Startup Poland – raport 2015 ENG

S TA R T U P P O L A N D R E P O R T N A Z W A R O D Z I A Ł U

polish startups report 2015

Team of authors:

Agnieszka SkalaEliza KruczkowskaMagdalena A. Olczak

3 S TA R T U P P O L A N D R E P O R T

Foreword 4

Main study results 7

Methodology 10

Study Data 12

Chapter I – Business models and development 14

Chapter II – Capital sources 23

Chapter III – Employment 29

Chapter IV – Export 36

Chapter V – Innovation 41

About the authors 48

Ta b l e o f C o n t e n t s

4 S TA R T U P P O L A N D R E P O R TF O R E W O R D

1.

The publication of the first report

on Polish startups marks the beginning

of cyclical studies on enterprises belonging

to the digital economy in Poland.

2.

Our research aims to provide information

which will make it possible to determine

the significance of the digital industry

in the economy and the direction

and pace of its growth in Poland.

We believe that, until now, no research

has been conducted which would make

it possible to describe the industry’s most

important features and support them with

detailed figures. This report attempts to fill

this gap, though we realize that in its first

edition it is not completely exhaustive.

3.

A database of 2,432 startups was

created for this study – we consider this

number to be the first estimate of the

number of Polish startups. The Startup

Poland invited them all to take part

in the study, and 432 entities (17%)

completed the survey between

October 10 and September 15, 2015.

4.

In addition, the report also includes deeper

analysis of selected startup categories:

“optimists”, “experienced”, “skirts”,

“exporters” and others.

F o r e w o r d

5 S TA R T U P P O L A N D R E P O R T F O R E W O R D

5.

The report is divided into six parts:

• Startup profiles – presenting the location,

the period of operation and the legal form

of startups that took part in the questionnaire;

• Business models and development –

indicating main categories of clients, most

popular product types, stage and pace

of development, plans for the future

and valuation of companies;

• Resources – divided into two sub-chapters

discussing sources of capital financing

in startups and needs with respect

to non-financial resources;

• Employment – analysis of founder teams,

the volume of employment as well

as employment perspectives in startups;

• Export – devoted to the presence of startups

on foreign markets and characterizing their

export activity;

• Innovation – focusing on sources of inspiration,

carriers and manner of implementing

innovations in startups.

6.

The authors would like to thank everyone who

contributed to the creation of this report.

7.

We also thank you in advance for your

constructive remarks on our study, as we would

like the next report to be even better!

dr Agnieszka Skala

Eliza Kruczkowska

Magdalena A. Olczak


“The report prepared by the Startup Poland encourages systematic

consideration of the factors that determine the growth of this

particular area of entrepreneurship and its impact on the

economy. The first study of Polish startups provides a lot of food

for thought. The fact that such startups are being created in the

largest metropolitan areas, with their operations primarily geared

towards B2B, suggests that the main impulse for establishing

startups is a market created by large companies. The influence

of foreign markets is also clear: startups which export are larger

and grow more quickly. It seems a barrier to growth would be

insufficient demand generated by Polish companies – of which over

90% are SMEs making only minimal use of modern technologies.

Only a small share of Polish startups cooperate with the research sector and/

or are established by researchers – even though this very segment takes advantage

of external financing more often and, by its own assessment, more often generates

innovation with a global reach. Problems with the commercialization and innovation

of institutes of higher education are well known; this report demonstrates that academic

entrepreneurship could significantly strengthen the startup ecosystem.

It is also surprising that the companies undergoing a study, indicated a shortage

of qualified personnel – a second problem next to the sources of financing. It would seem

that mass higher education, including courses of study related to modern technologies,

should ‘ensure’ sufficient flow of human capital to companies. Thus, either graduates

prefer employment at large, stable employers, or they lack the skills that are important

in small, dynamically-growing enterprises. This is a question to be examined in depth

in further studies.

Finally, sources of financing for startups are also worth considering: in 60% of cases, the

companies’ founders used their own savings; most of them also plan to finance growth

from the company’s income. The relatively small share of European funds – which have,

after all, implemented numerous programs focused on developing entrepreneurship –

and even smaller share of VC are puzzling. It is worth asking whether own funds ensure

enough capital for dynamic growth.

This report is an inspiring invitation to participate in a discussion and one should hope

that it in fact initiates an important and multifaceted one.”

Anna Giza-Poleszczuk, University of Warsaw Vice Rector of Development and Financial

Policy, member of the Advisory Board of the Startup Poland

F O R E W O R D

7 S TA R T U P P O L A N D R E P O R T M A I N S T U D Y R E S U LT S

M a i n s t u d y r e s u l t s

1.

The first estimate with respect to the number

of Polish startups is 2,400 entities.

2.

