve the business coaching, which means that they did not seek and

obtained any; however, they said that: help on the financial side with the Deloitte, marketing side …

well that is all very welcome but what, that was not the first idea. The idea was the combination with

University of Twente and the money you can lend there, and the building of course’, which reflects their

moderate perception of the offered business support.

Altogether, entrepreneur’s expectations defined the amount of received business coaching and the

consequent acquisition of new customers was subjected to entrepreneur’s initiative, but, for some also

to the education received. But in terms of networks, researched incubators were not much of a help as

they do not have networks wide enough. In other words, it means that incubator can only ‘show you the

way’ and the entrepreneurs must ‘walk the way’.

4.4 Access to skilled workforce

Figure 17

Employment represents the assumption that a growing company increases its workload; thus, more

employees are needed. Incubator’s location, existing networks and affiliation with the university should

play a role in the process of filling up the vacancies.

All three incubators are located in close proximity of technology universities and in all cases the

educational institution retain some power within the incubator, whether in form of shares or close ties

with executive personnel. As such, all the incubators are rooted deeply within the university, which is

significan’t for their tenants: ‘only the location is quite compelling because it is really adjacent to the

university’. All incubates hired new people since the start of the incubation program but the influence

Incubator

Company Acquisition of

employees since

incubation started

Influence of

the incubator

Impact of the

university

affiliation

YE

S!D

elft

Conference compass Yes High Low

Elemental Yes High High

Adjuvo Motion Yes Low High

Delft Inversion Yes High High

AC

E V

entu

re

Lab

MyReputationLab Yes Low Low

3D Universum Yes High High

Metrica sports Yes Low Low

Scyfer Yes Low High

BT

C

Tw

ente

Ecovat Yes None High

35

of the incubator varies. Some start-ups obtained their personnel through the university whereas some

found their staff independently from the incubation program or the university.

In particular, entrepreneurs from Yes!Delft are generally more satisfied than those from Ace and BTC:

‘…we tried to recruit people for internship. And we had 3-4 interns in the past. And we did that through

YESDELFT students’. Yes!Delft is perceived as an incubator, which is actively involved with students

organizations and as such they jointly empower students to get employed by Yes!Delft’s tenants:

‘…local student committee in here in YESDELFT…they are having these nice event where they say ok,

whoever at university is interested in having some kind of exposure to YESDELFT start-ups, just come

over and they did the match making. We did find one person that helped us for 3-4 months. His

traineeship was with us, so yeah that worked nicely’. The connection with the university is further

expanded by the fact that many of the novice entrepreneurs come from academic research of given

university. So that they are able to attract students for internships, who eventually, after graduation,

continue as standard employees: ‘so basically the location of the incubator, or the affiliation of the

incubator with the university helped you to get these people’. On the other hand, there was also a mixed

feedback: ‘so, that was helpful for attracting people, however, that wasn't as great as we have hoped

because it was still hard to attract developers for instance. It didn’t make it so much easier to be closed

to the university. But we did get 2 interns and one employee who still work with us. So we know him

only because we were close to TU Delft’.

Ace Venture Lab does not have such a positive feedback from its tenants. Only one company admits

that the influence of the incubator on the acquisition of new employees was high, and two out of four

entrepreneurs only perceive the affiliation with the university as ‘relevant’. Ace is relatively young in

comparison to other 2 incubators, which may eventually be the cause of some problems as the program

itself is still developing: ‘I think the problem is that we joined to early. I think if we would join today it

would be different. when we joined there was only one guy running the venture lab, now there are 5

or…their network is a lot bigger’. One entrepreneur was not positive about Ace’s influence: ‘this is

where we were struggling a bit,…So we looked ourselves and Ace was not really of a big help. We asked

them for a trainee and they were saying that they were trying to bring people and to give us the tools...’.

Due to the inability of Ace to actively mix entrepreneurs and students, only one entrepreneur feels that

its influence on attracting new employees was high. On the other hand, two entrepreneurs, who have

been actively involved in UvA’s research projects prior to the incubation, expressed their satisfaction

with the connection: ‘there are great minds and these people they can work for google, Microsoft, for

big corporates but they don’t want to…They are really talented people and this cooperation with UvA

is really valuable to me’.

At last, the entrepreneur from BTC Twente used the affiliation with university to find some of his

personnel; however, as Ecovat started in a different region, it used the connection with the Eindhoven

university: ‘but not the university of Twente because these two young engineers come from the university

of Eindhoven and one of them did his final thesis and study on the topic of Ecovat, so he was already

36

known to us. Once he finalized his study we asked him to come over and the other one, well we just met

somewhere’.

The connection with the university and the physical location is generally very important for interviewed

start-ups. Entrepreneurs believe that the link with the university provides an advantage to attract

technology talents. Nevertheless, it is not always the case: ‘we tried and it was quite disappointing.

Because at some point…with the university there is not much connection. We hope that that would be

due to the link with the university so they would be willing to help us but they wanted shares of the

company…’. All entrepreneurs expect easy access to university facilities but also to the human capital

in form of MSc and PhD students. To a certain extent all three incubator offer these services, which, in

spite of existing problems, is valued by their tenants as well as by external investors, who perceive this

connection as profitable access to human capital.

4.5. Evaluation

Evaluation section expands on the most valued and disappointing aspects of the incubation programs

expressed by the selected incubates. Firstly, components that contributed the most to individual

entrepreneur were identified and ordered in terms of their occurrence. Secondly, the same approach was

used to detect the factors lacking in the incubation program according to the incubates.

4.5.1 Biggest added value

Added value Occurrence

Connection to the university 3

Reputation and exposure of the incubator 2

Business knowledge and coaching 2

Community of technology companies in the cluster 2

Offered networks 2

Application process 1

Figure 18

This section elaborates on the aspects of the incubation program that were perceived as the most

valuable by individual entrepreneurs. It reflects the ability of the incubator to meet the expectations of

their tenants.

First important finding is that every entrepreneur would enter the incubation program again. Despite

expressing certain disappointments, ‘overall knowledge gains and overall help we got also from other

entrepreneur was worthwhile’, so the positives overshadowed the negatives. ‘But if I had to do it all

over again I think it is a good place to start a technology driven company’.

Second, as can be seen in Figure 18, the most relevant and appreciated offering of incubators is their

connection to the university. Entrepreneurs on individual basis valued the possibility to be in touch with

37

the latest research, to use physical facilitates of given institution under favourable circumstances and to

be able to attract bright people straight from academic environment.

Thirdly, there are four different offerings that were mentioned as equally valuable and important.

Reputation of the incubator and the exposure it offers was appreciated by entrepreneurs from both Ace

and Yes!Delft: ‘companies got a bit more exposure into the media as well’. For these start-ups the good

name of the incubator helped to get customers and credibility in the eyes of investors.

Business knowledge and coaching were explicitly mentioned by two entrepreneurs: the main benefit

was the advice that we got in the first year of how to start a company with all the challenges coming,

How to negotiate, things like that, things that you have to take into account that we didn’t even know’.

They learnt the general basics of running a new venture, which, considering their non-existing business

experience, was crucial for their survival.

The physical space, which includes the cluster of other technology start-ups was also acknowledged by

two entrepreneurs: ‘so that really helps, that's I think one of the strengths of incubator that you meet a

lot of companies which are in the same phase of starting a company. So you can learn from each other,

you can... everybody makes mistakes so yeah, you can learn from the mistakes of other people’. They

appreciate the possibility to learn from one another, but also the motivation that comes with it ‘the vibes

that you get from the place, that you see entrepreneurs… And your kind of phase, whether it is young

professionals who decide not to go corporate and start their own thing, and can be vibrant. Others are

more silent but you get good vibes, good atmosphere. I think it is the main thing’.

Incubators’ networks was a last aspect mentioned by couple of entrepreneurs. Even though they did not

necessarily exploit these networks to their full potential, the possibility to access them was highly

valued: ‘the networking part was really useful. So getting in contact and inviting companies over to

listen to a proposition and then say okay this is quite interesting and also the research Community or

the customer say we like that all kind of start-ups in your community that we drive innovation and we

are looking for innovation and that's why we would really like to work with you’.

Lastly, one experienced entrepreneur mentioned the application process as the most valuable aspect of

the incubation program: ‘so the biggest one was in fact applying for the thing. It is a bit strange but the

fact that you are applying you re-ask yourself all the question about the business model, about

everything so financially, can you manage it’.

4.5.2. Missing elements

What was missing Occurrence

Specific business knowledge and expertise (accounting, legal

issues, contracting)

6

Larger and more specific networks along with better

networking opportunity

2

Creation of community driven, sharing environment 2

38

Figure 19

In contrast to the most valuable aspects of the incubation program, in this section are noted the elements

that were missing. Entrepreneur’s expectations that were not met and that could be improved in the

future.

First and the most influential aspect that was mentioned multiple times by various entrepreneurs is the

lack of specific business knowledge support. This broad term includes coaching and support in specific

business areas such as accounting, or the creation of contracts with customers, employees and/or

investors. In other words: legal counseling. ‘What was lacking and they clearly decided not to do that

is: they should provide more basic team of legal advice, adviser on accounting, on setting up business,

which actively can help start-ups on doing contracts. As a technology term start-up, 90% of the time

you are working on the development of your technology and successful start-up, I think good contracts

are really important in a successful start-up’. It was emphasized multiple times that the offered business

council is often not sufficiently specific, omitting important specific areas. One experienced

entrepreneur said that ‘they don’t teach you whether this deal is good or not. The same with contracts

with customers. You may really get hurt by writing or signing a bad contract’.

The problem of insufficient specific business support could be reduced by offering quality networks of

specialists that would supplement the specific offerings. However, the second largest missing element

is the size, quality and availability of existing networks: ‘when I was looking for a new accountant I

went through the list of friends of YESDELFT and that was when I was struck. Most of them... it wasn’t

really a pleasant experience because some of them never really came back. Yeah, so that level I wouldn’t

say that there wasn’t too much support’. Another experienced entrepreneur said that: ‘the incubator

needs to have a network that is like a hell. They need to bring you everywhere. And I think this is the

part that they are lacking a bit right now...’. Furthermore, existing networks were generally inaccessible

as the amount of networking events was insufficient, which was particularly relevant for Ace Venture

Lab because, in comparison to the Yes!Delft or BTC Twente, they offered fewer networking

opportunities.

Even though these incubators are aspiring to create sharing, nurturing environment where entrepreneurs

are cooperating, the third issue pointed out is the community spirit and the idea of sharing. ‘We are not

working all together. Everyone for themselves….so they are trying to make some meetings where you

eat together and the others are presenting, they are companies. But it is not sharing really. For me

sharing is helping. And nobody is helping each other’.

39

5. Discussion and Conclusion

This thesis aims to find factors that affect successful incubation of technology start-ups. In order to

operationalise incubator’s offerings, a framework that includes three core assumptions was created.

Through this framework the data was collected and, consequently analysed in accordance to this

framework; thus, the main themes include finances, business development and employment. So that, in

the discussion section, the results are merged with the literature for reflection as well as insight on

outlined objectives. As the chosen approach defines the success of an incubator by the success of its

incubates, through the mixture of the literature and the results it is possible to draw conclusions on the

success factors of high tech incubators.

5.1. Assumptions

5.1.1. Financial Resources

First assumption argues for positive effects of incubation program on acquisition of venture’s financing.

In the data, the connection between ‘success’ and acquired funding is portrayed positively; however,

the direct role of an incubator seems to be less relevant than expected.

The assumption expects the incubator to be actively and directly involved in the process of funding;

nonetheless, majority of entrepreneurs did not receive direct involvement and those who were able to

reach for internal funding did not exploit this opportunity. Zakrzewska-Bielawska (2010) argues that

high-tech and biotech ventures require large sums of initial investments in order to survive; therefore,

direct funding initiatives of incubators were perceived as irrelevant. That would explain why

entrepreneurs eventually secured funding externally either through bootstrapping, government grants

and/or private investors, which is in agreement with Falbe et al. (2011) who argues that the element of

self-financing is the most used source of funding for starting ventures. Additionally, incubators organise

networking events, which should be, according to the Deeds et al. (1999), highly valued by

entrepreneurs. However, very few of them actually used incubator’s networks in terms of securing the

funding. Aernoudt (2004) argues that incubators networks have low effect on early staged ventures

because investors are more interested in firms being in further stages of their development. Thus,

researched entrepreneurs would benefit more from a larger and more diverse network of investors, who

would be able to support even early staged start-ups (Tavoletti, 2013). The lack of direct funding

initiatives was also found by Cohen (2013), who argues that public incubators which do not take any

equity from their clients have no or very limited control over their investment, which limits their direct

funding contribution.

Altogether, first assumption could be accepted only partially. Interviewed start-ups acknowledge the

influence of incubator in funding acquisition; however, only few of them exploited the opportunity

provided by incubators. Considering that access to funding is taken as a key success factor, it should be

explored by each incubator in more depth.

40

5.1.2. Customer acquisition & business development

The second assumption expresses the importance of business coaching on the business development of

technology ventures. Firstly, the experienced entrepreneurs, due to their previous business endeavours,

did not exploit the business education; thus, it did not have neither positive nor negative impact on

them. In terms of customer acquisition, serial entrepreneurs quite naturally were mainly relaying on

their existing networks (Krikken, 2013; Thursby and Thursby, 2004).

On the other hand, inexperienced entrepreneurs benefited majorly from the offering of business

education, which, as argued by van Zedwitz (2003) and Hansen et al. (2000) should be the primary

objective of the incubator. Even though entrepreneurs are not convinced about the influence of the

incubator per se; on the basis of individual offerings of educational seminars, coaching and assistance,

novice entrepreneurs value these services. Majority of interviewees started as academic researchers with

ambitious idea so the incubator provided them with basic economic and business education that enabled

them to successfully develop the idea and develop a viable company. Although the incubator lacked in

terms of networks that would be useful to attract new customers; entrepreneurs were capable enough to

secure their own customers. Considering their academic background, the role of an incubator lies within

its ability to teach its clients to attain their own customers independently from incubator networks

(Natterlund, 2014). Some incubators try to create additional value by offering networking events where

their clients can meet contacts from their field; however, Allen and McCluskey (1990) argue that due

to the specificity and uniqueness of each company it is difficult to coherently create opportunities for

each start-up. Each company requires different social circles, which eventually means that only handful

of companies are able to benefit from offered business networks

Altogether, the results conform with the posited assumption. Business education has indirect, but

significant positive effects on the customer acquisition and consequent business development and as

such, the incubators positively affects its clients.

5.1.3. Access to skilled workforce

The third assumption explores the in-depth impact of incubator’s location as well as the cluster of start-

ups that it creates. According to Tavoletti (2013) and Bee (2004) the connection to technology

universities is crucial for technology enterprises, which is in accordance with the findings. All the

entrepreneurs agreed upon the benefits coming from the convenient location as well as from the

cooperation of the incubator with the university. The affiliation with the university allowed researched

start-ups to maintain up to date research but also to benefit from this rich social capital, which, according

to Sa and Lee (2012) and Scillitoe and Chakrabarti (2010) is extremely important as the technical

knowledge and social capital positively contributes to consequent product marketability. On the other

hand, only the entrepreneurs who had previous ties with the university were able to exploit university

networks in form of interns and consequent employees, which questions if the incubator is really

responsible for creating networks and creates a gap that should be tackled in the future.

41

Moreover, the connection of researched incubators and the universities allows incubates to exploit the

image and reputation of both institutions. The organisational ties as well as the location of the incubator

evokes credibility in eyes of incubates potential investors and customers, which is backed up by Aldrich

& Martinez (2001) and Studdart (2006), who argue that the good reputation of incubator and affiliated

university reduces risks perceived by investors.

Therefore, the final assumption upholds as the connection with the university as well as the favourable

location plays an important role in the incubation process. All incubators more or less encourage their

tenants to exploit the benefits coming from this relation. Both BTC and Yes!Delft have their link with

the university fairly open and structured, whereas Ace, in spite of its close ties with UvA, was perceived

as unsupportive in terms of the communication of the incubate and the university.

5.2. Influence of expectations

Incubator’s offerings

Business education Physical facilities Networking Access to financing Reputation

Figure 20

To a certain extent, all of the researched incubators provide their tenants with explored offerings (Figure

20) and all of these offerings are seen as important for the success of the incubate. However, the crucial

factor that determines the satisfaction and potential success of incubate and its incubator is within the

expectations of the entrepreneur and consequent deliverables of the incubator (Weiblen and

Chesbrough, 2015). Coming from the results, the researcher created a general model (Figure 21) that

visualises the relationship of entrepreneur’s expectations and incubator’s offerings. Only through the

match of entrepreneur’s expectation and incubators offerings, there can be created successful incubation

outcome, which results in a financially stable venture with innovative, market ready product and service

(Aerts et al., 2007; Studdard, 2006; Verma, 2004).

Furthermore, as each project is unique and each entrepreneur is different, incubates enter with different

aspirations; thus, according to Vohora et al. (2004) offered services should be differentiated. According

to the data, incubators are only able to personalise the service in terms of business education. Each

coach is capable to tailor the advice to each entrepreneur; however, in terms of networking, incubators’

services are perceived as not very useful. If the incubator has relevant offerings should be evaluated

through the selection process of each incubator, which would essentially confront the expectations of

an entrepreneur with the offerings of the incubator (Lee and Osteryoung, 2004). Aerts et al. (2007)

argues that the screening process is one of the most important steps in the whole incubation process;

nonetheless, the data shows that the selection criteria were not strictly enforced on and by the

interviewed entrepreneurs. That may eventually be a cause of potential misunderstandings.

42

Nevertheless, if the entrepreneur and the incubator manages to align the expectations and the offerings,

it leads to successful incubation.

Figure 21

5.3. Success factors

It is apparent that the expectations define the perception of received service, which must be taken into

account if objective conclusions are to be made (Ratinho, 2011; Weiblen and Chesbrough, 2015). The

success factors can be deduced from the comparison of these expectations with the greatest added

values, missing aspects and assumptions. Firstly, on the elementary level, all incubators have met the

expectations of their clients, which lead to general satisfaction. Second, even though each of the

offerings is important and contribute towards the general success of the incubation program, some

aspects are considered by entrepreneurs as critical and are more demanded than the rest of the offerings.

Because various factors and their pros and cons are explored in previous sections, it is aimed to present

only the core idea of each success factors of tech incubators.

1. Connection with the university: affiliation with the university is perceived as critical aspect of tech

incubation programs. University is seen as useful while applying for government financing, it offers

access to the top notch social capital and up to date research (including specific technical knowledge),

it has technically advanced physical facilities and, lastly, the entrepreneur can exploit the reputation of

the university (George et al., 2002; Scillitoe and Chakrabarti, 2010).

Entrepreneur Expectations

Succ

ess

Expectation1 Expectation2 Expectation3 Expectation4

Networks Funding Business

education

Link with

university

Offerings

Ma

tch

Incubator

Physical

spaces

Sel

ecti

on

cri

teri

a

43

2. Business support: coaching and provision of business advices enables tech entrepreneurs, especially

the novice ones, to establish running business that is capable to grow (Hansen et al., 2000). Business

support also involves the specific business skills such as accounting, contracting or overall legal advice,

which were generally lacking in researched programs.

3. Access to funding – this factor refers to financing of the growth and development of tech venture. It

should support the funding of new as well as growing and expanding ventures (Aernoudt, 2004; Aldrich,

2000).

5.4. Practical implications

All three success factors exist in researched incubators; however, their practical application into the

incubation programs is, up to this point, imperfect; therefore, there is created a set of six short and

practical suggestions:

1. All incubators need to actively encourage their tenants to exploit their connections with the university.

Each incubator should build a channel that would serve as an easy, mutually beneficial tool for the

communication between the incubate and the university. Ace Venture Lab in particular should improve

its connection with UvA by providing assistance to its tenants with, for instance, recruitment of students.

2. All incubator offer basic business coaching; however, none of them provides sufficient specific

business knowledge such as legal advice, contracting and accounting. They should either implement

these service within their structure, or create/improve a list of quality and tested external contractors

who would, under favourable conditions, provide required services.

3. Incubator’s existing networks that are being presented to their clients are only valid for a small group

of entrepreneurs, which creates disparities between perceived quality of incubation programs. Due to

the uniqueness of each project incubators should avoid selective networking. Alternatively, they should

create specific categories in which they would group their clients and for each category they would have

relevant set of networks, which would improve the overall experience of all their tenants.

4. The amount of funding that comes from incubator’s networks is extremely low; therefore, they should

focus on creating a robust network of investors. Rather than creating their own funding service, they

should build/improve an extensive but quality set of investment networks. Furthermore, they need to

organise larger amount of opportunities (events) where these networks can be passed down on their

clients.

6. Existing environment in each incubator has positive as well as negative feedback. All incubators

should evaluate their current situation and focus on re-creating or developing internal atmosphere that

would encourage the sense of community, sharing and mutual cooperation.

44

5.5. Conclusion

In conclusion, this research clarifies the incubation processes of public technology incubators affiliated

to technology universities. Success itself is an intangible, hard to define term that possesses subjective

meanings to every individual (Lalkala, 1996); however, through robust exploration of existing academic

literature, three assumptions were created as part of a theoretical framework that offers guidelines for

this qualitative exploratory research. Throughout the results and the discussion section reoccurring

themes of funding, business development and access to skilled workforce are explored. As the literature

is the cornerstone of the whole research, the findings are embedded into it and are presented in the form

of practical recommendations. Furthermore, the individuality of each entrepreneur defines the results;

nevertheless, the researcher put great effort in providing objective results that are applicable on the

researched incubators: Yes!Delft; Ace Venture Lab and BTC Twente, as well as other comparable tech

incubators. They should be able to benefit from these results and possibly improve their organisational

structure towards greater satisfactions of their clients. Despite existing limitations, the researcher

believes that the results fill in the existing gap in academic research and as such are relevant for

incubators manager, but also for academics researching technology incubation and incubators.

5.6. Limitations and future direction

This research has various limitations that are described below along with recommendation(s) for future

research.

First limitation is concerned with the type of the research. As described in the methodology, qualitative

research is vulnerable to researcher subjectivity, low external validity and it also has issues with

replicability (Bryman, 2008; Greener, 2008). To avoid these issues, future researchers could use mix

methods including the variation of qualitative interviews exploring the in-depth theme and quantitative

surveys that would be testing created hypothesis.

Secondly, in spite of researcher’s best efforts the sample size is relatively small to draw decisive

conclusions. As it was possible to conduct only one interview with the entrepreneur from BTC Twente,

the recommendations for this incubator must be taken with caution. More interviews should be

conducted in the future in order to capture larger, more representative sample. Furthermore, these

interviews could also be cross-checked with the management of the incubator, which would increase

the validity and further generalisability. In this research, it was not done due to the limited scope and

time frame of this thesis.

Thirdly, as qualitative type of research, in spite of the best efforts, suffers from unintentional bias of the

researcher. For that in the appendices there are included all the transcribed interviews and it is advised

to future researchers to conduct independent analysis to increase the reliability as well as the internal

validity of this research (Greener, 2008; Saunders et al., 2009).

45

Fourthly, the success factors developed in the previous section would benefit from quantitative testing.

Presented results explain the internal processes of technology incubators; however, due to its

explanatory character, it is unable to test the extent to which they are valid. In future research, the

presented success factors should be taken as a starting point from which hypotheses would be developed

and consequently tested.

Lastly, as outlined before, this research explores factors that influence successful incubation of

technology ventures. It considers the experiences of entrepreneurs as cornerstones of its analysis;

however, it was acknowledged that different approaches exist; thus, future researchers could adapt

different framework to explore the success of incubation, for instance they could measure incubators’

success by the amount of investment attracted by tenants (Verma, 2004).

46

References

Aaboen, L. (2009). Explaining incubators using firm analogy. Technovation, 29(10), 657–670.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.04.007

Arlotto, J., Sahut, J. M., and Teulon, F. (2011). What is the performance of incubators? The point of

view of coached entrepreneurs. International Journal of Business, 16(4), 341–352.

Aerts, K., Matthyssens, P., & Vandenbempt, K. (2007). Critical role and screening practices of

European business incubators. Technovation, 27(5), 254-267.

Aernoudt, R., (2004). Incubators: tool for entrepreneurship?. Small Business Economics 23 (2), 127–

135

Al-Mubaraki, H. M., & Busler, M. (2013). Business Incubation as an Economic Development Strategy:

A Literature Review. International Journal of Management, 30

Allen D. and McCluskey R (1990). Structure, policy, services, and performance in the business

incubator industry. Entrepreneurship Theory Practice. 15(2):61–77

Adkins, D. (2011). What are the New Seed or Venture Accelerators?. NBIA Review.

Barrow, C. (2001). Incubator: A Realist's Guide to the World's New Business Accelerators. West

Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Bee E (2004). Small business vitality and economic development. Economic Devevelopment J. 3(3):7–

15

Bergek, A. and Norrman, C. 2008. Incubator best practice: A framework. Technovation, 28(1-2): 20-

28.

Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press

Campbell, C. and Allen, D. N. (1987). The small business incubator industry: Micro level economic

development. Economic development Quarterly. 1(2): 178-191

Carr, L. T. (1994). The strengths and weaknesses of quantitative and qualitative research: what method

for nursing? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 20, 716-721.

Cohen, S. (2013). What Do Accelerators Do? Insights from Incubators and Angels. Innovations:

Technology, Governance, Globalization. 8(3): 19-25

Collins, J. and Hussey, R. (2009). Business Research: A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and

Postgraduate Students. 3rd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

47

Chung – Seng L., Smith J., Rakesh M.R., Topol B. (2000). Distributed Application Service for Internet

Information Portal, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Symposium on Circuits and

Systems, May 28 -31,

Clarysse, Bart, Wright, Mike, Lockett, Andy, Van de Velde, Els, Vohora, Ajay, (2005). Spinning out

new venture: a typology of incubation strategies from European Research Institution. Journal of

Business Venturing 20: 183–216

Crichton, D. (2014). The Complete Quantitative Guide To Judging Your Start-up. TechCrunch.

Dempwolf, C., Auer, J., & D’Ippolito, M. (2014). Innovation Accelerators: Defining Characteristics

Among Start-up Assistance Organizations. Sba.Gov, October

Deeds, D.L., DeCarolis, D., Coombs, J., (1999). Dynamic capabilities and new product development in

high technology ventures: an empirical analysis of new biotechnology firms. Journal of Business

Venturing 15, 211–229

Dicicco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview. (G. Symon, Ed.)

Medical Education, 40(4), 314-321.

Diederik, B. (2015). What should university business incubators offer high technological start-ups? An

exploratory study in the Netherlands. Retrieved from: http://dare.uva.nl/cgi/arno/show.cgi?fid=605292

European Commission, E. D. G. (2002). Final report: benchmarking of Business Incubators. Personnel,

51(February), 4

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Jackson, P. R. (2008). Management research. 3rd ed. Sage

publications. London: UK.

Falbe, C.M., Kumar, A., and Welsh, D.H.B. (2011). Franchise use of bootstrapping: An exploratory

study of financing decisions. Small Business Institute Journal, 7 (2), 63-70

Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2008). Factors fostering academics to start up new ventures: an

assessment of Italian founders’ incentives. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(4), 380-402

Ferguson, R., Olofsson, C., 2004. Science parks and the development of NTBFs—location, survival

and growth. Journal of Technology Transfer. 29, 5–17.

Franco-Santos, M., Kennerley, M., Micheli, P., Martinez, V., Mason, S., Marr, B., and Neely, A. (2007).

Towards a definition of a business performance measurement system. International Journal of

Operations & Production Management, 27: 784-801

Gartner, W. B. (1990). What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship?. Journal of

business venturing. 5(1): 15-28

48

George, G., Zahra, S. A., & Wood, D. R. (2002). The effects of business–university alliances on

innovative output and financial performance: a study of publicly traded biotechnology companies.

Journal of Business Venturing, 17 (6): 577–609.

Gulati, R., Nohria, N., and Zaheer, A. (2000) Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, 21,

203–215.

Greener, S. (2008). Business research methods. Ventus publishing ApS

Grimaldi, R. and Grandi, A. (2005). Business incubators and new venture creation: an assessment of

incubating models. Technovation. 25(2): 111–121

Hackett S, Dilts D (2008) Inside the black box of business incubation: study B-scale assessment, model

refinement, and incubation outcomes. Journal of Technology Transfer. 33(5): 439–471

Hansen, M. T., Chesbrough, H. W., Nohria, N., and Sull, D. N. (2000). Networked Incubators. Harvard

Business Review, 78(5), 74-84.

Holliday, A. (2007). Doing and writing qualitative research. 2nd ed. Sage publications. London: UK

Hoeber, E. (2012). Technology transfer strategies considered. How universities opt for either a

licensing or a spin-off strategy in the Life Sciences sector.

Hoffman, D. L., and Radojevich-Kelley, N. (2012). Analysis of Accelerator Companies: An

Exploratory Case Study of Their Programs, Processes, and Early Results. Small Business Institute

Journal, 8(2): 54–70.

Isabelle, D. A. (2013). Key Factors Affecting a Technology Entrepreneur’s Choice of Incubator or

Accelerator. Technology Innovation Management Review, 3 (2):16–22.

Krikken, M. (2013). Social capital and its impact on born transnational firms. Springer

Lalkaka, R. (1996). Technology Business Incubators: Critical Determinants of Success. Annals of the

New York Academy of Sciences, 798(1): 270–290.

Lalkaka, R. and Bishop, J. (1996). Business Incubators in Economic Development – an initial

assessment in industrialising countries. New York: United Nation Development Programme.

Lee,S. S. and Osteryoung J. S. (2004). A Comparison of Critical Success Factors for Effective

Operations of University Business Incubators in the United States and Korea. Journal of Small Business

Management. 42(4): 418-426

Lofsten, H., Lindelo¨ f, P., 2002. Science parks and the growth of new technology-based firms–

academic–industry links, innovation and markets. Research Policy. 31: 859–876

49

Lowegren, M., 2003. New Technology-Based Firms in Science Parks: A Study of Resources and

Absorptive Capacity. Institute of Economic Research, Lund University.

Maier R. (2002). Knowledge Management Systems. Information and Communication Technologies for

Knowledge Management, Springer- Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg,

McAdam, M., and McAdam, R. (2008). High tech start-ups in University Science Park incubators: The

relationship between the start-up’s lifecycle progression and use of the incubator's resources.

Technovation, 28(5): 277–290.

Mian, S.A. (1996) Assessing value-added contributions of university technology business incubators to

tenant firms. Research Policy, 25, 325–335

Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expended Sourcebook (2nd

edition). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Murray, L., B. (2001). The Adolescence of Entrepreneurship Research: Specification of Purpose.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 25(4):17-25

Nätterlund, L. (2014). Business Incubation Success in Biotechnology - How Should Bio-incubator

Performance be Assessed. KTH Industrial engineering and Management. (30)

Nam Young-Ho (2000). The roles of incubator organizations in hi-tech venture creation in Korea. Asia

Pacific Journal Management 17(2):277–296

OECD. (2010). Technology incubators. OECD Innovation policy platforms. Retrieved from:

http://www.oecd.org/innovation/policyplatform/48136826.pdf

OECD. (2005). OECD SME and Entrepreneurship Outlook 2005. Business & Economics

Pena, I. (2002). Intellectual capital and business start-up success. Journal of Intellectual capital. (3):

180-198

Prosser, D. (2014). Small Talk: The high failure rate for start-ups can be reduced by better support.

Independent.

Ratinho, T. (2011). Are they helping? An examination of business incubators’ impact on tenant firms.

Retrieved from: http://doc.utwente.nl/78235/1/thesis_T_Ratinho.pdf

Rashty, D. (2013). Defining your Start-up Key Performance Indicator (KPI). JumpStartCtO.

Ries, E. (2011). The Lean Start-up: How Today's Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create

Radically Successful Businesses. Crown business

Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J. (2006). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and

researchers. Sage publications. London: UK.

50

Rothaermel, F. T., and Thursby, M. (2005). Incubator firm failure or graduation?: The role of university

linkages. Research Policy, 34(7): 1076-1090.

Rudestam, K. E. and Newton, R. R. (2001). Surviving Your Dissertation. 2nd ed. London: Sage

Publications

Saarinen, T. (1996). An expanded instrument for evaluating information systems success. Information

and management. 31(2): 103-118

Sá, C., and Lee, H. (2012). Science, business, and innovation: Understanding networks in technology-

based incubators. Research and Development Management, 42(3): 243–253.

Salido, E., Sabas, M. and Freixas. P. (2013). The accelerator and incubator ecosystem in Europe. The

Lisbon council.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students (5th edition).

Harlow: Pearson Education Limited

Scillitoe, J. L. and Chakrabarti, A., K. (2010). The role of incubator interactions in assisting new

ventures. Technovation. 30(3): 155–167

Seneca, L. A. (1969). Letter from a stoic. Penguin Classics

Siegel, D. S., Veugelers, R., & Wright, M. (2007). Technology transfer offices and commercialization

of university intellectual property: performance and policy implications. Review Literature And Arts Of

The Americas, 23(4), 640-660.

Singh R, and Jain R. (2003) Improving local economies through technology transfer: utilising

incubators to facilitate cluster development. International Journal of Technology Transfer and

Commercialisation 2(3): 249–262

Studdard, N. L. (2006). The effectiveness of entrepreneurial firm’s knowledge acquisition from a

business incubator. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 2(2): 211–225.

Tavoletti, E. (2013). Business Incubators: Effective Infrastructures or Waste of Public Money? Looking

for a Theoretical Framework, Guidelines and Criteria. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 4(4): 423–

443.

Tamàsy C (2007). Rethinking technology-oriented business incubators: developing a robust policy

instrument for entrepreneurship, innovation, and regional development. Growth Change. 6(3): 460–473

Thannhuber, A., Siddiqui, S. A., Tischer, D., Dell’Acqua, F., Eisenhauer, H., Lundborg, J., Klincova,

L., Kempf, M., Kosters, M. and Umeh, V. (2016). Start-up heatmap Europe. European Start-up

Initiative.

51

Thursby, J. G. & Thursby, M. C. (2004). Are Faculty Critical? Their Role in University-Industry

Licensing, Contemporary Economic Policy, 22(2): 162-178.

Tollman, P., Altshuler, G.P., Flanagan, J. and Steiner, M. (2001). Revolution in R&D, How Genomics

and Genetics are Transforming the Bio- pharmaceutical Industry. Boston Consulting Group.

Van Gelderen, M., Thurik, R., & Bosma, N. (2005). Success and risk factors in the pre-start-up phase.

Small Business Economics, 24(4): 365-380

Verma, S. (2004). Success Factors for Business Incubators: An Empirical Study of Canadian Business

Incubators.

Vohora, A., Wright, M. and Lockett, A. (2004). Critical junctures in the development of university

high-tech spinout companies. Research Policy, 33(1): 147-175.

Von Zedtwitz, M. (2003). Classification and management of incubators: aligning strategic objectives

and competitive scope for new business facilitation. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and

Innovation Management, 3(1-2): 176–196.

Watson, K., Hogarth-Scott, S., Wilson, N. (1998). Small Business start-ups: success factors and support

implications. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 4: 217-238.

Weiblen, T., and Chesbrough, H. W. (2015). Engaging with start-ups to enhance corporate innovation.