Over a half of the questionnaire respondents

are startups operating in one of three cities:

Warsaw, Krakow and Poznan. Other popular

locations also include Wrocław and the Tri-City,

and subsequently Łódź and Katowice.

3.

Startups most often call themselves software

producers who sell in the SaaS model

and operate in the following industries: mobile

apps, e-commerce and Internet services.

4.

Almost twice the number of startups indicate

B2B sale as dominant as opposed to B2C sale.

5.

Almost every third examined startup has annual

turnover growth amounting to 50%, whereas

in every fifth such growth exceeds 100%.

6.

Startups that declare annual increase in revenues

exceeding 50% provide services to medium-

sized and large companies and corporations.

They operate on the market of mobile services

and Big Data twice as often as other companies.

7.

Half of respondents expect at least a five-fold

increase in enterprise valuation in the perspective

of the next two years.

8.

Over three-fourths of startups plan to develop

on the basis of own sales revenues. Over a half

hopes for investor’s support and every third

for support of a strategic business partner.

One-fourth of companies consider EU financing

(subsidies).

8 S TA R T U P P O L A N D R E P O R TM A I N S T U D Y R E S U LT S

9.

Almost 60% of Polish startups are financed

exclusively from own funds.

10.

Other capital sources include EU funds in the form

of subsidies or seed funds. Almost every fifth

examined startup applied for funds from Polish

or foreign venture capital; the same number

received such funds from angel investors.

11.

Foreign resources (both capital and other)

are much less popular (or available) in comparison

to the domestic ones.

12.

As far as ongoing needs are concerned, 60%

of startups need money most. A half also indicated

new employees and a better contact network.

Every fourth startup needs to increase the pool

of specialist knowledge.

13.

Every third startup is run by a single founder,

who finances operation exclusively from EU

subsidies and own funds.

14.

In every third startup, the partner is a woman.

These startups less often consider “software”

as core of their activity and they outsource

programming services more frequently.

15.

In 60% of cases, founders include persons

experienced in establishing and running a startup.

SaaS, mobile services, e-Commerce, Big Data

and corporate software are areas chosen

definitely more often by experienced persons

as opposed to debut-makers.

16.

Every fourth startup cooperates with researchers.

9 S TA R T U P P O L A N D R E P O R T M A I N S T U D Y R E S U LT S

17.

In every sixth startup, the founder is a person

involved in scientific work. Startups established

by researchers are more efficient in procuring

external co-financing, especially VC funds and EU

funds and more frequently use incubators,

technology parks and acceleration programs.

Barriers for their development include difficulties

related to access to properly qualified personnel.

18.

Almost a half of startups are exporters;

among them, every second company

performs over 50% of sale abroad.

19.

For 60% of exporters, the major destination

countries are Great Britain and the United States.

Germany is also an important recipient.

20.

Software production in B2B and SaaS model

is dominant in exporters’ business profiles.

21.

Exporters create more work places than

companies that sell at a local market, whereas

their revenues emerge and grow more quickly.

22.

Almost a half of startups claim that their solutions

constitute innovations on a global scale, whereas

every fourth startup admits that its products

are an imitation.

23.

Startups that patent their products reach

for and receive money from venture capital funds

or funds from investment angels twice as often;

they decide for global expansion more frequently

than other companies.

24.

The main source of innovation in startups

is analysis of client behavior.

10 S TA R T U P P O L A N D R E P O R TM E T H O D O L O G Y

M e t h o d o l o g y

1.

The study problem that is discussed in the

Report is to determine the significance

of the digital industry in the economy of Poland

and the region. The questionnaire and the Report

prepared on the basis of its results constitute

the first stage of work on this issue.

2.

Startups are enterprises where processing

of information and derivative technologies

constitute the key element of their business

models. It has been ascertained that a definition

formulated in this manner complies with

the academic1 and political2 understanding

of “new economy” also known as “e-commerce”

or “e-business.”

3.

A Polish startup is an entity which is registered

in Poland or has at least one partner who

is a Polish citizen and partially conducts operation

in Poland (for example: produces software).

A branch of a company whose headquarters are

located abroad is not considered a Polish startup.

4.

For the purpose of the study, a startup database

has been prepared by procuring startup

names from the following sources: venture

capital funds, accelerators, entrepreneurship

incubators, training companies, organizers

of startup competitions, subsidy lists, lists

from industry media sites, as well as private

rankings and databases of “startup activists.”

That was the first such extensive activity used

to estimate the number of startups in Poland.

The population of Polish startups was assessed

in this manner at 2432 entities. An e-mail

message was sent twice to all of them with

a request to complete the questionnaire; what

is more, one or two telephone calls were also

made. Startup representatives could also learn

about the questionnaire from the media and social

networking sites.

5.