California Management Review, 57(2): 66–90.

West G. P. & Noel, T. W. (2009). The impact of knowledge resources on new venture performance.

Journal of Small Business Management, 47(1): 1-22

Wincent, J. (2008) An exchange approach on firm cooperative orientation and outcomes of strategic

multilateral network participants. Group & Organization Management, (33): 303–329

Wiggins, J., and Gibson, D. V. (2003). Overview of US incubators and the case of the Austin

Technology Incubator. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 3(1):

56-66

Yagüe-Perales, R. M., and March-Chordà, I. (2012). Performance analysis of research spin-offs in the

Spanish biotechnology industry. Journal of Business Research, 65: 1782-1789

Zakrzewska-Bielawska, A. (2010). High Technology Company–Concept , Nature , Characteristics.

Recent Advances in Management, Marketing, Finances, 93–98.

Zidorn, W., and Wagner, M. (2012). The effect of alliances on innovation patterns: an analysis of the

biotechnology industry. Industrial and Corporate Change, 22 (6): 1497–1524

52

Zikmund, W. G., Babin, J. B., Carr, J. C. and Griffin, M. (2013). Business research methods. Business

& Economics

Websites

ACE Venture Lab. (2016). About. Retrieved from: http://www.ace-venturelab.org

BTCTwente. (2016). About. http://btc-twente.nl/support-for-start-ups/

DIA (2016), Lijst (http://dutchincubator.nl/incubator/lijst-business-incubators /) 10 June, 2016

KennisparkTwente. (2016). About. http://www.kennispark.nl/about/

OECD (2009), Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2009, www.oecd.org

Start-upEindhoven. (2016). Home. http://start-up-eindhoven.nl/

YES!Delft. (2016). About. https://yesdelft.nl/about/ http://www.yesdelft.com/

53

Appendices

Appendix 1 - Interview protocol

DEBRIEFING

Thank you for taking your time today to meet me and help me with my research.

My name is Martin Dostal and I am a master’s student of Entrepreneurship.

Through this research I would like to better understand the incubation process of high-tech ventures

within technology incubator. In specific, I am interested in the factors that lead to successful incubation

process and because of that I would like to know your experiences of the incubation program, and its

implication on your professional development.

In Part 1 we will talk about your intentions and goals to join the program. In Part 2 we cover areas of

financial resources, customer acquisition and revenues and employment. Lastly, Part 3 considerers your

satisfaction with the incubator.

This interview will take approximately 30 minutes and all the information is treated with confidentiality.

We ensure your anonymity as interviewee and, if you prefer, we share the results with you once the

researched is finished.

Part 1 – General questions

Exploring the intentions of the entrepreneur.

1) Can you tell me bit about your company? Goals? Years in business? How long are you in the

incubation program?

2) Do you have some prior entrepreneurial experience?

3) Why did you choose this incubator?

a. Were there any specific factors behind your choice? (networks, location-high tech

cluster, physical facilities)

Part 2

Part A

Financial resources (and access to networks providing financing)

‘In here I would like to know about the relation of the incubation program and acquisition of financing.

I am looking for the changes in the development rather than numbers and figures.’

4) How do you finance your enterprise? (VC/Angels/Self-financing/family

investment/Seed/Crowdfunding/other)

5) How did you acquire this financing?

a. How has the incubation program affected the acquisition of your financing?

(incubator’s networks, incubators finance program, reputation of the incubator, other)

Part B

Customer acquisition (Revenues)

‘This section examines the impacts of the incubation program on the acquisition of new customers, and

potentially on generated revenues.’

54

6) Have you acquired customers since you started the incubation program?

a. How?

b. Are they paying? How have your revenues changed since the start of the program?

7) What role does the incubator play in the commercialisation of the product or service?

8) How has the incubation program affected your business networks? What particular steps you

recall as helpful?

Part C

Employment

‘This part explores the development of your company through the growth of newly employed workers.

Here are also researched the implications of incubators’ location and/or networks on the acquisition of

new employees’

9) Did you acquire new employees? How many?

10) How did you fill the vacancies?

a. Did the incubators play any role in it?

11) Have you been affected by the location and the cluster of tech start-ups and tech university?

Part 3 - Conclusion

Conclusion

12) Do you consider your participation in the incubation program as useful?

a. Why?

b. What is the greatest added value for you?

c. What aspect of incubation were you missing/ what should have been part of the

incubation?

13) Is there anything else you would like to mention?

Debriefing

Thank you for your time and cooperation. Before we finish:

Is there anything you would like to add that was not in the interview?

How did you feel about the interview? Any questions from your side?

Once again thank you. Information provided will be treated confidentially and you will receive the

results once they are available.

55

Appendix 2 - Description of researched start-ups

Incubator Company and contact Field Basic description

Yes

!Del

ft

Conference compass

info@conference-

compass.com

Mobile

application

for events

Leading mobile app provider for the

largest medical and scientific societies in

the world. They are committed to

providing the best-on-market mobile

event apps. They increasing your event

ROI and engaging your members and

delegates at and beyond your event

Elemental info@elemetal.eu

Sustainable

recycling

Elemetal is a spinoff from the TU Delft

that focusses on upcycling of copper from

waste streams, such as the bottom ashes

from municipal waste incinerators. They

find real solutions to waste problems,

close the resource lifecycle, and

contribute to the circular economy.

Adjuvo Motion Info@adjuvomotion.com

Bio-tech Creating a world where

everybody is in charge of their

own physical rehabilitation

They develop products that keep

people engaged during

Incubator Company Incubation process Incubation stage

YES!Delft

(started in 2005)

Conference compass 2010-2015 Graduated

Elemental 2009-2015 Graduated

Adjuvo Motion Since 2015 New

Delft Inversion Since 2013 Senior

ACE Venture Lab

(started in 2013)

MyReputationLab Since 2015 New

3D Universum Since 2014 Senior

Metrica sports Since 2013 Senior

Scyfer Since 2014 Senior

BTC Twente

(started in 1981)

Ecovat Since 2013 Senior

56

their therapy.

Delft Inversion info@delft-inversion.com

Oil industry Inversion technology to establish

the oil and gas reserves for the future. The

times of easy oil have come to an end, and

so has the time of conventional seismic

imaging. Their inversion technology sets

new standards in terms of structural

resolution and quantitative interpretation.

Ace

Ven

ture

eLab

MyReputationLab

isabelle.chabry@gmail.com

Online

marketing

and PR

Their mission is to change and transform

how Leaders market themselves and take

back control of their reputation. Through

personal touch with their clients they aim

to build a online platform that would

simplify the reputation management.

3D Universum info@3duniversum.com

3D computer

vision

technology

3D scanning, sharing and printing was

never this easy. We will make your 3D

dream come true. 3DMultiScan is

extremely fast, accurate and user friendly

software for 3D scanning. Using their

software and website, you can record,

upload/download and share your models

with other 3D designers and software

users.

Metrica sports INFO@METRICA-

SPORTS.COM

Football

software

analysis

Football is the most popular sport on

earth. They develop innovative solutions

that empower the constant evolution of

the sport. Metrica, was born from the

desire to provide clubs with the necessary

tools to transform raw data into an

actionable output. At Metrica they

strongly believe that the only way to get

the best out of a data set, is by working

side by side with managers and coaches in

order to develop tailor made analysis that

fit to the unique needs of a team.

Scyfer info@scyfer.nl

AI machine

learning

Scyfer is a spin-off of the University of

Amsterdam specialized in machine

57

learning. We are partners in making

intelligent software work for your

company. We undertake projects where

machine- and deep-learning solutions are

able to improve our clients’ business

goals. Working in close collaboration, our

clients provide the data and business

background, which we combine with

Scyfer’s own deep-learning platform and

extensive, state-of-the-art knowledge of

machine learning..

BT

C T

wen

te

Ecovat info@ecovat.eu

Renewable

energy

solutions

At this time, there is still a substantial

potential in the realization of the

sustainability of the Agri-food sector and

the built environment , where those

concerned are eagerly looking for heat

storage solutions. The currently known

systems only store energy for short

periods of time or the realization of such a

system is not economically cost-effective.

However , the Ecovat® energy storage

system has an innovative principle:

affordable thermal energy storage across

the seasons.

58

Appendix 3 - Description of incubators

YES!Delft

YES!Delft stands for The Young Entrepreneurs Society in Delft, which is a Dutch city with renowned

technology university. The initiative started in 2005 as a joint effort of the Delft university of technology

(TU Delft), a local municipality (City of Delft) and TNO companies. After 10 years of experience in

2015, YES!Delft was ranked as a top incubator by University Business Index (UBI), being number 4 in

Europe and number 9 worldwide. With their 3 core principles: 1. The entrepreneur's interest always

comes first, 2. Building tomorrow's leading firms is the ambition, 3. Join forces to fuel success; it

launched over 160 companies since its start (Yes!Delft, 2016).

The main areas of focus are: Clean Technology, Industrials, Energy, Health & Medical Technology,

ICT, Mobility and Consumer Products, which are operationalised through 3 programs:

- Discovery day: A day long program that helps you to specify and access viability of your tech

idea and transform it into a business.

- LaunchLab: three months long pressure cooker to discover potential of your tech idea. It aids

you to discover and validate your idea, market potential, business model and launching

customer.

- Incubation program: Program lasting for six months that helps you to set foundation for fast

and sustainable growth. It consists of: YES!Pro masterclasses, Coaching and guidance,

network, facilities, consultation, financing and marketing & PR. They also offer a loan of

€15,000 to starting entrepreneurs under favourable conditions.

Altogether cover elements of entrepreneurial motivation, acceleration and incubation. In YES!Delft

they closely cooperate with academia, municipality and private sector in order to offer their clients

relevant business support, networks with commercial as well as research applicability. Furthermore, in

2016 they open doors of newly built lab facilities, which add on to their existing working spaces and

create comprehensive offer of physical facilitates to their clients. Lastly, they have strong selection

criteria for entry.

ACE Venture Lab

Origins of ACE started in 2006 as a research centre of the Faculty of Economics and Business of the

University of Amsterdam (UvA), which eventually, in 2008 transformed into an initiative called CASE

GENERAL INFO YES!Delft BTC Twente ACE Venture Lab

Founded 2005 1981 2008 (2013)

No. of start-ups since launch 161 700 24

Invested capital €110.000.000 / /

Consolidated sales 2014 / €1.500.000 /

Sales turnover €58.292.026 /

(Ace, 2016; BTCTwente. 2016; Diederik, 2015; YES!Delft, 2016)

59

under the joined effort of UvA, the Vrije University (VU), Hogeschool van Amsterdam (HvA) and the

Center for Amsterdam Scholes for Entrepreneurship. ACE was created in 2010 and it stands for stands

for the Amsterdam Centre for Entrepreneurship and it is designed to improve the business environment

in Amsterdam by bringing scientific research into commercial, business area. As a result, in 2013 there

was created the ACE Venture Lab, that is located at Science park along with the Faculty of Sciences of

the UvA. They closely work together with educational institutions in order to facilitate transition of the

university to commercial field. They do it through combination of activities that include:

- Bootcamp: intensive training program taking place twice a year for researchers, senior scientists

and MSc students

- Growth program: it composes of a six months’ acceleration program after which the client start

two-year long growth program

- Start-up launch class: newly developed 10-weeks long program for student start-ups

Since the launch of ACE in 2008, there have been created 24 start-ups. In Ace Venture Lab they put

emphasis on all the key elements of incubation, therefore, they provide services supporting business

coaching, networking opportunities as well as physical facilities and access to funding. ACE has a target

to become independent by 2019, however, up until then they are dependent of public funding and the

income from the office rent (€130/month) (ACE Venture Lab, 2016).

BTC Twente

Kennispark Twente is, in terms of facilitated jobs (6300) the second largest campus in the Netherlands

(Kennispark, 2016). It facilitates business support for aspiring entrepreneurs but it is also home for over

400 companies. In its heart is the University of Twente, which in collaboration with the City of

Enschede, the Region of Twente the Province of Overijssel and the Saxion University of Applied

Sciences have created this agglomeration of businesses and business support organisations.

The main goals of Kennispark Twente is to further develop an innovative entrepreneur’s climate in the

region of Twente and create 10.000 new jobs for the region. They do that by investing in three areas:

- ‘Support systems for innovative start-ups: from coaching programs and events, to financing

- Industrial innovation: joint innovation projects between SMEs, local industries and universities

- Attractive Business Climate: create the right environment for innovative businesses and attract

new businesses for Twente’

Due to its enormous size it composes of different support bodies, such as BTC Twente. BTC stands for

Bedrijfstechnologisch Centrum Twente (Business Technology Center Twente). It was founded in 1981

and as such it is the oldest incubator in the sample. Unlike other two incubators, BTW Twente is for

profit organisation that supports its clients in terms of business support, physical facilities, networking

and access to financing (BTC Twente, 2016).

60

Appendix 4 – Interviews’ transcription

Interview was conducted with co-founder of 3D universum on 9.6.2016

Basic introduction of the interview.

M: Good afternoon and thank you for taking your time to meet me, is it ok if I record it?

T: Sure, no problem.

M: Thanks. This interview consists of 3 main sections, firstly I will tell you a bit more about myself

and the research what I’m doing. Then I will ask you a it more about yourself and about your company.

Then there are 3 areas of financing, customer acquisition and employment. Lastly, I will ask you if

everything was ok and if you have some questions. Shall we start?

T: Yes.

M: So do you think you could tell me more about your company, 3Duniversum , how long you have

been in business, what are your goals and how long you have been in the incubation program?

T: So, it has all started couple of years ago when the university decided that they will reduce the funding

of the research project, which meant that we had to find different ways of funding our project. Also the

university had a clear goal of commercialising the academic research. Or at least they wanted to create

a bit more involvement on the commercial side. It works the way that the university has some research

project that they push for spin-off, funded privately and publicly. They take a stake in that company

and when it grows and develops they will sell the company and the university gets its stake from it. So

we (teaching professors) are being pushed to commercialise our research so that the university can get

something out of it. We do it because we don’t want to do teaching 100%. So we get private funding

and we do our research through these spinoffs. Because of that even Ace emerged as it is a tool to really

get research project commercialised. Because of the closeness of UvA and ACE it is really easy to

cooperate in-between. I had a company before 3Du, Sightcorp, which I was partly private partly public,

owned by university. It got sold.

M: I see, so that is how 3Duniversum emerged?

T: Well, let me finish the story, it will all fit in. So The Sightcorp got bought off by investors, who

actually buy it for its potential but also for its close connection, affiliation with university. These

corporations they really want to get in the research area as it is a very interesting place where they ca

get the best people and the best research. They really value it. For the 3Du we got investors who paid

for the development of the company. As you can see it is really interesting for them because they get

foot in the door, and eventually they will make money out of it also.

M: I see, so you had previous entrepreneurial experience?

T: Yes. I made mistakes that I learned from and it was a really valuable experience for me for developing

3Du.

61

M: So, your choosing of ACE was due to your previous experience and also because of their connection

with UvA? Or were there some more specific reasons?

T: well, of course it was easier for us to go there as we knew the people already nad it was really close,

but it was mainly because they had really cheap rents. When we started 3Du we had investors so we

had money for the development and for overcoming the valley of death, but you cannot burn all the

money in the first stage of your development. So the rents was the biggest plus What was also useful

was the affiliation to the university. It is really good to acquire people from there. Also the location, it

was convenient for me.

M: I see, that is interesting. So you said tat you had investors at the beginning, right? Did you acquire

these investors by yourself or did the incubator play any role in it?

T: No, the incubator did not play any role there. We acquire them by ourselves. We have a quite a

specific field and also I already had some contacts from my previous SightCorp so I knew some people

already.

M: So you acquired them by yourself? How?

T: Yes. Well you do your research, find the people that are in the same industry and who are investing

and you introduce yourself to them. You go to events where there are these investors. But also Ace is

organising some events where you can meet their investors but that was not really for us because of our

specific focus. If you have a perspective company they will give you financing. But it is also a struggle

because investors want to make money and they want all the shares possible, whereas you want to keep

as much equity as possible.

M: So the incubation program did not really play any role in the financing of your venture?

T: no, not really. We managed ourselves.

M: That’s interesting. Do you have customers? Or did you acquire customers since you entered the

incubation program?

T: yes, we have. Firstly, you develop a product, let’s say scan of this room in 3D and then you think

what you can do with this. You can replace the furniture, play around with the setting of the room. So

you go to the real estate agency and show them the possibilities. Then you create a partnership with the

corporates as that is better for you. For the small players you do individual deals.

M: I see. And did you get some customers through the incubators networks for example? Did it help

you in some way?

T: not really. It was nice to talk to their networks but this is a specific product that has specific clientele

so you need to do it yourself. The incubator helps you with the business aspect, because when you are

a tech guy you don’t know anything about business. You honestly don’t even care, even though, it is

half of the success. They offer you the business coaching, which can be really interesting for the young

guys who have no business knowledge, but you really need to do the effort by yourself. For us we

attained our clients ourselves.

62

M: I see, and how did the incubator affect your networks? Did it help in some way?

T: It did help but it was not crucial for us. Because of my previous experience I knew the people and

knew how to get the customers.

M: But what about the incubators connection to university? I mean, you are a professor here so probably

you can facilitate it better but did it impacted you?

T: Of course I have close connection with the university so for me it was really convenient to have a

place that would be this tight with the UvA. But in terms of the networks it was good, but not crucial.

M: Ace has some sort of reputation, did it affect you somehow?

T: Yeh, I can imagine that for younger start-ups that do not have prior experience it is really valuable

and for us it certainly was useful, but as I said, not crucial.

M: So how did you acquire your employees?