The study was conducted on the basis

of an in-house questionnaire prepared in reliance

on the authors’ own knowledge. In the period

between May 10 and 25, 2015, a pilot study

was conducted (38 completed questionnaires),

in the course of which the questionnaire was

evaluated by the so-called competent judges,

i.e. experts specializing in the area of startups.

1 Among leading researchers of this phenomenon, it is necessary to mention: D. Tapscott, N. Negroponte, E. Brynjolfsson,

E. Malecki, H.-D. Zimmermann and many others.2 Expressed primarily in the European Digital Agenda: http://europa.eu/pol/pdf/flipbook/en/digital_agenda_en.pdf

11 S TA R T U P P O L A N D R E P O R T M E T H O D O L O G Y

After analysis of remarks, some of them were

introduced to the questionnaire. The results

of the pilot study were described and presented

during a scientific conference entitled “Digital

Ecosystems” organized by the Digital Economy

Lab of the Warsaw University (DELab) in June

2015. The results of the pilot study will be

presented in a collective publication before

the end of 2015.

6.

The questionnaire was completed by 423

entities (17% of the population). In the case

of 21 questionnaires, there are doubts with

respect to qualifying a company to the “startup”

category. After analyzing this small group of

projects, a decision was made not to exclude them

from the analyzed population. Therefore, results

discussed in the report refer to all 423 entities.

7.

In over 80% of cases, the questionnaires were

completed by persons who were (co-)founders

and/ or presidents of management boards (CEO)

of companies. Other persons included, most often,

members of the board, and sporadically product

managers, sales managers and board assistants.

8.

The questionnaire contained 36 questions.

Most of them were multiple-choice questions

and contained a space for additional answer.

Startups were required to provide their

names, function of the person completing

the questionnaire and to determine themselves

(or not) as startups in line with the adopted

definition. All other answers were voluntary.

9.

Various methods of data analysis were used

in the study. Responses to closed-end questions

were analyzed mainly thanks to analytical

tools made available by the webankieta.pl site.

Responses to open questions were studied

via analysis of keyword coding and indication

of statements that appeared most often.

Potential correlations were checked with

the use of the SPSS Statistics programme.

10.

For the conduct of both studies, the pilot

and the proper study, the webankieta.pl

site was used.

12 S TA R T U P P O L A N D R E P O R TS T U D Y D ATA

S t u d y D a t a

The questionnaires were completed by 423

entities in the period between June 10

and September 15, 2015. Over a half of

respondents of the questionnaire are registered

startups (or actually conducting their business)

in one of three cities: Warsaw, Krakow or Poznan.

Popular locations also included Wroclaw

and the Tri-City and, subsequently, Łódź

and Katowice.Foreign registration (several cases)

referred primarily to Great Britain.

As far as the period of operation of startups

that took part in the questionnaire is concerned,

two-thirds of them are four years’ old or younger

(i.e. were registered not earlier than in 2012),

others are older. Every tenth startup is functioning

informally (i.e. it has not yet been registered).

Dominant legal forms include limited liability

company (almost two-thirds); every fifth startup

is conducted as single person business activity.

Only 5% are joint stock companies.

Location of startups

Warsaw

28%

other cities

26%

Krakow

16%

Poznan

13%

Wro

claw

7%

Tri-City 7%abroad 3%

13 S TA R T U P P O L A N D R E P O R T S T U D Y D ATA

Year of company registration

2012–2013

33%

2014–2015

33%

2010–2011

11%

still not registered

11%

before 2010

8%

Legal form

limited liability company

65%

single person

business activity

19%

other

12%Joint-stock

company 5%

John Biggs, East Coast

Editor of TechCrunch,

member of the Advisory

Board of the Startup Poland

“Five years ago, the Polish startup ecosystem

was still quite small. In fact, it was almost

invisible, and the idea that Poland could become

a startup power was rather abstract. But now it’s

completely different! The momentum with which

the ecosystem is currently growing is incredible.

I can see, however, that some regulations and

the tax system remain a problem. This will change,

but some time will pass before that happens.

The greatest engine of economic development

at the moment is technology. So I would like to see

how the municipal authorities work together

with startups in order to stimulate their growth

and make small places on the map much

more significant.”

14 S TA R T U P P O L A N D R E P O R TB U S I N E S S M O D E L S A N D D E V E L O P M E N T

C h a p t e r I – B u s i n e s s m o d e l s a n d d e v e l o p m e n t

Piotr Wilam, partner

at Innovation Nest,

member of the

Startup Poland Board

“Each new company must first decide how

to generate its own value. The founders have

to answer the questions: is there a problem?

Who has this problem? How can we solve it?

Then they should choose the business model

in which they will operate.