T: Here at UvA we have really good department of AI (artificial intelligence) so w have Master students

interns who are doing the coding, creating new programs. They are able to do it till the graduation and

if they are good they can continue with us. We also have couple of my PhD. Students.

M: So you get your people through the university?

T: definitely. There are great minds and these people they can work for google, Microsoft, for big

corporates but they don’t want to. They are just a number there whereas in a start-up they can go left,

right. Of course they need to get the job done but thy learn more and it is a bit freer. This is one of the

reasons why tech start-ups are so desired by investors. They want to access academic research and,

when they acquire tech start-up with PhD person, it has enormous vaue. They do it for that. Each PhD

in ths sort of start-up is worth 1milion so if you have 5PhDs you automatically have a value of 5 mil.

These people are the rock stars, well not rock stars per-se but they can work in any company they want

for huge money. AI is emerging field and having the right people is worth a lot of money.

M: Wow, that is really interesting. I had no idea that they are worth that much. So you got your people

basically just through the university, from your students?

T: Absolutely. They are really talented people and this cooperation with UvA is really valuable to me.

M: I see. Nice. Another question is if you have been affected somehow by the cluster of start-ups in

Ace? You said that the biggest value for you was really the office and the cooperation with uni but did

you like the shared space with other ventures?

T: It was good to have other ventures around. Especially because they are struggling with the same or

similar issues, which means that you can always have a talk with them and learn. This was good,

especially because in the incubator they do not sow you how to make contracts or how to deal with

investors. Everyone different there, but still when you negotiate for a contract with your investors, you

don’t know if the deals is good to give our 5% of your company. Because 5% is a lot of shares and they

don’t teach you whether this deal is good or not. The same with contracts with customers. You may

63

really get hurt by writing or signing a bad contract. So because there are companies that are dealing

with the same type of problems you can share your problems and find some solutions.

M: that is interesting that you say that because in other interviews I heard something very similar. As

the technology entrepreneurs do not originally have much knowledge about the business aspect they

said that they would really welcome more specific help with accounting, legal advice etc. But All

together, if you would look at it form above, was your participation with Ace good? Would you do it

again?

T: I think for every starting spi-off any help given is useful so from this aspect I would. The office space

is such a close proximity was really useful and having other companies that struggle with the same

issues was also very useful but the main thing that I was missing was really the support with the

contracts and with the negotiations. Nobody teaches you that and it may really impact you if you give

out too much of your company. Each company is different so you cannot create a method or a manual

that would guide us. I think that I there would assistance from the incubator that would individually

help you it would be really useful.

M: yeah, there are actually more ventures that said that. The incubators should get a person or someone

credible who would be assisting you.

T: Yes, of course it is difficult to get someone credible to advise you because you never know how good

that person is. In academia you have list of references, so if you have this much (spreads the arms wide)

you know that this person is credible, whereas if you have this much (spreads the arms little) you know

that this person is not good. In business you don’t know, but yeah I think that I missed a person who

would help us with the contracts with investors.

M: Thank you very much for this! I have all the information I need. Lastly, is there anything that you

would like to add, that was not mentioned before?

T: No, not really. Only possible that the incubator would have more value for me if there would be the

person assisting you, but also a bit more support in the legal area.

M: Fantastic, thanks. How did you feel about the interview? Was everything alright?

T: Yes, I think so.

M: I am happy to hear that. I will treat this interview confidentially and I will send you the results once

I finish them. Good luck to you.

Interview was conducted with the co-founder of Scyfer , 8.6.2016

Incubation and company started in 2014

After introduction the interviewer and the research we skipped straight to the interview

M: so Jorgen, could you please introduce your company? tell me ow long you've been in business, what

are you goals and when you entered the incubation program?

64

J[00:00:15] : so we are going to be the best of the machine learning solution area to create computer

vision and machine learning solutions for our customers and yeah this is in a medical industry. so those

are the 2 target areas where we are active and we have now 12 employees and create a profit and

turnover. We area in the scale up phase.

M[00:00:43]: I see and did you have some prior entrepreneurial experience before you started your

company?

J: well, modest, I’ve been a self-employed consultant, but that's different experience than being an

entrepreneur because you need some all kind of extra knowledge over there.

M: so why did you choose the incubator you are in at the moment? was it just random choice, or were

there some specific factors behind it? such as network, location, physical facilities?

J: yeah, network and location are the two important items so iv started the company with a professor

from the university of Amsterdam and when i got the first employee we needed some office space and

he told me, well, there might be an option to rent an office in the incubator and there you have two

features in one, having office Space and having support with a scaling and growing your business. so

we were already running a business for half a year and then we finally enter the incubator.

M: and when do you add the incubator was that how long you've been in there two and a half years?

J: yes. about 2 years now, there is a two years’ limit that is being extended now for half a year.

M[00:02:30]: and when you entered the incubator how did you finance your enterprise? was it self-

financing? or was it VCs or angel investors?

J: so it was bootstrap, self-finance.

M: self-finance, so the incubator didn’t play any role in the provision of the financing? or of the growth?

J: No.

M: and have you acquired customers since you started the incubation program?

J: yes.

M[00:03:00] : and did the incubator and incubation process somehow play a role in it?

J: yes. the fact that we are within a community where also the science park is really active in ace, part

of the ace venture. invite all kinds of companies to science park telling what things have happened.

yeah, it got us some customers.

M[00:03:38] : so was it the networks or the cluster?

J: Yeah, the community you are in. that was really successful for us.

M[00:03:48] : I see. and, so basically as I understand it, you developed your company and your business

basically just by yourself and by your partners and incubation, or incubator really provided bit

of networks, physical space but none of the business knowledge. You had the business knowledge

before.

J: Yeah, it is because we are quite specific business division, they start with the lean start-up methods

and yeah, that is all kind of theoretical, I think, from the business side. From the business side the

65

incubator does not provide the knowledge. They provide help but not the knowledge. And that is a big

difference, so I wouldn’t say... they really supported us really well but not with the real knowledge. just

bit more with the network and all that things. But it was quite valuable.

M[00:04:51] : so with the expansion of the business to different areas, basically you had to acquire the

knowledge yourself or you had to develop the core product because the incubator didn’t really know

much about this particular field. But they really helped you with the business aspect.

J: Yes.

M[00:05:21] : you also said that you hired 12 employees? or 10 employees?

J: yes, 12.

M: and you acquired them through university? or how did you acquire them>

J: yeah some by university and some just by putting job openings. and by our reputation, which is quite

good, people would like to work for us because we have a famous professor in our company about deep

learning and people would like to work in our company.

M[00:05:55] : and do you think, obviously the professor provides the credibility but do you think also

that the incubator gave you some sort of credibility in the eyes of potential employees?

J: No, not for the employees. I don’t think so. It is hard to prove but i don’t think that has anything to

do with it. Only the location is quite compelling because it is really adjacent to the uni.

M: And do you have some good connection with the uni yourself? I mean you have the professor

obviously but do you also use uni facilities, or development, research?

J: yeah, we provide, we pay the research club some money in order to conduct a research. and we also

do joined effort in the issuing of grants. it is really close collaboration with writing of grants or getting

your name for government and research institutes.

M[00:07:09] : Ok, that is quite interesting. That was really useful. For me I basically covered all the

areas I wanted. Is there anything you would like to mention? or something that I forgot to ask and you

believe it should be mentioned?

J: yeah, so what was the goal for the research?

M: I am trying to the key success factors of the incubation program of the incubation of high tech

Ventures. So I'm looking at each aspect of incubation and I'm trying to find out which element or which

aspects are the most important ones and for you as an entrepreneur what was the, let's say the biggest

added value?

J: so, the networking part was really useful.so getting in contact and inviting companies over to listen

to a proposition and then say okay this is quite interesting and also the research Community or the

customer say we like that all kind of start-ups in your community that we drive innovation and we are

looking for innovation and that's why we would really like to work with you. and in effect one of the

customers open the branch at the incubator.

M[00:08:38] I see and is there anything that you were really missing in the incubator or in the

incubation? Something that you really hope that there would be?

66

J: yeah, there were lots what I missed. Some plain things that you get confronted with, like one, the help

of creating a normal contract, or a basic contract for first employees for example or setting up a business

administration. or other practical tips of how to basically set up your company. Like the ---- of the

company is like a really common thing for start-ups to create a shareholder agreement, to create good

financial structure. business administration, contracts, just the 'pluming and water pipers' of the

company, which are required for a company are quite generic information. so for each company it is

the same so I would expected some more knowledge and help of that.

M: they did not provide that? that is surprising actually.

J: No.

M[00:10:17] : is there anything else you would like to mention? you told me everything I needed to

know. It was really informative. Thank you.

J: yeah ok.

M: have you been satisfied with the interview? Was everything fine?

J: yeah it was ok.

M: Thank you very much. I will treat your info confidentially and I will send you the results when they

are ready.

Interview was conducted with founder of Metrica Sports, 9.6.2016

Incubation and company started in 2013-

Basic introduction of the interview

M:[00:00:00] so yeah, I am Martin Dostal and I am from the Czech Republic and I am studying Msc

Entre here and i am researching in the moment the incubation program or the incubation process of a

technology ventures and i want to find out what are the success factors of the incubation. form your

part i am really curious of wht was good for you, what was not so good what you appreciate and what

you don’t appreciate about the incubation process. Also I am going to treat the info confidentially so I

am just gonna use the name of the company, not your name in person and potentially if you would be

interested I can send you the results later on.

R[00:00:46] :Yeah, sure, that is cool

M: So could you tell me a bit more about the company, about yourself? how long you have been in

business and how long you have been in the incubation program?

R[00:00:55] : the company is now a bit more than 3 years old. 3 years and 2 months. Ah, shall i get

closer?

M; yeah, make sure that iv got it all.

R; our company is a bit strange or an outlier from the normal, because we found the company because

we were signing a contract with a club. so we did, before founding the company we went for one year

of working nights weekends to make the beta, like a very simple MVP, with the MVP the club basically

bought it. then we founded the company to sign the contract. and we had 2 months available what we

67

were promising we had we didn’t have and we made it in 2 months and we delivered. So its a little bit

a weird case because normally you find the company and then you find customers ect.

M: yeah but this is the ideal case, isnt it?

R: Yeah, we had a paying customer, from day 0.

M: Well, i mean some of the companies wont event get there sometimes, so it is really cool

R: yeah that’s why I say i is a bit different.

M: And how long have you been in the incubation? or why?

R: since the beginning, since the day 0. So as i said last year I was doing a PhD. here, we were doing a

PhD. here, 2 out of 3 founders and then last year of PhDs.that the time we use do the research. do the

MVP and to put all the ideas in the powerpoint. and then I finsihed the PhD and I had 3 months of

unemployment and then i joined this venture lab. they had an incubation, like training program. So i

joined the course and during the course I had a meeting in spain with Via Real, we signed contract and

we founded the and then we were at.

M: so it all came at once?

R: yeah it all came at once. and i was doing the course and i had a good feeling about this venture thing.

so we decided to join.

M[00:03:12] : and did you have some prior entrepreneurial experience?

R: None

M: so you were a PhD student, researcher, technology researcher.

R: No, not really. we were new in that respect too. because none of us had any experience at starting up

anything and we are not technical.

M: you are not technical at all?

R: well we are but in very different fields. I am a neuroscientists and the other founder is also

neuroscientists. And the third one is a bit more technical he was a video production. But what we do

has nothing to do with what we offer. What we came from is experiment in the lab so it is a very long

story but none of us is really technical in the sense so we are data analysts, from a scientific point of

view. and that is what we applying in metrica.

M[00:04:15] : so why did you choose ace? was it like some particular choice? particular need that some,

for example they had physical facilities or networks, or was it because of some other reasons?

R: before Ace we participated in start-up bootcamp and you know start up bootcamp?

M: I do.

68

R: so we participated there and we made it to the finals. And the finals were twenty companies and they

selected 10. and we were like 11th or 12th so we were left out. If we had been chosen we would have

joined their program.

M: Okey, so it was second choice.

R: To be honest, not even we had made a choice. because as i said we just had a powerpoint we didn’t

had the platform. we didn’t have anything. So it was more of an expiration phase, that's we joined the

start-up bootcamp just to see. we were very shocked to make it to the finals. and then were not so lucky.

So, as i said if we were selected we would have joined but ot because of choice but because, well, they

accepted us. so, we had no experience whatsoever. now looking back i see how naive we were. And I

am really happy that we didn’t win. because the conditions there are pretty shitty.

M: are they? are they worse than here?

R: Well basically here they don’t get any equity

M: and over they do?

R: yeah 8%. So i am very happy we didn’t win because we would have joined. we had nothing and they

have a huge network. start-up bootcamp is quite famous. very well organised. so we would have joined

because they had the things that we were lacking. then we were not selected then i joined the course

here.

M: and it worked out?

R: and everything happened.

M [00:06:18] : at the beginning how did you finance your company? how did you really acquire the

funding? because you said at the beginning it was bootstrapping, so your own resources over the

weekends, but then you got a paying customer. but did you actually seek for funding as well? external

funding?

R: we got external funding. we did not really seek for it. it was actually very easy.

M: that sounds like a dream coming true.

R: yeah it was really nice way. the beginnings at least because in the finals of start-up bootcamp

amsterdam, there was a two full days of mentoring. we met we 200 mentors and we had to give 5min

pitches 20times a day. it was crazy. And we met a lot of mentors, experts. and we felt a little bit left out.

we were not selected, bu one of the mentors came to us and he said that he liked our concept and he

would like to be updated. and so we kept the relationship with him just to updating him on our plans.

and then what happened is that we signed the contract with the Via Real in Spain and we needed to

build the platform that we have told them that we have.

M: in two months??

R: yes. and you can only do that with a lot of money. So then I called that guy and I said: 'we have a

problem!, but i might be interesitng for you' and then he invested.

69

M: okey, so that was. you even got an investor completely out of the incubation process of the

Ace itself?

R: it was a guy that we met at the Amsterdam start-up boot camp.

M: se he was not affiliated with Ace whatsoever.

R: NO.

M[00:08:04] : did the incubation, or the ace venture lab somehow help you> in terms of other financing

or in terms of acquisition customers?

R: no, we are a little bit out of their scope. because it is an incubation program that is mainly directed

to medical companies, bio companies. and we are not. we are football analytics. so something unrelated.

so they were not able to help us in terms of yeah networks, for example. in any case we have very

difficult, very specific target group.

M: so did they help you in, or let’s put in a different way. Did their networks and that may be just the

people in the incubator, or just their networks. do you go to their events and do you meet their networks?

or do you try to exploit their networks somehow?

R: Yeah, well not anymore. just now we are more than 3 years old and we are not.

M: you don’t need that anymore.

R: we are not in the incubation phase anymore, we are more in a growth phase and so we don’t need

them so much. But the first year especially I used everything.

M: yeah? and was it useful somehow?

R: yeah, of course. You have to imagine who we are, what we were doing...we had no idea what we

were doing. we didn’t know anything.

M: so what do you actually get from the incubation program? what was your thing that you got.

R: at the beginning especially?

M:yes.

R: well first thing that they provide that is very useful is space. that is very useful. and at a very low

price, it is subsidized. so it is also something that is very helpful at the beginning. But things that help

us the most were the advisers. We joined when they were also start-up because they were starting. and

we were one of the first companies

M: yeah it is a quite new program, isnt it?

R: yeah, it is 3 years old and we joined 2.5 half years ago so...

M: so you were literally one of the first one's there.

70

R: we were one of the first one. and they had a good network of advisers. As i say we were, like, guys

that work in a lab for all their lifes and we had no idea about anything. we didn’t know what kind of

companies there exist, BB or other. we had no idea about that and nothing...

M: completely different world.

R: yeah, we never worried about this kind of thing. we knew that we had a company and we had club

to serve and they helped us a lot in that.

M: that's good. So they had a solid business development, or business coaching for yourself. Okey

R: they had advisers in sales for example so they, because you ahve to understand that for example

negotiating, something we never did so I had a lot of coaching on coaching on negotiations from Ace.

They had an sale adviser.

M: actually I was wondering: from my previous interviews people said that there were lacking the

specific business area support such as legal advice or accounting advice, or even when you negotiate

with the investor so how, what sort of percentage you should or you should not give out, what is good

for you. And obviously if you are not experienced at it you don’t know. Did you have similar experience

with this?

R:Yeah,again our case as very different because we had to get the money from that guy we needed the

money to build it and he was winning to pay so yeah, just get the money and get it done. So we did not

ahve to go out and look for investors and we, it was a very easy negotiation with him.

M: So it was like mutually beneficial for both of you. You were ok with the percentage you gave him

and he was ok with it too. That is good.

R: What, one of the advisers helped us in the negotiation with the investors. He wanted to put some

detail clauses and things like that and again on that we had no idea so there was an adviser here that

helped us on that, but that was also.. but we found our ways.

M[00:12:35]: so ok, you just used them to learn but you kinda walk the way yourself. Do you also

acquire some employees? How did you acquire them? I mean how did you get them? did you get them

through the university or through the incubation networks, or you just put ads and waited for some

people to apply?

R: yes, we did it our way.

M[00:12:59] : did the connection, affiliation with the uni affected you somehow? In terms of

development of your business?

R: no, not really. We tried and it was quite disappointing. Because at some point we, there is not much

connection. Again, with the university there is not much connection. But there are groups of computer

vision, at some point we though well that we could benefit from and in just turned in a very commercial

negotiation. so we decided not to pursue. We hope that that would be due to the link with the university

so they would be willing to help us but they wanted shares of the company and they wanted...

M: so it was not beneficial for you?

R: so we decided to stop.

71

M: so the link with the uni was not really working for yourself. Even when, you were doing PhD. at

VU, so you had some connections with the university in Amsterdam. But that didn’t really help you.

R: yeah but they were connections at something different. Yeah so we had to approach groups, new

groups, new topic. Not people that I knew before.