I would like to point out three conclusions from

the research results which to me seem particularly

interesting. First, companies which export

services grow faster and are larger. It would

be interesting to go deeper with this topic –

is it harder to achieve fast growth and

development on the local market?

If the answer is yes, that means that technology

is global, but expansion in the local market

is harder than in foreign markets.

The second conclusion is the noticeable,

spectacular majority sales to companies has over

sales to individual clients. The B2B and B2B2C

models together achieved 78%, compared with

21% for the B2C model. The conclusion is clear:

Polish startups sell to companies.

Finally, a third observation. Real estate owners

repeat the wisdom of generations: “location,

location, location”, while for startups, the most

important commandment is: “focus, focus, focus”.

Meanwhile, to the multiple choice question

regarding the category of clients, the average

number of indicated groups (categories)

is 3.5 – that is absolutely too high!

I hope that this number will fall

in the years to come!”.

15 S TA R T U P P O L A N D R E P O R T B U S I N E S S M O D E L S A N D D E V E L O P M E N T

The study of business models of Polish startups

was commenced with a request to indicate one

of the proposed categories to which the main

paying client belongs. The attached diagram

shows that none of the categories is dominant.

Micro-companies (up to 10 employees) and small

companies (up to 50 employees) collected

relatively greatest number of indications.

Every second startup counts upon individual

clients as target recipients of their products

and services. Institutions and representatives

of freelance professions enjoy smallest interest.

However, it is necessary to remember that via this

question, the “popularity” of clients was measured

and not their profitability.

Subsequently, 30 types of products and

industries were proposed and startups were

asked to choose the ones that characterize

their main operation best. The obtained results

were called business models, even though

it is a significant simplification.

29%

49%

56% 57%

52%

44%41%

28%

individual clients

freelancers micro-companies

small companies

medium-sized

companies

large companies

large corporations

institutions

Structure of indications at client categories (multiple-choice)


Business models: products and industries, percentage of indications (multiple choice)

11%

9%

10%12%

22%9%

39%10%

28%5%

21%4%

21%3%

24%5%

13%7%

17%2%

5%8%

6%18%13%12%

49%57%10%

Har

dw

are

Intern

et of T

hin

gsSo

ftw

are

An

alyticsM

arke

tin

g Te

chn

olo

gy

B2

BE

ducation

B2C

Telecomm

unication

Financial services

Cor

pora

te so

ftw

are

B2B2C

Transport and logistics

Life Science

Prog&

Dev Tools

SaaS

Utility designs

Big Data

Power industry

Marketplace

Games, entertainment

Agency Electronics/Robotics

e-CommerceContent/Social

MobileV/A Reality

Web ServiceSematic Web/AI


value up to PLN 100,000

START

value up to PLN 1 million

PRE-SEED


SEED


SEED+

value above PLN 20 million

ROUND A

33%

20%

28%

12%

6%

B U S I N E S S M O D E L S A N D D E V E L O P M E N T

e-Commerce

Mobile

Web Service

Most often, startups determine themselves

as software producers (half of indications) who

sell in the SaaS3 model and operate most willingly

in the following industries: mobile applications,

e-commerce and web services. Startups indicate

B2B sale almost twice as often as B2C sale.

Relatively many startups produce corporate

software in an agency model; Big Data,

Research Tools and Business Intelligence

also enjoy significant interest.

Fewest startups operate in industries such

as the power sector, artificial intelligence,

logistics and telecommunications.

The companies were also asked about the stage

at which they are now, the rate of development

and plans for the future. With this objective

in mind, the companies were requested to locate

the startup on a 10-degree scale, reflecting stages

of development and, at the same time, the level

of company valuation. The results are presented

in the form of five stages of development

and valuation: START, PRE-SEED, SEED,

SEED+ and ROUND A.

Startup structure on various levels of valuation

3 SaaS: Software as a Service


In the examined population, two groups

of enterprises are dominant: START and SEED.

Slightly over a half of startups declare the initial

stages (START and PRE-SEED). The others

are more advanced and accomplish values

exceeding PLN 8 million. There are also companies

that are valued above PLN 20 million (24 cases).

Approximate level of revenue growth was also

examined; the companies were asked to assign

their sale results to percentage categories. It was

not known whether it would be easier for startups

to provide answers in reference to growth on

a monthly or an annual scale; therefore, selection

of answers in both versions was proposed.

Almost twice as many answers referred to growth

in the annual dimension; thence, the presented

results refer to this category and take into account

the incomplete number (322) of answers.

The results are impressive: almost every third

examined startup records revenue growth

on the level of over 50% annually; in the case

of every fifth startup, this growth exceeds 100%.

However, it is worrying that over one-third

of companies were not able to answer the

question formulated in this manner4.

Only some of them have been functioning

too short to be able to estimate their growth.