M: that seems like a challenge. Or challenging at that time.

R: yeah, it was. It was disappointing because it was a waste of time. It was a lot of time invested in the

talks etc and in the end you end up with nothing so it was waste of time. We were very hopeful that

there would be more support in this way and they were just small commercial, trying to get shares.

M[00:14:41] : ok, the incubation, the physical space itself, did you find some benefits, or some impact

of the cluster of similar companies, companies that are basically developing in the same way of

technology start-up. Did it affected you somehow?

R: Again, no. There is not link and ...

M: no, what i mean is that you were like a new start-up and there were also companies that were growing

or starting their own business. let’s say like a support from them, or when you didn’t know something

you just went to the next company and asked them hoe they did it?

R: well things like that of course, that helped. For example i remember when we needed a layer to draft

a contract we were like yeah, we don’t know any lawyers from the Netherlands and we are not even

from here so ACE told us about couple of things. Yeah, they were starting so they were not really

validated as good lawyers so we talked to some other companies to ask them.

M: really? that is surprising for me because it seems that you used couple of things form

the incubation but because of your difference you didn’t, you couldnt' really use more than..

R: no no, the main benefit was the advice that we got in the first year of how to start a company with

all the challenges coming, how to negotiate, things like that, things that you have to take into account

that we didn’t even know. BUt not really material benefit. It was just more learning of how to start a

company.

M[00:16:30] : so do you consider your participation in the incubation program as successful, beneficial

for you?

R: Yeah.

M[00:16:38] : would you do it again?

R: I would do it in a different way but I would still join the incubator for sure.

M[00:16:47] : what about the things that you were missing? what would you like to see there if you

would do it again?

R: I think the problem is that we joined to early. I think if we would join today it would be different.

when we joined there was only one guys running the venture lab, now there are 5 or . their networks is

a lot bigger and they have trusted service providers like lawyers and accountants etc. so when a company

joins in, we need an accountant and they can tell them couple of companies and that can really validate...

72

but at that time there was nothing like that available. when we joined there wasn't so that’s why we

could only benefit from the advice. if there was already a good network of service providers we could

have benefited from that as well but.

M: yeah but obviously you couldn't really use it. could you.

R: Yeah, that is why we tried to get it from other companies. In a way it was good, you can only do it

when you are part of the incubation program.

M[00:17:43] : Did it, at that time obviously, I mean Ace is older than 3 years but ace venture lab is quite

new, but it has some sort of reputation. Did this reputation help you?

R: No, not really. Because you have to think who are our customers: professional football clubs

M: and they don't care.

R: no, they don't give a shit. Barcelona, Via Real, Ajax they don’t give a shit. and in the end our target

group is very small. I mean in the Netherlands we have 6 possible customers. That is all. There is no

more than 5 or 6 that can afford something what we are doing in the Netherlands. So it does not really

affect us. Outside of Netherlands nobody know about Ace.

M: so they don’t care about the reputation, they care about your work.

R:yeah exactly, they want to know what are you doing with Via Real, how are you, if they are happy.

M[00:18:51] : ok, that is basically all. Is there anything you would like to say, or you would like to

mention that i didn’t ask?

R: No, about the incubation i think we covered pretty much it. I am not sure if it was very helpful...

M: Yeah it was, I think you have a very different experience than other ventures and i think it is very

useful to have holistic picture on it.

M[00:19:26] : Ok, was everything good?

R: Yeah, it was good, very open conversation.

Interview was conducted with the co-founder of My Reputation Lab on 10.6.2016

Incubation and company started in 2015

Basic introduction of the interview

M[00:00:55]: what i want to find out is the influence of the incubation program on your company and

on yourself.

I: OK, do you do it by yourself or who is asking you this thing? Why are you doing it?

M: I am a MSc student and I am writing my thesis at the moment and this is part of it. So I am comparing

different incubators. I'm comparing a venture lab, Yes!delft and start-up Eindhoven and I want to find

out the key success factors of the high-tech incubation program, basically.

73

I: okay but are they asking you to do these things or just you choosing these three and then making a

comparison.

M: it's just me and it's purely academic that is nothing behind or no one.

I: no no no what I meant is that it might be interesting for them because they need to go back to someone

so that's what I was wondering if one of them was intrigued by this kind of thing.

M: yeah I'm planning to provide the results to the incubator itself but I'm doing it myself.

I: ok, no problem. go ahead I'm ready.

M[00:02:05]: so I just could you tell me more about your company, about your goals, how long you

been in business and how long you've been in the incubation program?

I: Okay so incubation program I think we started in December last year because we made, you know,

the week, so the ace venture lab has a week long program. So you apply in order to be in the program

and then we succeed with that lying and then we had a week-long with the mentors and

other entrepreneurs and they decided to incubate us, you know, after December. So yeah they told us

that we had a place with them over there. I can't say that it not superb in comparison to other incubators.

But it is not this one, but if you compare it to the other one that you have in Amsterdam like ...i can’t

remember, but there is a programs that are really really strong.

M: yeah, there are couple.

I: yeah, you have couple. You have rockstart which that is really good. But not in the one that is in the

B-lab also. But compared to other labs this one is good but you feel that the process is still..in the

process. So they still need to work on it. they are really young. Try to make things good because they

are bringing mentors from silicon valley, but you still feel that they need to work on it. For example,

where they decide to bring us in the program, it was not really, yeah they said you are part of the

program but in fact they don't really push you to the environment. This is strange. But anyway, we

decide to go in Ace and take two desks over there because it was really important for us to be there also,

to be with other entrepreneurs but the place was important to be in the incubator and to be with others.

That is why we decided to go there.

M[00:04:21] : I see, and...

I: ..and about the company, so the company is MyReputationLab and for the moment we are managing

the reputation of CEOs, top executives, and celebrities.

M: OK, that is pretty cool.

I: It changed a bit but my background, we are two founders, two women, the other co-founder is 52

years old I think and she is coming from marketing, but she knows, like i said, you know the old

marketing, she doesnt like it. so from the old marketing she knows how to do digital but she was in the

luxury business and all the creams and everything, you know, the old marketing you would say. I am

from the 'new marketing'. But more than new marketing digital and social. So I am doing social, I have

done social for TomTom for example, i managed the entire division, social media division TomTom

worldwide and I love it. I love social. So we are combining the two and trying to help individuals. But

individuals that are not like anyone. More like the type of CEOs and world-known people so like the

50 richest people in the Netherlands for example. And we are the shadow writer and everything about

those people.

M[00:05:45]: Alright, so you are creating the reputation. Simply.

74

I: That's it. But that means that we are managing the reputation online ourselves. So we are the shadow-

writers of these people, they are not working their LinkedIn, they are not working their Twitter, they're

not doing anything and we are doing everything for them.

M[00:05:53]: You are doing everything for them. And did you have some entrepreneurial experience

before you started My Reputation?

I: yeah, I did one start-up before. In between two jobs I had a start-up for year and a half also in

advertising site so it was more like creating banners on the go for entrepreneurs, so yeah I know what

is the feeling to be alone. It was in France, but it is quite a difficult to be alone.

M[00:06:33] : Yeah I can imagine that. So why did you chose this incubator? Was this some particular

choice, some particular reason? or was it just random, like you were selected so you're going to go for

it?

I:No no no, we chose this one because in fact we are in digital so the aim of the company is to create a

platform to help in fact in the future, it is a b2b platform where we will help all the employees in the

company to manage their own reputation and to manage the reputation of the company. So this is a tech

start-up, we were dealing with the other start-ups, with the other start-up incubators but the problem

was that they fight each other like hell. You know, inside the incubator it is life or death thing, because

you want to take the money and the others are taking money from the VCs then they have the feeling

that there is no more money for you. No but seriously, it is like this and it is just Wow.

M: It is like wildness.

I: yeah so it is a battle over there so if you go for the Rockstart or the other one that is famous, the three

of them that are super famous in Amsterdam. I think it works well, it works even better than the Ace

venture lab at the moment but it is less scientific so it is really more into commercial and digital. You

have like these kind of business that is less scientific business, with less scientific projects and they are

like sharks you know. They want you dead.

M: yeah I can imagine. But also Rockstart in particular, the incubation program is just like 6 months

long or even 3 months long and they just like want to get you out on the market as fast as possible, so...

I: yeah of course, but there are the pros and cons. With Ace venture lab in the contrary is that they don’t

want to push you out. They help you a bit but in fact as they are not sharks sometimes they also forget

that they need to help you to 'be sharks'. Because you are going to grow with sharks. So too much

protection sometimes is not a good idea neither.

M[00:08:43] : Ok, so i was wondering because you mentioned before with he financing. How did you

finance your enterprise at the beginning?

I: that is the thing, for the moment we are financing it ourselves. So that's why we started with the CEOs

because we want them to chose our solution in the future but also to pay the bills and ourselves on a

basis.

M: that is quite smart solution.

I: So we are working on two sides, first side is that we want the CEOs taking the decision by themselves

so to the decision to take our solution themselves and not the marketing or everything but we want them

also to pay right now for the solution so they can also grow their reputation but for us to pay the bills.

M[00:09:29] : So basically the incubator they did not help you to obtain your customers or to obtain

your funding, at all?

75

I: No, and v. They are not part of this program, they are digital, they have road backs and

the network like a hell, why are you coming here? And we still feel that we are a bit different over there.

But we like them, you know, we like them because they are all scientific. They are all different.

M: they give you the scientific part while you are doing the business part sand just like combining it

together.

I: That's it. But yeah, they miss a thing, that is what we are trying to bring to them, you need to work

on your networks, because the problem is as I said, the incubator needs to have a network that is like a

hell. They need to bring you everywhere. And I think this is the part that they are lacking a bit right

now. The other ones, it is too much but this one is not enough.

M[00:10:44]: I see so you want to say that the network of Ace is not sufficient for let’s say the

acquisition of the partners, or the customers, investors... they did not really provide you much help with

this.

I: No, because in fact it is too narrow. It is almost a specialized. I think it is not a good idea. You don’t

specialise when you have a network and when you are in a incubator you, i don’t know, you have a

company in nano-technology you say in nano-technology and I have this one this one and this one to

discuss with. And with companies, not with government. That is the difference. You need to have

trusted persons around you that you can send people to. And I think they lack a bit and all the people

inside also there they are super university oriented, so it is not against you, but the problem is ... when

you are too much in university when you into an incubator for me it is even if you are coming from the

university they need to push you out. It is not that you stay in your environment.

M[00:11:54]: yeah so it is basically being a shark and just like doing it and go for it.

I: that's it. So in this part they are missing a bit. But good that they are growing.

M[00:12:06]: Yeah i think it is quite a new program. It is from 2012-2013, 4 years so it is quite new.

That is quite an interesting point that their networks are, let’s say, too academic.

I: yep.

M[00:12:22]: so did you acquire some employees since you started your company?

I: yeah, we have one employee and we are planning to have one intern and second employee also in the

2/4th of 2016.

M[00:12:38] : and how did you acquire these people? Did you just do it by yourselves or did you use

potentially the networks of the incubator, or some sort of help.

I: So, this is where we were struggling a bit, we are a bit different in terms of looking for competencies

ourselves. So we looked ourselves and Ace was not really of a big help. We asked them for a trainee

and they were saying that they were trying to bring people and to give us the tools... and also another

part is really important for us is that we are not Dutch. That is the thing, we are French, both French, so

we don’t speak Dutch so with some --- it is like a nightmare you know. In some works, even the google

can translate so you are like oh my goodness.

M: I mean, as a non-Dutch speaker I totally understand.

I: that is the thing. Where are you coming from, India?

M: No no, I am originally form the czech republic.

76

I: Ah, so you understand.

M: yeah I do. Like you ask them in English and they reply in Dutch and you are like oh come on...

I: yeah this is a game that you need to play this game.

M[00:13:59] : exactly, so you are not really using the university connection to find your employees

because as far as I understood you don't really are affiliated with the university.

I: yeah that's the thing. So we tried a bit from the university. But you know it is a shame because we

want to employ the students from the university here, this is a game normally. If you are part of the

university you normally employ people but just for the record, I tried to create an account on the

university over there in Science park. If you want to employ students over there you need to Your

Profile in their system. Ok, no problem, I have been there, trying to understand the things and i don’t

know why but I manage to create my own profile over there. It took 2.5 months to validate my profile

because I asked the director of Ace Venture Lab: but my goodness, we are all part of the incubator. we

are not strangers. I was like oh my god, seriously guys... So i was like OK, if it takes 2.5 months just to

create a profile I don’t know how I will...

M: ...this might not be the road I want to go in.

I: No, that’s the thing. When you are a start-up it is supposed to be fast.

M: and not looking for interns for 2.5 months...

I: yeas, so if you want an intern it is not a problem but before next 2 years.

M[00:15:44] : so when you develop the whole company already.

I: That's it. But some stuff like this, it is not smooth. But i think for some companies, there are some

companies in the incubator that are big because they have partnership with data and everything. So

these companies are really big and I think they are, Ace now is focusing on those companies like Scyfer

that delivering big. And I think they are right, those people are good and they are going to develop the

campus and everything. But they need to find a way to replicate and to connect people more with their

network and those types of things.

M[00:16:27] : actually you are not the first one who is saying that. That ace itself they are really focused

on one particular type of the company and if you are kinda deviating with your product and as

entrepreneur you are not using the full potential. Or you can’t even use their full potential.

I: No, that is the thing. Now they are more focusing on some companies... do you even know that they

have to move us into other building, also in Ace.

M: no i dindt know that.

I: this one is super strange because this is one of the things that makes us feel like you know like we

wouldn't stay in the future. They decided to build another building for Ace people. and we said okay that

is a problem but they said okay but the conditions are going to change. yeah but the problem is that we

sign something for 3 years and for the start of the price is super important because you don't want to

pay big amount of money for the moment we could be 5 in the office and we pay all together 230

euros. so it is not a big deal it is a good price. But now they want to change us and they said okay if you

want the same thing you have to multiply 80 euros by month. But this is the price I can’t afford. they're

going to lose people because they want to charge more for making a new campus.

77

M: so they want to go but they want to grow on the expense of their tenants,

I:that's the thing they want to grow but if they have to lose people it is not a problem because it's part

of the program. That is very strange because we enter the program six months ago this one is strange.

M[00:18:26] :So when you say about the physical space, were you somehow affected by other

companies that are in the same location? Did it have some effect on you?

I: The fact that you change the location in fact yes.

M: no no, what I mean is up until now, when you were residing in the main building did it have some

positive or negative effect on you? Did you like it, or did you not?

I: No, I like it I think. But this building thing is a problem. It is a big question.

M: yeah I can imagine. Well, you will see how it will turn out.

I: yeah But i think they will loose half of the people over there. If you can’t afford you can’t stay, that

is the thing.

M[00:19:16]: yeah and for start-ups it is very important to have very cheap and affordable space at the

beginning.

I: yeah, and for us we are also working on cases that are super personal but you can’t dealt with other

people, so we can’t be in an open space. That is the main problem. Some of the people are, or to other

start-ups that you have over there have the same problem...So if we move, we need to move into an

office and it is even more expensive. Yeah, we are struggling with that but i just wanted to give you this

example, it has nothing to do with the building. It has to do with the philosophy that you can lose people

from the incubation program because you have a strategy to develop a campus. This is strange to me.

M: Yeah, I hear it for the first time and it sounds strange to me also. They should find a different way.

I: yeah, or you are not an incubator. you are just an office which you can find for a good price. It is

different for me.

M[00:20:32] : yeah the attitude is very strange. But if you look at it from above, from holistic

perspective, do you consider your participation in the incubation program as useful so far?

I: In a way yes, I can say that in fact I am 65-70% Yes. I would say 70% positive.

M[00:20:57] : So what would be the biggest added value for you?

I: so the biggest one was in fact applying for the thing. It is a bit strange but the fact that you are applying

you re-ask yourself all the question about the business model, about everything so financially, can you

manage it. So about this I think it is super good. So the first phase that is applying there is super good.

Bt the follow up is not good.

M[00:21:30] : so what areas were you missing? you already pointed out few of them but what would

you change if you could? What are the aspects of incubation that you are missing?

I: The first thing and I am not saying something that I did not tell them. Just to be transparent. The first

thing is that we are not working all together. Everyone for themselves. That is what I said to Julia

(Isabelle's co-founder) come on, normally we are in incubation, normally if i need a commercial I might

be able to go and see others and say 'how do you manage commercial' or even share a commercial with

78

someone else. Why not, I have a start-up, i can’t pay 100% commercial why don’t we split by 4 and

then we have a commercial. And it was the same thing for the bloppers or whatever you want. and we

don’t share anything. So they are trying to make some meetings where you eat together and the others

are presenting, they are companies. But it is not sharing really. For me sharing is helping. And nobody

is helping each other.

M[00:22:35] : You don’t really have the feeling that you would be among the companies that you could

just really come to them and agree on making a mutual joined commercial together?

I: No.

M: Not at all.

I: No, commercial and everything else. We are not helping each other. I am the only one that is helping

for the moment others with their reputation. So they are coming to me and say: 'yeah, I am not good at

linked in and we are trying to sell'. So then I am sending hour and half with them just to change their

planning in terms of reputation and communication. The others they are not doing it. They are not

sharing anything. And I think this is not good.

M[00:23:14] : No, it doesn't seem to be fair as well.

I: that's the thing. IN incubation you need to push people to understand what are their strengths and

weaknesses and help them where they have weaknesses, but also with the community. And you don’t

have the feeling with ACE that you are really part of the community.

M[00:23:30] : that is really strange actually. Like, from the interviews I had with other ACE start-ups

I gotta say that there are like 50-50. Some people say that the cluster of companies or that the atmosphere

inside is not really as you say, friendly, some other companies say that you can actually walk around

and talk to other people and learn from one to another. I suppose if 50% of people are saying that this

is not really the case that is quite strange.