The remaining companies probably

do not collect the necessary data.

4 Assuming simultaneously that the companies that did not wish to disclose such information did not respond at all to this question.

< 10% 10–50% 50–100% > 100% I do not know

Level of revenue growth in last year (n=322)

12%

24%

11%

18%

35%

19 B U S I N E S S M O D E L S A N D D E V E L O P M E N TS TA R T U P P O L A N D R E P O R T

A decision was made to examine features

differentiating quickly developing startups from

other startups; hence, the first group that was

examined in detail.

“Fast” are startups that declare annual revenue

growth rate on the level exceeding 50%. This

population has 91 entities with respect to 117

startups that declare lower values of such index.

The first difference refers to client category:

“fast” startups are less focused on individual

clients and much more devoted to medium-sized

companies, large companies and corporations.

They operate on the market of mobile services

(every third) and Big Data (every fifth) twice

as often as others.

Half of the startups from this group sell in the SaaS

model (in the “slower” group – every third).

These are entities definitely more often financed

by external sources: VC funds (25%; in the “slower”

group – only 8%), investment angels and banks.

They make use of mentoring more often and

are active in industry communities. “Faster”

startups have a definitely different employment

structure, i.e. they employ, on average, many more

people than the “slower” startups. It is possible

to put forward a thesis that the level of

employment is positively correlated with

the accomplished revenue increase.

It is interesting to note that both groups have

exactly the same share of experienced persons5

among partners. It suggests that previous

experience does not increase chances for faster

rate of growth of revenues in a startup

(which does not mean that it has no impact

on other factors).

The secret of success lies probably in the export

operation of “fast” startups: only 20% of them

operate exclusively in the country, whereas

as many as 35% perform over 50% of sale abroad.

In the case of “slower” startups, these indices

amount to 50% and 20%, respectively.

“ F a s t e r ” v s . “ s l o w e r ”

5 i.e. persons who already established and developed startups.


4%

18%

35%

46%

37%

28%

23%

8%

Employment in “faster” and “slower” startups

no employees 1-4 persons 5-20 people more than 20 people

faster slower

20%

50%45%

29%

35%

21%

Export of “faster” and “slower” startups

I do not have clients abroad

< 50% sale > 50% sale

faster slower


15%

33%

12%8%

31%

B U S I N E S S M O D E L S A N D D E V E L O P M E N T

After what period of time has the project started to bring regular revenues?

immedi-ately

after several

months – up to one

year

after a year or two

after over two years

our revenues

are still not

regular

What will be the company’s value in two years’ time?

similar as today

twice as high

3-4 times as high

5-10 times as

high

over 10 times

higher

3%

16%

29%26% 25%

Subsequently, the respondents were asked about

time that passes before a startup starts to bring

regular (foreseeable) revenues. The fact that half

of the respondents needed one year to accomplish

such status is to be considered a good result.

Revenues of every third examined startup are

still not regular.

Answers to the question about estimated value

of the company in the prospect of the next

two years brought impressive results: a half

of the respondents expect at least five-fold

increase in the price of the project! This vision

is very ambitious; additionally, it is positively

supported by answers to the subsequent question:

about sources of financing such growth

(multiple-choice question).

Over three-fourths of startups claim that they

are planning to develop on the basis of own sales

revenues. At the same time, over a half counts

upon the investor’s support and every third –

upon support of a strategic business partner.

One-fourth of companies consider EU financing

(subsidies). Bank loans enjoy least popularity,

along with crowd-funding and scientific grants.

Own financing, which was dominant as the source

of capital in the company, is clearly set aside

in the perspective of plans for the future.


Sources of financing company’s development (multiple choice questions)

own savings sales revenues

debt (e.g. bank)

investor (VC, investment angel, etc.)

business partner

crowd- funding

scientific grant

subsidy

“ O p t i m i s t s ” v s . “ r e a l i s t s ”

Other analyzed sub-groups are “optimists”

vs. “realists” i.e. startups which expect,

in the course of two years, over five-fold increase

in the value of their company (209 answers).

“Realists” are companies that assume more

moderate development (200 answers).

“Optimists” are startups with a short life-span:

over a half of them registered business activity

in 2014 or later. Every third “optimist” still has

no regular income (in the group of “realists” –

every fourth). At the same time, optimism of such

startups may surprise, especially when one takes

into account the fact that their entry to the market

was not easy – only every tenth started to earn

immediately; in the group of “realists” – every fifth.

It is interesting to note that “optimists” service

corporations and large companies much more

often than “realists” and more willingly reach

for VC funding (23%) or funding from investment

angels (24%). Most clearly, their optimism

is convincing for investors. For “realists”, these

indices amount to 13% and 15%, respectively.