I: The thing is that i am the one to push for it, i am the one to spend time on it so i guess, I hope that

some other people are saying to you that some other companies helped them, because I helped them.

M[00:24:15] : yeah some companies did.

I: yeah, the feeling right now is not about sharing. And is that just with Julia...Julia was, did agree with

me. She said yeah you are right, we are trying but it is difficult. And yes, of course it is difficult because

we don’t have reason to help us. That is the thing, we don’t have reasons to help each other and the

community is still lacking I think, about, things to do together.

M[00:24:48] : I think that is a big underdog of the whole thing, like you should, they should be working

on it the way you say.

I: I think, because the owners they are sharks, they don’t work with each other but there is a reason why,

they want to succeed, they want to kill the others. That is basically the case. But here, they don’t want

you to really kill the others, they don’t care. That’s the thing, they don’t really care about the others.

Adn then you have some, like Scyfer, that are succeeding a lot and now it is making a big hole between

the two people. Between the two parts. You have one that is really succeeding a lot, making partnerships

and the others that are still small, and you have bigger hole in-between.

M[00:25:39] : Yeah, so there is like disproportionate attention to companies basically.

I: and also people.

79

M: and people.

I: ...when you have 15 people from one company and the others are spread to 2 or 3, then

the equilibrium is not good anymore.

M[00:26:03] : That is actually surprising for me and that is some valuable input, thank you for that.

I: no problem, but we have a different vision also from the others. we are a bit older and we are coming

form a different field so that is maybe why we don’t have the same vision also on this part.

M[00:26:21] : Yeah, but still I think that idea of cooperation would be something strange, that should

be part of every incubator, so yeah. But anyway, I covered all the areas I needed. Is there anything else

you would like to mention, something I should have asked?

I: No, but i thin what would be the cool think, because you compare to other universities, but i think for

your study it would be also cool to take one that is from the sharks, you know. because we are all

together, the three you took are a bit common altogether, they have some things in common, some

things that are totally different. But the one that are really making the start-ups that are succeeding right

now and that are really taking money from the VCs are the ones that are in D, or the one you know...

so those ones are machines. They are creating machines that can really create new things like the

singularity university in the US. So now, it is really machine. So i think it could be cool also for you to

say: ok, what is the key success factor that we an take in those machines and replicate them in those

universities that are still struggling a bit.

M[00:27:44] : Yeah, i totally agree with that but the only problem which i face at this point is that, there

are high-tech incubators that are really focusing on tech companies and tech companies the development

is slightly different than let’s say normal, commercial company. And these sharks, they have less time

but because it takes less time to develop a product they are just commercial, whereas when you take

high tech it takes more time and development. Yourself, you may have quite a specific product which

is tech based but it is quite commercial as well but there are companies in these tech incubators that are

really working on 2-3 years basis to develop a product, which in a normal, commercial sphere would

not be possible whatsoever because 3 years is too long.

I: I totally agree, but this is also what we discussed with some people in here in ACE, those people they

are entering... the common feeling and philosophy is that ah, you are going into a tunnel for 2-3 years,

you need to be ready for that but in fact no, if you go back to the stage of Singularity university they

can create a ---- and then they an create cycles that are 6 months max so you know, I understand the

university part, but I think they need to quit cycles and create cycles that are faster, and also where you

bring back the network all the time to have the feedback. That i what they are missing right now.

M[00:29:24] : I agree with you. Ok, tank you for your openness, were you OK with the interview? was

everything ok?

I: Perfect. Thank you very much. It was really interesting and I hope you have everything that you need

and if you need more, don’t hesitate to call me back.

M[00:29:50] : I will, do you want me to share the results once I type them up?

I: Of course.

M: fantastic, once I have it will share it with you on your email. Once again, thank you very much. Bye

YES!DELFT

80

The interview was conducted with founder of Delft Inversion, Yes!Delft on 10.6.16

Interviewer introduced the protocol and the interview. He said that he wants to results.

Company and incubation started in 2013.

M[00:01:25]: So could you tell me a bit more about the company? About your goals, years in business

and how long you have been in the incubation program?

P: We started off in 2013, early like January-February and what we actually do, i don’t know if it is

relevant but for you to understand, we are active in the oil and gas business, more into the extraction

and production of hydro-carbons and what are we actually do is in deep seismic data that is from surface

to seismic we turn that into a properties of reservoirs and based on that you can see how much oil you

have in place, extension of the reservoirs. So all this crucial information to build a proper development

plant to see how much oil you have in place, which you could write it on your reserves and then finally,

what we say the big impact is on the equity of the oil companies. So it is really close to the core of any

expiration and production company so these are our clients. We started really simple, three people from

university. We are now with 6, two of them are master students, so not too much growth but also we

have to take into account that since 2014 the oil priced went really down, 60% of this ---- expiration

went to the minimum, if not to the 0 right now. So it is period, that the whole industry is reshuffling and

new opportunities arise, but first we have to survive this period and stay alive in build a network and

hopefully, once investments start again we are there to jump on.

M[00:03:22] : It is true that oil industry in general is really declining at this time.

P: yeh, the investment is really minimum in the extraction part.

M[00:03:35]: So how long have you been part of the incubation program? Did you start with the

company?

P: The company started late, in September 2012, once we got our first launching customer and we

finished off with our PhD. we just joined the YESDELFT. So at principal I defended my PhD on 13th

of January 2013 and then next day I was here [Yesdelft] setting up office.

M[00:04:07] : that is some very good memory. Did you have some prior entrepreneurial experience?

P: No, not whatsoever. The only thing we did was, we were working on the idea since 2011 and we

took part in a capital of competitions new venture if you have heard of it?

M: yes I did.

P: and I at the same time, we started to part in these start-up course that they had here in 2012. So that

was our entrepreneurial activities prior. But not being involved in a company or... we were just

academics.

M[00:04:42] : So why did you choose YESDELFT? was there any specific reason for it or, such as like

networks, location or physical facilities... or was it just because of some other reason.

P: No, there was no particular reason. It just made sense. You want to move outside of the academic

environment to more entrepreneurial environment where you would find peers and we have the same

problems and same issues you face, but also you don’t want to be far from the university so that is why

we.. it is kind of a trademark we keep. That is why we put DELFT in our name in away and we want to

keep our ties to the university, to the group. Then we were working with because through them we got

our launching customers, through them we got our network.

81

M[00:05:28] : so the connection with the university was very important for you at that time?

P: yeh, definitely.

M: ...and may still be

P: yeah, it is not a connection in terms of sharing ideas, we were sponsors of the group that we left from

the spinoff from couple of years now, we are not anymore financially supporting... things are tight. But

yeh, ties are always there but not that explicit anymore.

M[00:05:55] : When you entered the incubator and you started you company, how did you finance it?

Was it through bootstrapping or was it VCs, angel investors? or how did you...

P: It was really lean in sense that was...First of all we got a launching customer so that’s how we started

and we only supported ourselves from customers. At the same time we got a subsidy from STW, that

was our first kind of funding.

M[00:06:30] : and did the incubator, the connection with the university, incubation, basically the

program you are in, did it help you to get your first customer? and did it help you to eventually...

P:No, the customer came from our networks so in principal when we were at the university or research

was funded by, through the 6 at that time oil companies, search companies. So that’s a network, that

pool of clients that we got. and our first customer also. The incubator it is good for networking if you

are looking for investors, but for clients it is ...it cannot serve all of the diverse companies that are here.

And we are not customer based, we are B2B so okey, we got sale here 5 or 6 times but to sell we haven’t

after all this time we never managed to get them on board. Guys are having very different culture, they

know better...we never got a targeted, let’s say, client. So for us it is not YESDELFT hasn’t helped at

all at finding clients.

M[00:07:45] : not even their network let’s say? Because you said that, well, not even their netowkr, like

through their network you can, you didn’t manage to, or you couldt really manage to acquire new

customers?

P: yeh, no. Because their network is not relevant network to us.

M: it is not relevant network...

P: No, for our clients. But it is relevant when it comes to investors of course.

M[00:08:08] : So basically just to understand it correctly. you were developing your product since 2011

that you created let’s say MVP, or something that you could show to your potential customers and you

got a new customer on board who was financing it and then you legally started the company itself?

P: Yes, exactly. And we have been sustaining ourselves with project. We've been running, in the last 3

years we've run I think 8 commercial projects and they were enough to sustain us.

M[00:08:38] : And how do you acquire your customers? Do you use just your networks or do you...

P: Yes, we use extended network through, we do some online marketing lately through the incubator

but before that we did company visits and we still do. We go to city and then just visit all the companies

over there. And we got conferences.

M[00:09:02] : and at the conference do you present your product?

82

P:Usually we, so far we've been taking art in the technical program so we just talk to peers, technical

peers. And then through them we get something. We haven't had any boos so we don’t take part in the

exhibition yet but we don’t do any marketing in the sense of advertisements or something that requires

funds. Our marketing is only based on personal relationships.

M[00:09:32] : And these personal relationships were developed when you were studied your PhD or

was once you started the business, you really got into and...

P: Both! as I said during my PhD we had this network of companies, also third party here is it has quite

some years of experience with sales and was very wide network that we have utilized so yeah, that is

how we started. A lot of network, we talked to people and we have been extending ever since.

M[00:10:09] : and did the incubator helped you in terms of networks in other ways? let’s say in...

P: so yeah, there have been couple of events which have been very useful and, those events are mainly

about investor because, the investors can connect you to energy related investors so that is something

that is very relevant to us...

M[00:10:34] : So they actually , oke, through people they can point you in a direction you want to go?

P: yeah.

M: that is good.

P: yeah, definitely, but that’s the role... it is more really about finding clients really, it is more about

supporting start-ups in finding financing. I think that is their main role

M[00:10:50] : and did they provide you, when you entered the incubator you said you didn’t have much

of this experience. Did it helped youin terms of acquiring?

P: yeah, so first we started with the 'reg' start-up program, the course with hand. We had a coach from

'Rob Berger' I think. There is an in-house couch whenever you have question about partnership, or you

know, to talk to someone who has more experience. I can have an appointment. I have done it a lot of

times, it is --- calls in a sense that every week we talk, he wonders where we are. But when I have

specific questions, also I had talks... So whenever there is a business like question there is always

someone around which you will be able to ask for directions. And the direction would be, if it something

simple you get the answers, but if it is something elaborate, then they direct you to people who know

more. I have been, I asked and then I went on to their office and I had to pay of course, but ok at least I

got some start. It is not everything for free...

M[00:12:12]: And in terms of specific business support, such as legal or writing contracts or accounting,

did they help or was it just really down to you to sort it out yourself?

P: it was really down to us and a matter of fact when I was looking for a new accountant I went through

the list of friends of YESDELFT and that was when I was struck. Most of them... it wasnt really a

pleasant experience because some of them never really came back. Yeh, so that level i wouldn say that

there was too much support. But YESDELFt doesnt work hard there, I mean it is not here to give you

support on the little details like the accounting.

M[00:13:04] : So it basically teaches you how, but it is down to you to do the practical things.

P:yeah.

83

M[00:13:12] : I was asking because I had an interview with a gentleman from YESDELFT as well and

yeah, he said that he was really lacking this, especially the legal advice because he had a young start-

up and the first contract, or the write up an contract with someone it can really badly damage you.

P: of course. If it was taken the accounting... YESDELFT is like 7 or 8 people and that’s way beyond

their capacity, because ----lawyers. They are there just to create the fostering environment and connect

you with people who can actually sort these things out for you.

M[00:13:51] : so how did the location itself affected you? Was it good, or was it not good?

P: you mean in terms of facilities?

M: Yeah, I mean in terms of facilities that basically you are in a building with 10 other start-ups that

are growing and emerging in the same way as you are. Obviously in a different industry but they are

kinda struggling with the same thing.

P: yeah exactly so in those terms it has helped to get new fresh ideas on how people have tackled the

same problems that you are facing. It was motivating to see how some have grown and how others don’t

grow and by just talking to these guys you can identify which companies you're liking and they are not

growing or which companies you are liking and they are not growing so you are are incorrect like others.

So from that point of view it is very very helpful

M[00:14:45] : and can you, did you use the opportunity to, when you were not really sure about

something that just you asked some other people?

P: Of course, when you are looking for an accountant you just look around and you ask what do you

do. When you are looking for stuff you just go around and you an even find partners. Well I tried once

and there was, I had an idea for a partnership to get together a subsidy and it didn’t workout because

the company had completely different views on how the subsidy should work but still, it could have

had happened. If he had something that was closed to you... but there are not that many people that

would be doing something close to us. But if you go to renewables for instance for solar panels and

stuff like that there is many companies doing exactly the same thing. So I guess for them is much more

relevant just we are not 'sex', we are just in the old oil and gas business. We are alone. It is counter

intuitive right? We should be hipsters, we should be renewables.

M[00:15:45] : Then again you are filling the gap. The existing hap.

P: yah, hopefully. Yeh, there is an existing gap definitely but it is not... people do not understand ho

much we are relying on fossil fuels still. How important oil is as material. As a fuel as well. I mean thee

are so many things around us, plastics, composites. Everything that is... everything is build on side

products of oil. so you know... even if...we should stop burn it of course, but even then we still use and

need it.

M[00:16:36] : for me personally, I mean yeah. fossil fuels there are going to be here for a long time.

There is no way we are getting rid of them in next 20-30-40 years. We are kinda dependent on them. In

terms of...I mean fuel itsef I mean ok, we can somehow substitute it with electricity but as you said,

production based. that is really difficult.

P: yeah, as a material we still need it. That is the future...

M[00:17:04]: I wanted to ask you also about, how you acquired you employees?

P: yeah we didn’t do too much of recruiting because our only employee right now is, was part of our

group. He worked on something that we like so we said OK, come with us and do your PhD with us.

84

M[00:17:36] : so you didn’t really acquire, or recruit.

P:No, but we did many times we tried to recruit people for internship. And we had 3-4 interns in the

past. And we did that through YESDELFT students.

M[00:17:56] : ok, so there was a link with the university...

P: There was with university, and it was organised by local student committee in here in YESDELFT,

which is doing a very good job because they are also organising the courses, but also they are having

these nice event where they say ok, whoever at university is interested in having some kind of exposure

to YESDELFT start-ups, just come over and they did the match making. We did find one person that

helped us for 3-4 months. His trainer-ship was with us, so yeah that worked nicely. I have ties with

some Greek universities and we do get quite few number of applications for the Erasmus+ program,

which is like international kind of trainer ship. Now we don’t have no one this year. we had someone

last year so that is another stream of acquiring. But these are all interns, not...

M[00:19:01] : yeah, but it is really using the affiliation with the university.

P: Yeah.

M:connection with the universities.

P: yeah exactly, getting these interns for...

M: i think that is quite smart. If you can, why not.

P: yeah, exactly. And also, two guys who are here are doing their master thesis. That was done again

through persona relationships of Peter and his master program.

M[00:19:30] : I see. So if we would wrap it up, if you would have a look at it from above, do you

consider you participation in the program as useful?

P: Yes. Although life is not black and white. It would definitely could me more useful if for instance

we would have commercial product or we would actively look for investments, which so far we haven’t

been doing. Only lately. It could have been much more useful. But still, I don think it was a bad choice

to come here, mainly because it doesnt cost you anything in equity. Ok, the rent is a bit more expensive

than the market price, but I have a nice view so it is ok. On the other hand we get to meet many important

people. Highlights was when once we got to Saudi Arabian minister of oil together with the new

minister of oil and the new CEO of Ramcol. Altogether in one package they came here and we tried to

pitch to them. Not that we got anything out of it but till it is quite a nice thing that I can tell me

grandchildren, once in a lifetime.

M: I would be quite nervous.

P: yeah I was quite nervous.

M[00:20:57] : So, would you... what is the greatest added value for yourself? I know, you might have

said it already but is the greatest added value from the program.

P: exactly the environment. The vibes that you get from the place, that you see entrepreneurs, people in

your kind on aims, or more or less. And your kind of phase, whether it is young professionals who

decide not to go corporate and start their own thing, and can be vibrant. Others are more silent but you

get good vibes, good atmosphere. I think it is the main thing. And technically speaking, the network

85

with investors and probably some of the other companies got a bit more exposure into the media as

well. As i said we are not as sexy to have exposure. That is the added value of the network that we built.

M[00:21:59] : I see. So what would be the aspect that you were missing? What would be the something

that was not part but you believe it should be part of the program.

P: I would agree with the person from YESDELFT. A bit more like help on practical issues and maybe

even kind of community driven companies here taking care of administrative pricing, accounting and

other stuff. That would be helpful as well. Yeah, definitely. And also, I told the YESDELFT guys but

it hasn’t happen yet, but bit more, well it did happen once. It was like a symposium that was targeted

into specific...

M[00:22:46] : Ok, so create a specific event or specifically targeted events that would be for let’s say,

they would structure the companies in the incubator into several groups and for each group they would

create an event.

P: yes, exactly. But not in the classification the are using now because we just fall under industrial

solutions, which could be anything, right? And bit more like, more specific energy related things that

you bring together oil and gas and renewables and all the respective parties. In that sense there are a lot

of companies around. Try to make it more specific event where you could showcase

the different technologies but also bring the relevant people together.

M[00:23:32] : I even think if there would be someone who would be really monitoring the events in the

Netherlands, if there would be someone who would be monitoring these events and the would be really

like giving you the opportunities just to, by telling you that there are these events. Because it takes you

quite a lot of time to research.

P: yeh, definitely. But they do that in a sense. So i went to energy fest but i can’t remember if I got the

invitation form YESDELFT. Probably I didn’t, i got it from Shell.