This may be related to the fact that many more

“optimists” evaluate their products as new

solutions on a global scale (56% vs. 42% among

“realists”), which is an important argument

in the investment process.

27%

77%

8%

55%

28%

5% 6%

25%

23 S TA R T U P P O L A N D R E P O R T C A P I TA L S O U R C E S

C h a p t e r I I – C a p i t a l s o u r c e s

Bartłomiej Gola, partner

at SpeedUp Venture Capital

Group, Chairman of the

Startup Poland Advisory Board

“When I look at this excerpt from the “Polish

Startups 2015” study, to me two things seem both

typical and disturbing. First, we have a surprisingly

low share of startups financed by venture capital.

I’m writing this as a representative of this sector,

and I know that I could be accused of lobbying.

Despite that, I will wholeheartedly emphasize:

I don’t know of any country which has been able

to build a strong RDI sector without a substantial

share of venture capital.

Building an innovative business, for example

based on information technology, is not the

invention of the so-called startup industry,

but the foundation for Poland’s growth in

the coming years.

It is not possible to create a modern, European

state based on outsourcing centers and selling

cheap labor to wealthier countries.

The second thing I’d like to point out is the fact

that only 25% of innovative companies cooperate

with research centers. This result should be taken

as a warning sign. After all, innovation needs

research in addition to capital, which I addressed

earlier. Startups should base a large part of their

operations on the commercialization of the results

of research work.

I’m not writing these words to frighten people

or to complain. One of the most important

functions of this study is to learn the current

state of affairs and diagnose barriers

to the growth of innovation. Following this

first edition of the study, we know for sure

that we need tools to develop venture capital

and improve the transfer of knowledge

from research to business. These are issues

of fundamental importance.”

24 S TA R T U P P O L A N D R E P O R TC A P I TA L S O U R C E S

Financing is one of key elements conditioning

development of startups. Its availability has

significant impact on the range of their operation,

tendency to invest in innovations and number

of established work places.

According to answers provided to questions about

sources of capital in companies, almost 60% of

Polish startups are financed exclusively from

own funds. Other sources include UE funds:

in the form of subsidies (23%) or seed funds (7%).

Almost every fifth examined startup reached

for funds from Polish or foreign venture capital

funds; the same number of companies received

such funds from investment angels.

Every 12th startup received bank credit (8%).

Crowd-funding is still in its infancy with a result

of 3%, which means several cases in the entire

examined population. It is worth emphasizing

that none of the examined startups, including

the New Connect market, has indicated the stock

exchange as the source of financing for its activity.

59%

23%

20%

18%

3%

8%

Capital sources in startups

only own funds

venture capital

EU subsidy

investment angelcrowd-funding

bank (credit)


“ B o o t s t r a p p e r s ” v s . o t h e r s

Differences between startups that finance

its capital exclusively from own funds (called

“bootstrappers” – 246 answers) and other startups

that reach for capital from external sources

(169 answers) were also analyzed.

When comparing “bootstrappers” to other

startups, it is possible to conclude that the

source of financing has no greater impact on

the functioning and development of a company.

It turns out that there are no significant

differences in the manner of operation of a startup

using exclusively own funds and a startup financed

from external funds. The differences that occur

result from a more careful approach to expenses

in the “bootstrapper” group, which seems

to be natural. A clear example here is the issue

of employment: every fourth “bootstrapper” does

not hire anybody apart from founders, whereas

nine out of ten other startups have employees.

“Bootstrappers” are also more motivated

to generate income –they make money

immediately after entering the market twice

as often as other startups.

Answers to the level of product innovation

indicate that “bootstrappers” evaluate themselves

in a more modest manner: they more often

create imitations and “only” three-fourths of

them determine their products as a new solution

on a global scale, whereas the other startups make

such claim in 90%. It is worth emphasizing that

results of such self-assessment for both groups

are impressively high as compared to the national

average for all companies (also companies which

are not startups)6.

“Bootstrappers” do not intend to change their

strategy: when asked about sources of financing

the company’s development, they indicated

founders’ savings twice as often as others.

Half of them consider investments in the future

and every third – an alliance with a strategic

partner; every fifth wishes to apply for

an EU subsidy.

6 Product and service innovations are implemented by approx. 50–60% of Polish companies

(according to the Central Statistical Office).


O t h e r f o r m s o f c o - f i n a n c i n g

Startups were also asked whether they

use other, non-financial, forms of support.

Only every tenth examined startup used an offer

of an entrepreneurship incubator or a technology

park; accelerators enjoy a similar (low) level of

interest. On the other hand, less than 5% operated

or still operates as part of an academic incubator,

i.e. they are located by a university.

Polish startups rarely use the assistance

of experienced entrepreneurs. Only 12% said

that they make use of mentoring; the same number

indicated participation in industry meetings,

such as Aula, Hive, Startup Stage or OpenReaktor.