M: yeah I was just brainstorming here. Ok. is there anything else you would like to mention? something

that I should have asked and I didn’t?

P: no i don’t think so. What are you going to do with the data?

M: I will transcribe it and then compare it with other data that I have and i will research the most relevant

success factors of these incubators and see, how it matches up with the reality.

P: Ok.

M: in that case, thank you very much once again. It was a great help. I will send you the results once I

have them. Take care and good luck

The interview was conducted co-fonder of Elemental, Yes!Delft on 9.6.16

Interviewer introduced the protocol and the interview. He said that he wants to results.

Incubation started incubation in 2009-2015

M[00:01:43] : Can you tell me a bit more about your company? About your goals or how long you've

been in business and how long you've been part of the incubation process?

86

B: when it was founded in August 2009 or September 2009? and we immediately enter the incubation

in yourself so from September 2009 we are part of the YESDELFT until October last year so we left

the building in October 2015.

M[00:02:31] : And what are your goals or what were your goals with the company?

B: Well we started with the idea to develop the technology to recover metals from insinuated ways. And

the goal was to develop this technology and to implement this technology with customers. In some kind

of joint venture form. That was initially the idea.

M[00:03:12] : So what is the idea now? or did it change throughout the way?

B: Yes, the technology changed and along the way we adapted the business model quite often so later

on we switched to model where we wanted to licence the technology. So we develop the technology

together with a launching customer and we turned for their, for financing development they got a

launching customer deal on the licence. And the idea was that with the second and third customer you

would have a full device, which would serve as a revenue model for your company.

M[00:04:06] : I see, and before you started your company did you have any prior entrepreneurial

experience?

B: No, not at all. No. I was fresh from the university I started up this company.

M[00:04:20] : SO it was a university spin-off?

B: yes and no because during my masters I was not involved in this project, so it is.. so the technology

we developed is also our proprietary technology, it is not developed by the university. It is developed

on the university but by ourselves. So we are not really a spin-off but we were facilitated by the

university.

M[00:04:50] : so that would be another question of mine. How did you/why did you choose the

incubator of YESDELFT? Was it a random choice or were there some specific factors behind your

choice, such as network, location or physical facilities?

B: Combination of. My former partner started up the company and he was involved in YESDELFT as

a student with all kinds of activities as a student board of YESDELFT. And that’s how he got engaged

with YESDELFT and he got interested in becoming and entrepreneur. SO that is what made him decide

to start-up the company and he automatically ended up with YESDELFT because he knew everybody

there. But that was also because he had a background there. By the time I met him I joined Elemental

and I become part of it as shareholder but we were already in YESFDELFT. But if I had to do it all over

again I think it is a good place to start a technology driven company. Actually because you can make

use of the facilities of the university, which is very important for a start-up company.

M[00:06:22] : At the beginning when you, joined the company, how did you sort of the financing of

the development and of the company itself? Because did you use like a VC/angel investor or was it

bootstrapping, self financing?

B: Bootstrapping, mainly bootstrapping. So, we put in some money of our own and we won some

business plan competitions, we got some grands from the dutch government and we did a lot of

development assignments for customers. So yeah, mainly bootstrapping.

M[00:07:09] : So yeah, but did the incubator somehow play a role in it? or did they help you in any way

with the financing?

87

B: No.

M: No t at all?

B: Well the nice thing about incubator is that they provide some advisers so you can have this

discussions with the advisers to brainstorm how you can get your company moving. And they offer you

some kind of educational program within the first 2-3 years, incubation program and part of this

incubation program, are all kinds of courses on finance, on writing a business plan, on talking to VCs,

getting investments, so basically everything you did not learn on your technical education, background,

they offer there. So with a specific interest on entrepreneurship. That is the nice thing about the

incubator but in the end you have to do it yourself. So they wont bring the money to your company.

M[00:08:43] : I can imagine, they can show you the way but you need to go there yourself.

B: Yeah.

M[00:08:48] : and did you acquire a some customers while you were in the incubation program?

B: Customers? Yeah, I did a lot of sales.

M: And, once again, it is really to the incubation, if you attained these customers by yourself, by your

own efforts or was it a joined cooperation with the incubator? So let’s say through their networks or

through their events? If they somehow played a role in the acquisition?

B: No. But that is also in our case a bit different because we are really in waste recycling industry. So

the events they organise I attended them all, but it never really brought me something new. And that is

also simply because my market is not representative. So in that way they could not really help me so

the most of the customers i had to approach myself. So it was really cold calling.

M[00:09:59] :So basically it comes back down to the business knowledge, or coaching of how to do a

business itself. But it didn’t really affected your business network, or customer networks.

B: No.

M[00:10:16] : And when you were, or did you employ some people? Or do you have some employees at

the moment?

B: Well, yes. At the beginning of this year we transferred shares to a new company. So i am not a

shareholder anymore, we sold the company. But i am still working there, so now I am being employed

by my former company. But we are part of a bigger group and, so, I had employees. I actually had 4 of

them.

M[00:11:02] : How did you acquire them?

B: Network, mainly through the university.

M: Network through the university?

B: yeah, so they all had technical background.

M[00:11:15] : So basically the location of the incubator, or the affiliation of the incubator with the

university helped you to get these people.

B: Yeah. But they also approached us themselves.

88

M[00:11:33] : I was actually wondering. Did the incubator provide you with some sort of credibility?

Or some sort of of reputation? In a good way they would help you out when you reach out to people

and you say that yesdelft... did ti help yo somehow?

B: Yes, they sometimes have these information sessions in the evening where start-ups can give

presentations to students so that really helps you to get the attention of the students.

M[00:12:12] : That’s good. And how...

B: what I also did is i gave some lunch lectures on the faculties.

M: so you were pro-active at getting these people as well?

B: yeah so we had a lot of interns and few of these interns grew to permanent position after their

graduation.

M[00:12:38] : So how have you been affected by the location and the cluster of technical start-ups and

the tech university? Were you affected in some way?

B: yes, i think so. Could you be more specific?

M[00:13:01] : yeah sure, what i mean is that incubator itself is located nearby the university, it has close

affiliation with the university but also in the incubator itself there is a cluster of technology companies

and start-ups and how, from your experience, have you been affected by all of these or in specific, by

the cluster of high tech statups. If it helped you, let’s say, when you didn’t know how to approach

something, you asked your friends or your fellow companies, how they sorted it out.

B: yeah, I had few colleagues from other start-ups companies which helped me a lot in brainstorm

sessions. So yeah, some companies which were a few years ahead from our situation they were really

helpful and it gave a lot of advice in how to do stuff. So that really helps, that's i think one of the

strengths of incubator that you meet a lot of companies which are in the same phase of starting a

company. So you can learn from each other, you can... everybody makes mistakes so yeh, you can learn

from the mistakes of other people.

M: It is always better to learnt from their mistakes than yours.

B: yeh, so that is really nice about the incubation, incubator and the link with the university was very

important for us because we made use of the laboratories at the university. So that is whee we made a

lot of research.

M[00:15:02] : So in general, would you consider your participation in the incubator as useful? Would

you, you said before that you would do it again, but why would you do it again? Do you really believe

it had great added value for you?

B: yep, mainly the connection with the university.

M: Connection with the university was the biggest added value for yourself.

B: I think that is the most important thing.

M[00:15:27] : and what element or what aspect of the incubation did you miss? Or something that you

were lacking?

B:what was lacking...

89

M: it is not an easy question..

B: what was lacking and they clearly decided not to do that is : they should provide more basic team of

legal advice, adviser on accounting, on setting up business, which actively can help start-ups on doing

contracts. As a technology term start-up, 90% of the time you are working on the development of your

technology and successful start-up, I think good contracts are really important in a successful start-ups.

There are start-ups that are getting down on signing the wrong contracts because they don’t have the

finance to finance a good legal adviser who could write a good contract. But that is also mistakes we

made. So you decide to do it yourself but you simply don’t have the experience to write a good contract.

M[00:17:04] : that is actually very interesting that you say that because you are not the first one who

said that. Who said exactly the same thing of that there should be more specific advise on legal issues,

on accounting and on let’s say more specific business areas.

B: yeh,i understand it. It is difficult thing also for the incubator. Advisers cannot give their advice for

free for a lot of companies, they should try to find some model where, I don’t know, where they would...

It happens a lot also in the US where the incubator gets a small share in the company in return for this

whole package where you get the guidance from the incubator to do things in the right way. So i think

that can be an helpful model.

M:[00:18:13] : that is really interesting. OK, is there anything else you would like to mention?

Something that I should have asked and I haven’t?

B: No. Nothing comes to my mind.

M: Thank you for that. In that case I covered all areas i needed. I think the interview, well your responses

were really interesting so that is very valuable for me and how did you feel about the interview? Was

everything OK?

B: Yeh, it was nice.

M: Ok, fantastic. Thank you once again. Once i am done with the results I will send you the results on

your email.

Interview was conducted co-founder of Conference Compass, on 8.6.2016.

Started incubation in 2010-2015, still residing in YESDELFT

Interviewer introduced the protocol and the interview question. Jelmer noted that he wants to results.

M[00:01:30]: I would start with asking you a bit more about the company. About the goals, how long

you have been in business and how long you have been in the incubation program.

J: Shall i go ahead and talk?

M: yes please.

J: So my name is Jelmer van Ast and my company is Conference compass. I founded it together with

the business partner in 2010. Or actually we founded it while we were doing course in entrepreneurship

that was called 'writing my business plan' at that time. That was a course organised by YESDELFT, by

the incubator. So in a way it is not pre-incubation process or program, but it is one of the things that

they organise for students to make them aware of entrepreneurship and what it takes. And help them to

start a business. So that is where we started and we were PhD. students at that time so we were employed

at TU Delft and we were doing this on the side.

90

M[00:02:50] : So you started as part of YESDELFT basically, or as one of their program. So does that

really count as starting the incubation program right away or you just wrote the business plan and you

actually realised that it might be a good thing to go on and then you applied for the incubation process.

J: yeah, a bit like that. So it was, we got this idea for business and we got serious about it so, let’s at

least investigate if it is a good thing to start because we did not know anything about entrepreneurship

and business. We just knew about technology, even that we had to learn many things by ourselves but

we participated in that course for 2 reasons. One was to learn and second was to find our for ourselves to

estimate if this is going to be our next step. Or maybe it was too risky and we should just cover other

things that made us want to stop. So that was the reason and when we finished the business plan, that

was early 2010 we concluded, yes, this is nice. There are lot of opportunities and we have learnt many

things and we are comfortable enough to start and then we applied for the incubation program.

M[00:04:15]: I see, so and was purely out of convenience to actually be in the YESDELFT right away,

or were there any specific factors behind your choice? Such as networks, location or physical facilities?

J: right, so we were already employed by TU Delft and YESDELFT is partly owned or partly controlled

by TU Delft and in that sense it was, when we asked around like: 'hey, we are thinking of starting a

company but we have no clue where to begin'. They started to recommending us, so we said hy, let’s

go to YESDELFT, see what they have to offer. And then wen we went to YESDELFT and they said

well, actually, things that are perfect for you. First follow the course and when after the course you have

a business plan and you are still up for it then you can apply for the incubation program. So we were

recommended by other to take a look, we didn’t know about other at that time, but even if we knew I

think we would not really have a state of comparing incubators because it was convenient, it was in

Delft, it was round the corner and they made a good impression on us with the course and with the

interviews we had before we submit our business plan.

M[00:05:37] : So that sounds actually quite nice and quite easy. So, when you got in, what was the

process? How did you access financing because I assume that you are high tech firm and for you

development you need funding. And obviously at the beginning you don’t have any product or anything

so, how did you funded your enterprise? Was it your own funding, or was it VCs or angels or what sort

of...

J[00:06:12] : yeah i can tell you, so we have a ---- business so the only thing that we really needed was

laptop computer with developed environment and some space to work. And we started just with the two

of us so initially we could fund ourselves. Not pay ourselves, but live out of savings and when part of

the incubation program is that you have access to, if you'd like, you don’t have to, to a bank loan with

a, I am not sure, 5 years ago you had access to 12,000 euros bank loan that you, for the first 3 years you

didn't have to pay it back anything and you didn’t have to pay interest. So it was basically for 3 years it

was free money and after 3 years you start paying back and you start paying interest. So that is together

with our personal savings made us through the first 6 months.And actually, it is not completely true,

there is, because we were both employees of TU Delft, after our contract finished we were unemployed

and there was special rule that you can get an unemployment benefit and if you are starting your own

company and you are convinced that the people at UWV that they will leave you from your obligations

to apply for jobs. That is what we did so we submitted our business plan there, first me and then half a

year later when my friends contract ended he also did the same thing. And then for 6 months I got,

basically, 70% of my salary that I made at TU Delft, for 6 months i had that each month. So that took

me through first half a year and then followed by living of by savings and the bank. And by ten we got

at least some revenue which was enough to sustain ourselves, I mean yes, but minimum wage only. But

we did hire in first year, or I should say in the second year, but we did hire 2 people and by the end of

2011, so by the en of the second year we all had a decent salary. So basically the story is that in the first

year I benefited from the unemployment benefits, savings and the second year we got sufficient revenue

to pay ourselves and 2 others a fair salary, not high but fair.

M: that is very decent I got to say.

91

J: I think so. So that is how we made it through the first year or two and so really without any outside

investment also no money from friends or family, just this and then later on we got a bank loan and we

attracted an angel investor. But it was not from the beginning.

M[00:09:50] : So it was combination of the let’s incubator intervention and your own savings and kinda

pro-activity of getting some external funding.

J: Yeah , it was sort of you could say the government + the incubation + our own savings.

M[00:10:08] : and in the second year how did you acquire your customers? Or, was it primarily your

effort or did he incubation program somehow help you to get there?

J: not really, it was really our own effort and in that sense how I can summaries the incubation was 4.5

years and 4 years we stayed at YESDELFT. What they brought for us was the knowledge and the

education. That is really... they taught us everything we knew to start and then of course we founded

things along the way. And that was really valuable and the bank loan was very valuable. Then we got a

coach and a mentor. The mentor was so so, I think we only saw him 2 times but the coach was very

valuable. We met him every month and at some critical times he gave us amazing inputs so we could

make the right decisions. And the fourth one is in that sense the network and the events they organised

so often that brought us together with VCs or other investor in this industry.

M[00:11:25] : Were these networking events purely for financing or was it also for, let’s say, spreading

the word about your company and finding potential business partners that would alter on buy your

product or you would cooperate on some level?

J: Yes, so bit of both. I think every year they have one or two VC events and every year they have 1

big network event and throughout the year they have, or they participate at other events like,

for instance the new venture business plan competition. Something they were involved in as well so

they also stimulated us to participate there and that brought another number of network events where

we met with advisers and potential customers.

M[00:12:21] : an did the location of YESDELFT, because they have a cluster of companies and start-

ups, did it affected as well? was it valuable for you, or if so, to what extend?

J: Yes, so the location as in the physical location is close to where we were so that was

very convenient as we didn’t' have to move to have an office there. That was great, it was close to the

university Delft. So that was helpful for attracting people, however, that wasn't as great as we have

hoped because it was still hard to attract developers for instance. It didn’t make it so much easier to be

closed to the university. But we did get 2 interns and one employee who still work with us. So we know

him only because we were close to TU Delft. Tat was valuable and the location being the building with

all these facilities, eating rooms, auditorium and just the collection of the companies, that was very

valuable for us as well.

M[00:13:39] : that is good. Yeah basically i think we really covered everything because you are really

helpful so I would like to ask you now a couple of summarizing questions, do you consider your

participation in the program useful? Would you do it again?

J: Yes, definitely.

M[00:14:01] : Ok, and what would be one or two greatest added values, if you can factor it out?

J: So more added values of the incubation program?

M: what would be the greatest added value for yourself?

92

J: So just to make sure I understand the question - are you asking for things that were there or new

things that were not there and that I would recommend.

M: no no, just from what you received what would you consider as a thing that affected you and helped

you the most?

J: The coach. The coach was amazing.

M: Aha, cool, is there anything else you would like to mention or add, that I forgot to ask or something

what should be said?

J: well, if you would have asked me: 'what is it that you think could have been better in the incubator'?

and I am not saying that this is something that is only responsibility of the incubator. It is definitely the

responsibility of the entrepreneur, is that, even though there were many companies together in the same

building and we chatted and we had lunch together, but there was not a lot of collaboration. And in a

way that probably makes perfect sense because everybody had their own focus point and they do their

own business and you just need to focus on what you do and you don’t have a lot of time to collaborate

with others. But it is maybe more opportunity to learn from each other. I think only later after the

incubation program when I entered into a different program and that was all about sharing experiences

so every month we got together and shared experiences with each other. And that would have been

great if that was also b part from year one in the incubator.

M: interesting. What, if I may ask, was the next program you entered? Where thee was more emphasis

on sharing?

J: Yes, it is called the accelerator program from the Entrepreneurs organisation. If you would

google entrepreneurs organisation I am sure there is a tag about the accelerator program and this is for,

if you are a little bigger than, if you have really started and it is time to grow then they help you to grow.

And one of the main things they do is to bring together entrepreneurs with the same, in the same stage,

with the same challenges and they facilitate that you meet and that you help each other with experiences.

M: I see. That is very interesting.

J[00:17:01] : that was, I think if some of that was already there in the very first beginning then it would

have helped to grow. And it would have helped to overcome some challenges we faced in the beginning.

M: yeah I would think so, because theoretically according to the incubation and incubators they should

facilitate this sort of knowledge transfer and they should really help the people who are like not

struggling but doing something new, and they don’t have that much knowledge, they should help. So i

thnk this is quite a relevant point.

J: yeah, I think so.

M: Ok, thank you very much. One last question, how was the interview? Is there any question on your

side for me?

J: No, I liked the interview and I am curious to see what your results will be.

M: fantastic. Thank you again for your cooperation. I will send you the results once I have them. Bye

Interview was conducted co-founder of Adjuvo Motion, YES!Delft on 8.6.16

Interviewer introduced the protocol and the interview. He said that he wants to results.

93

Incubation and company started incubation in 2015

M[00:01:30] : My name is martin Dostal and I am a MSc Entrepreneurship and I am conducting a

research about incubation high tech Ventures with it technology incubators and I'm trying to find out

the key success factors of the incubation program. That means the from your experience what was the

most relevant part of the incubation?

J: yeah, well we are still in process of incubating so, that is actually something... well I can reflect on

the basis that we went through. So the most important thing, I guess, is that you learn to let go of your

initial ideas...

M[00:02:35]: How did you...tell me about more about your company, what are your goals and how

long are you in business.

J: Shall I start where the idea originated from?

M: Yeah. you can start, how you basically became entrepreneur and why, and just get into the incubation

process.

J: so then I have to begin with, when I was just a student. I was a student of industrial engineering and

doing my graduation project I was developing a system for low-cost or cost effective post-stroke

rehabilitation patients with paralysis of upper limb. and we designed a very nice robot that in theory

could fulfill all the functions that a therapist or occupational therapist could do. You could take the

system home etc. and that would be much cheaper than current existing solutions. And during my thesis

I thought that I really like researching these systems and developing these systems so I want to do

PhD. and then my supervisor said to me go and see if there is a course that suits your interest and see

how you like entrepreneurship so I went to the boot camp and I really had no knowledge about

entrepreneurship at all. And then I got interested and seen that this might be a faster way of getting my

ideas to the market, faster way of getting people to use my ideas than through research. So I met

somebody who really thought my ideas had potential and who was actually somebody who wanted to

be entrepreneur and we decided to do a follow up, program...

M:[00:05:16] :When was that? when did you create this follow-up and when did you basically applied

or got into the incubation process?

J: that would be a year ago.

M: year ago?

J: yeah, and from that point we want that program, of course educational for the sake of it they have a

price. So we won the competition and then we decided to build to company around this idea.

M[00:05:52] : and why did you choose this incubator in specific was it because some different

reason there are some specific factors that you were looking for, such as networks or location or

physical facilities, or was it just for another reason?

J: thought it was easy it was close to the university and we have close ties to the university still because

we are still doing research projects in the University, so that is one reason. From Market

perspective, looking at the medical device Market, YESDELFT would not be the best incubator to have

because they are very in general, high tech, in supporting high tech companies. But med-tech is a bit of

a different story. So they are not really specializing in that and the programs are not specially adjusted

to that. For example, normally the goal is to get you investor ready as fast as possible to overcome your

valley of death so to speak, medical device you have rather a lot of valley of death...

94

M: yeas, there is a long process...

J: yes, so if you start giving our equity now, at the end you are left with nothing.

M[00:07:33] : So how did you finance your enterprise or how did you finance your idea?

J: We did two feasibility studies. One on the large robot from my graduation project and then we found

out that it is not feasible, at least not in the Netherlands. And in the second feasibility study we took

different parts of the functionality of that one big robot and we are investigating which part might be

the most strategic to enter the market first. And at the end of that feasibility study, one is financed by

the SCW and the other one was financed through RVO.

M[00:08:26] : So these are government organisations or these are private?

J:No, these are government organisations, so they provide 40% subsidies.

M[00:08:44] : OK, bu did the incubator help you out in terms of the feasibility study?Did they basically

direct you or, did you acquire this business knowledge or business sill by yourself by learning? You

know what I am asking? Previously you said that you didn’t have much business experience...

J: No, not at all. So, did the general entrepreneur skills... I think I am still not skilled as entrepreneur. I

think my partner is. I think my focus, also in the future will be on the project development. And my

business partner is really the entrepreneur from the start.

M: Ok, was he there from the start?

J: Yes, exactly.

M[00:09:49] : And he was the one securing the financing with the authorities?

J: Yes.

M: [00:09:57]: And did the incubator help you at some point with acquiring the finances?

J: In general yes. Like I said with getting your slide deck and your business plan, with that they help a

lot. Also in validating value proposition and talking to customers, to patients. So, in that sense they lack

specific knowledge they of how to deal with med-tech companies.

M: So they also have a loan program as well I believe, and you didn't use that one in particular?

J: I don’t know that one.

M: I believe they have within the incubator program or they have a source of finance and they give you

a loan and for the first three years you don't need to pay anything back so it is kinda free money. and

after 3 years you need to pay it back, but yeah it depends on the individual.

J: So is this in connection to the RaboBank?

M: It might be. It is just that I had another interview with another gentleman and he told me about it

and he is in YESDELFT as well.

J: do you know the amount?

95

M: I didn’t ask... but he said it helped him to get through the first 6-12months.

J: So when you enter the incubation you can indeed choose to get a personal loan of 30,000 euros from

the Rabobank. Seeing that is not really that much...

M: In bio-med-tech it really is not...

J: No, so we didn’t go for that and we did start with the feasibility grant for half a year of 40,000 euros.

So that is how we did it. And, of course still, we are looking now to expand that.

M[00:12:21] : More money, better..

J: Exactly!

M[00:12:24] : and how did you, I suppose you didn’t acquire any customers, any paying customers

yet....?

J: No, correct.

M[00:12:34] : Not yes, but how are you planning to acquire the customers? are you planning to use,

let’s say the networks of the incubator, or are you going to do it just by yourself?

J: yeah so the incubator is not really relevant network for us in particular. So what we did during that

program, we went to a lot of clinics and we wanted to see what interest they have in our proposition...

and with one of them, actually two of them. One is in Amsterdam and one is in the Hague, they are sort

of front runners, so they have facilities to test certain products when you are in certain development

stage...you can also test with patients there, with focus groups. So initially we will do usability research

over there, when the value proposition is validated we will start clinical trials with them and after that

they will become our first customers.

M[00:13:54] : So you already made some sort of a deal with them already. Or kind of a deal.

J; Yes, exactly.

M[00:13:59]: did the incubator, no in terms of networks, but did it help you in same way? In terms of

reputation, credibility or...

J: yes, definitely.

M[00:14:14] :So that was the added value.

J: yes.

M[00:14:14] : And do you have, or did you acquire any employees since the start of your incubation

process?

J: no,

M: so there is 2 of you.

J: Yes, and we have 3 graduation students that we support and we have couple of students projects,

yeah, it is called ------, and also with the faculty of industrial design and engineering.

96

M[00:14:47] : so they are helping you in terms of product development and design as part of their

research projects.

J: exactly.

M[00:14:56]: so there is a close cooperation with the university and with the academia?

J:exactly.

M[00:15:02] : and that is because of your prior academic background or is it because of the location,

or?

J: I guess it is because of both. But it is something, we wanted to keep the connection between... we

started doing this really early on, working with interns, internship and graduation students and we found

that it is keeping you sharp on your product development and your business development.

M: you mean keeping you sharp in terms of the latest technology development?

J: In new ways of looking at things.

M[00:15:45] : that is interesting point. Ok, and have you been affected somehow by the location? by

the cluster of tech start-ups in the incubator? did it really help you at some point, or in some way?

J: Yeh, so talking to fellow entrepreneurs is really easy here, that helps a lot.

M[00:16:13] : And do you believe that the incubator is creating or fostering enough opportunities for

yourself to really talk to anyone you want?

J: I think so. With regards to fellow entrepreneurs of course. you can always walk to another company

and make an appointment. There is always willingness to help another one out.

M: That is good. Because in my previous interview the gentleman he said that there is not sufficient,

maybe that is fault of people, but there is not sufficient fostering of the internal communication. But

that might be his own personal feeling I suppose.

J: that is not m experience. There is a discussion group that you can join that is online where you state

that you have a problem and everybody can react to that. But you can also be proactive and just make

an appointment with somebody.

M: that sounds easy.

J: It is. In my experience it is.

M[00:17:34] : So basically we covered all the three areas I wanted so now there is just the concluding

part. My question would be: do you consider your participation in the incubation program as useful, if

you look at it retrospectively from above?

J: Uf, that is a hard question to answer... Because they are not cheap so quite a lot of money goes to the

incubator but I would say Yess, it is. Overall knowledge gains and overall help we got also from other

entrepreneur was worthwhile.

M[00:18:21] : When you mentioned that it is quite expensive to be in the incubator, what do you mean

exactly? Do you mean the physical facilities or do you mean the extra services?

97

J: It is all inclusive package so just renting an office is not cheap. It is also not very expensive, you have

to be willing to make than large part of your costs.

M[00:18:53] : especially if you are a starting company without any revenue.

J: exactly.

M[00:18:56] : and what would be the greatest added value, out of the whole package?

J: I think it is the name.

M: the credibility that comes with it?

J: yeh so the credibility, reputation that comes with it.

M[00:19:13] : and what aspects were you missing? what would you welcome if someone would ask

you from the management, what were you missing?

J: really specific knowledge about med-tech development. What, how do you do development, how it

is going to look, what you need to take care of, what you need to avoid. So everything that, all

knowledge that is here is for tech in general. It would be nice if there would be connection to somebody

who has done this before.

M: yeah I can imagine that this would help a lot.

J: and there are few med-tech companies that are present here and, well we can ask them of course...

M[00:20:15] : yeah but you an really share the knowledge between. But you don’t have any coach.

J: well, we currently also have a coach but I think what I missed was a specialized program for med-

tech companies.

M[00:20:36]: So not just the information but the program itself.

J: exactly. Ok.

M[00:20:44] : Cool, is there anything that I should have asked, or is there anything that you would like

to mention? Because you were talking nice and i have all the info what i need even

without explicitly asking the questions...yeah we follow what I needed.

J: I think we covered everything. No i have nothing more to add. If you have some other questions,

please feel free to make an appointment.

M: thank you, i will. It was a really nice chat. I will send you the results once I conduct the analysis.

Lastly, How do you feel about the interview, was everything ok?

J: very clear structure, very clear questions, so my compliments on that. Very professional, that is good.

M: O thank you again, have a nice day. Bye

BTC Twente

Interview was conducted with co-founder or Ecovat, BTC Twente on 13.6.16

98

The company and incubation started in 2013

Basic introduction of the interview

M: I am researching high tech incubation and I am curious about your experiences with BTC Twente

incubation process. What were the elements that were important for you?

E[00:00:00]:First of course is that you can access to a friendly loan of 1000 euros, second important

thing is that scan by golden check, third is the help form the accountant, that was first I think Deloitte

and now it changed to someone else. And possibility to have small office and the building of BTC

M: Could you tell me a bit more about your company? your goals, and how long you have been in the

incubation program

E[00:01:52] : Well, the company is Ecovat as you know. Ecovat was founded by ----, he was a former

architect and during the time he worked as an architect he was developing very energy friendly

buildings. And in that period he got the idea to added the main issue that he couldn't solve and part was

the storage of energy from summer to winter. So he invented the thermal-energy storage system that

can store thermal energy over period of 6 months with maximum loss of 10%. And that is what Ecovat

is doing. Ecovat is developing this product, is bringing this product to the market. But not only as

thermal storage vessel but also as net balancing system. So you take energy from the electricity, at the

moment that is really... solar energy, wind energy. At the moment it is sustainable energy in the summer.

You turn power to heat. You make heat of it and then you use the heat for heating houses etc. But you

can also use it in the summer for tap water.

M[00:03:33] : Yes, that is pretty cool. I think that is quite a product that is quite trendy at the moment.

E: Yes, the time to market, I think, is perfect. Everybody is looking for this kind of solutions so that is

perfect, but what we encountered and that is one of the reasons of this incubation program, is that during

the development of the product you need enormous amount of money and you don’t earn anything yet.

M[00:04:10] : Yes, that is what I wanted to ask you as well. Basically, how did you finance

your enterprise? Or how did you start financing your firm?

E: well, we started with the money from the inventor of course, from the founder. Combined

with government grants, but government grants offer you only 50-60%, not the full amount of that you

need. So we also, when the founders money is at certain money is depleted, it is not unlimited. So what

we were trying to do is to look for some kind of incubation program loans ect. Since we are based in

the south of Holland, in 'Brabons', from the province of Brabons we also had an incubation program

and since we work very close together on steering on the control system with the university of Twente

and that is why we also created an office in Eschede. And that opened the door for the top program,

from the university of Twente. That is why we arrived to BTC building.

M[00:05:43] : that was your main motivation for the incubator? There was no other decision behind it,

it was basically the connection with the university and with the development and then the financial

possibilities.

E: Yes, exactly. And of course finance exposure goes together with the help on the financial side with

the Deloitte, marketing side with the Golden ---, well that is all very welcome but what, that was not

the first idea. The idea was the combination with University of Twente and the money you can lend

there, and the building of course.

M[00:06:28] : So basically when you were admitted to the program, in terms of actually getting the

financing did the incubator somehow helped you? Or was it just a facilitator that showed you the way?

99

E: It was the facilitator that showed you the way.

M[00:06:46] : facilitator, I see. And I was wondering, you acquired quite few employees over the years.

Is that correct?

E: Yes, we started, of course, the founders Aris de Groot started alone. very soon I joined as finances

control manager and at the moment we are with 6 people. 2 young engineers, 1 electricity market one

and construction part, 1 very experienced project manager from big engineering company here in the

Netherlands. And 1 person that leads the production.

M[00:07:36] : and how did you acquire these new employees? Was the incubator somehow helpful? Or

the connection with the university?

E: No, not exactly. The employees, of course the connection with the university. But not the university

of Twente because these two young engineers come from te university of Eindhoven and one of them

did his final thesis and study on the topic of Ecovat, so he was already known to us. Once he finalized

his study we asked him to come over and the other one, well we just met somewhere. There was not

official, up to now there was no big research programs for people. People we know from different angles

or we have...so that is the way it works.

M[00:08:41] : I see, and, so what I am trying to find out is if the cluster of the companies at the incubator

in BTC, or if the area of tech start-ups and yourselves if it has affected you in some way.

E: No,, I don’t think so. But that is because we are at the moment, the big part of our company is in

'Brabant'. We are not daily in Eschede.

M[00:09:18] : so do you have some physical facilities, do you have an office?

E: yes, we have an office in the BTC building.

M: And how do you use it? Your main headquarters is in ...

E: yes, well we use it sometimes, but not everyday.

M[00:09:37] : I see. And in your current location (headquarters) is it the science park as well or is it in

just an ordinary...basically if your main office is in the cluster of other technology start-ups?

E: No, it is in the normal office building somewhere in the town of 'Uden' and the reason we are there

is because we got a piece of ground from the community to build our first Ecovat. So we are building

our first storage system over there.

M: Yes, that makes sense.

E: yes, and our office is just next to that.

M[00:10:29] : Also, i was wondering of how you acquired your first customers?

E: Well, the first customers we are, I am in the car heading towards the Hague and in the Hague we

have very good contact with the sustainability officer of the city of the Hague and that's the way we do

that. Of course we have many contacts in the energy world, we are also part of the Dutch energy storage

community, so and we contact the people we know. For example the founder has many contacts in the

energy world and case of --- he has 27 years of experience as part of energy engineering company. But

in the heat transport world.. so the energy world is not that big. So when you are in that world you know

everyone.

100

M[00:11:50] : That's actually, I was wondering, you or yourself and the founder Aris, you have prior

entrepreneurial experience, or is it a new thing for you?

E: no no, Aris de Groot it is his third company, he sold his first two companies. And for me it is the first

real entrepreneurial experience because I worked for banks for up to... ABN Amro...

M: so you have very good knowledge of the financial sector.

E: yes.

M[00:12:31] : so basically, the incubator didn't really help you in terms of networks? As I understand

it? Or did they?

E: Well that was certainly not our important aim. No, of course it helps because you know people that

are there. you get to know people. The TKT, we are member of that. That helps us for instance to request

for grants, so it does help but that was not the reason why we joined.

M[00:13:11] : and in terms of your customers and potential leads to customers there is your own

initiative and your own previously build connections and networks? The networking events of the

incubator did not really help you? like you would go and there you would find someone...

E: No, but i wouldn't expect that also because the incubation program is not, is technology broad. It is

too broad to give you access to your specific market.

M[00:13:47] : the reason I am asking these questions is because obviously incubators have various

different roles and it really depends on the entrepreneur which one is the most important for them and

yeh , if i understand it correctly, the financing or the access to finances is the biggest added value for

you?!

E: yes, I think it is for the most of the companies. Because you have the valley of death, at firs start you

can find some friends or fools, but that is not too much money, then you get government grants but then

there is a big gap because the first important sources of funds are for instance, private investors or VCs.

But they only come in when you are selling.

M: Yeah, when you have some product.

E: Yes, hen there is a product and the product is prove done you are selling. Then they come in. But

they don’t come in until that stage, so incubators are in fact very important at the point and could be

more important, but often with incubators we are talking about small amounts of money for small start-

ups. That can be enough, but for capital intensive products we are talking about peanuts in fact.

M[00:15:25] : I see. So what aspect of the incubation, apart form the reason you came there, what aspect

were you missing? What would you have expected and you didn't get in the program?

E: Well nothing, I think we knew what we could expect and that is what we got and we are very happy

with that. I would like to have five ---- of the incubation programs more. Or larger amount of money,

but yeah this is what they offer and we knew upfront and that is beautiful.

M[00:16:06] : what you wanted and what you expected? That is good I think.

E: Yes, I think so.

M[00:16:11] : Ok, Eugene, I got everything what I needed from you. Thank you very much for that. Is

there anything else you would like to mention? Anything I should have asked and I didn't?

101

E: No.

M[00:16:25] : In that case thank you very much, I will treat the info confidentially and I will send you

the results once I finish them. Once again thank you very much. Bye