Competitions, hackathons and Startup Weekends

enjoy similarly moderate interest (depending

on the type of event, they were attended

by 7% – 12% of respondents).

Other forms of co-financing

academic incubator

incubator or technology park

mentoring

accelerator

participation in Startup Weekend

participation in a startup competition

industry meetings

10%

10%

12%12%

7%

12%

5%


money human capital

specialist knowl-

edge

contacts (network)

we have everything

we need

61%

49%

23%

50%

6%

As far as needs are concerned, 60% of startups

need money the most at the present stage

of development. A half indicated new employees

and the same number – a better network

of contacts. Almost every fourth startup

experiences the need of increasing resources

of specialist knowledge.

Assuming that knowledge is treated as a resource,

startups were asked about their cooperation

with the world of science. Such cooperation

is understood as cooperation with universities,

institutes, laboratories, as well as regular,

even informal, consultations.

Exactly every fourth startup confirmed

that it cooperates with scientists.

In the end, it is necessary to emphasize that

foreign resources (both capital and other)

are much less popular (or available) than

the domestic ones. The level of using them

is several times lower than the level of using

their Polish equivalents (funds, incubators,

accelerators, etc.).

Does the startup cooperate with the world of science?Current needs vs. resources

Yes

25%


S t a r t u p s c o o p e r a t i n g w i t h s c i e n c e

Among examined startups, 107 cooperate

with a university or a scientific center.

Clients of startups cooperating with science

are more often (in comparison to other startups)

corporations and institutions. They are probably

the recipients of products related to KET

technologies produced by every third startup

in the examined group (every 12th

in the remaining group).

Startups cooperating with science appreciate their

technologies and often claim that their products

are innovations on a global scale. They hire

employees three times as often as the remaining

ones and they patent their products twice

as willingly (almost half of them). It is not

yet possible to indicate significant differences

with respect to the rate of development

or valuation of such companies in comparison

to the remaining companies.

29 S TA R T U P P O L A N D R E P O R T E M P L O Y M E N T

C h a p t e r I I I – E m p l o y m e n t

Marcin Beme,

co-founder and CEO

of Audioteka.pl, member

of the Startup Poland

Advisory Board

“I am glad that the question of employment was

brought up in the “Polish Startups 2015” report,

as the formation of a good team is a key factor

in a startup’s success. If the right people are found,

it is sure that the startup will grow.

In my experience, the recruitment process

should be started as soon as possible and should

aim to hire a team that is professional from

the outset. If we’re able to find such people,

then the professionalization of all processes

in the company will run much more smoothly.

Even if such words as “process” and “structure”

sound a bit foreign to startups, I still encourage

attempting to “arrange” your business from the

very beginning of operations, as without this

you might later “trip over your own two feet”.

I read the section of the report on founders with

a great interest. In my experience, it is much easier

to establish a business if there are at least two

partners. First of all, they often have different

skills which complement each other, but most

importantly, they also have a greater ability

to cope with any challenges that stand in the

startup’s way. This is especially useful when

the startup changes into a stable company

starting to bring in regular income.”

30 S TA R T U P P O L A N D R E P O R TE M P L O Y M E N T

Employment in startups is one of the most

important aspects of their functioning.

From the point of view of the company,

the competences of a founding team and

proper selection of employees determine the

success of the entire enterprise. On the other

hand, on the level of macro-economic analysis,

knowledge about employment volume and the

rate at which startups create new work places

is necessary.

The first part of questions referred to the

number and the structure of the founding team.

Every third startup is run by a single founder;

on the other hand, 60% are run by two-

or three-person teams.

Startups managed by a single person are,

as a group, on a clearly earlier stage of

development than the average for the entire

population and they are financed almost

exclusively from EU funds and own funds.

In every third startup, the partner is a woman;

in every sixth – a person involved in academic

work (at least a Ph.D. student).

In 60% of cases, a person experienced in

establishing and running a startup is among

founders. Such groups will be analyzed in depth

in a further part of this chapter. In the study,

employees are understood as persons that

cooperate with the company on an ongoing basis,

receive payment for it and are not partners –

on account of the form of the agreement

on the basis of which the described relation takes

place. The status of employment understood

in this manner in the examined population is

presented in the diagram. Only every sixth

startup has no employees. At the same time,

80% of the population are micro-companies, i.e.

companies that employ 10 people as a maximum.

What is interesting is that over three-fourths

of startups plan to increase employment at least

in a rate in which the company’s value is going

to grow – plans in this respect are ambitious,

which was mentioned in Chapter I. It is also worth

reminding that half of startups indicate “human

capital” as a key resource necessary at the present

stage of development (which was mentioned

in Chapter II).

How many founders are there in a startup?

two

39%

one

32%three

21%

more 8

%

Employment in startups

2–4 osoby

34%

5–10 osób

21%

1 osoba 9%

ponad 20 osób 11%

11–20 osób 8%

brak pracowników

17%

31 S TA R T U P P O L A N D R A P O R T E M P L O Y M E N T

“ S k i r t s ” v s . “ t r o u s e r s ”

Exactly 28% of startups have at least one woman

among founders. The sub-group of “skirts” has 116

entities, whereas “trousers” – 300 entities.

In reference to the implemented business models,

it is necessary to note that “skirts” less frequently

determine “software” as the core of their

operation7 (39% vs. 53% in the case of “trousers”),

which is confirmed by the fact that a half of

them outsources programming services to other

companies (every third “male” startup does that).

“Skirts” more willingly designate individual persons

as clients (58% vs. 45%).

On the other hand, in the case of “trousers”, sale

in the SaaS model is much more popular, along

with production of software for companies

(27% vs. 43% respectively for SaaS

and 12% vs. 21% for software).

On the other hand, dominance of female startups

is definitely clear in the area of utility design

(17% vs. 8%). However, in areas saturated with

technology, such as robotics, Internet of Things,

virtual/ augmented reality, power industry,

bio-technology and health protection, as

well as mobile services – greater differences

do not occur.

Is a woman one of the founders?

7 The question about the manner of product manufacturing confirms the fact that software is, in a much less degree,

the core of operation of “female” startups, which perform in-house programming in a significantly smaller degree

(62% vs. 81%) and more often outsource programming to other companies (45% vs. 36%).

Yes

28%


Valuation: “skirts” vs. “trousers”

The age structure of “female” and “male” startups

is similar, even though startups which have been

operating longer are men’s domain. Differences

to the advantage of “trousers” appear with

respect to valuation of companies. On the basis

of available data, we cannot determine whether

higher valuation of “male” enterprises results

from greater courage in estimates or the actual

value of company, especially due to the fact that

the declared revenue growth rate is only slightly

greater with respect to “trousers.” There is also

no significant difference in experience: in 55%

of “female” startups, the partner is a person

who has already run a company and in “male”

companies, this index amounts to 65%.

The situation is similar with respect to financing

sources: differences are slight. “Skirts” make

use of mentoring much more frequently

(or more often admit that they do it!): 19% vs. 9%

in the “male” group. It is interesting to note that

women less frequently run companies on their

own (23% vs. 36%).

Summing up, it can be said that differences

in the functioning of startups which have women

among founders and the ones that are composed

exclusively of men are slight. The existing

differences may be blurred in a study

conducted on a larger sample of companies.

43%

30%

22%19% 21%

31%

7%

14%

6% 6%


START


PRE-SEED


SEED


SEED+


ROUND A

women

men


Startups run by “experienced” people, i.e. those

who had already established and operated

a startup (61% of the population, 254 startups)

were compared with startups whose founders

are “novices” (38%, 156 startups). This is an

important context especially in the prospect

of studies in the next years, as it is going to show

the rate of rotation of personnel and the power

of influx of new people to the industry, as well

as allow for evaluation of the degree in which

experience is an important resource in business.

Time of operation on the market is almost identical

in both groups; however, there is a clear difference

with respect to the choice of legal form: more

(three-fourths) of “experienced” startups decide

to have a commercial company (half of “novices”).

Clients of “experienced” companies are more

often companies, especially large ones. It may

be said that SaaS, mobile services, e-Commerce,

Big Data and corporate software are areas more

often chosen by the “experienced ones.”

What is worth noting is the fact that they

undertake implementation of hardware projects

less frequently – even though this is a slight value.

However, these are not differences indicating

that experience definitely conditions a different

model of operation in business. The case is similar

in reference to main sources of financing, even

though the “experienced” are more willing

to reach for external sources, such as VC funds

or investment angels, and probably find it easier

to do, which is understandable. It is interesting

to note that the tendency for financing exclusively

from own funds is almost on the same level,

similarly to the willingness to use EU funds.

The advantage of “experienced” starts to be clear

with respect to revenues: 53% of them declare

stable income in the period up to one year from

commencement of work on a project; only every

fourth has no regular income. In the group

of novices, both indices amount to 38%.

“ E x p e r i e n c e d ” v s . “ n o v i c e s ”


18%

9%

35%

29%

11% 13%8% 10%

26%

38%

immediately after several months up to one year

after a year, two years

after over two years we still have no regular income

After what time has the project started to bring regular income? experienced startups novices

Startups of “experienced” founders are

valuated higher and show higher revenue

growth rates. Therefore, it may be assumed

that experience is conducive to quicker building

of a company’s value.

In the area of employment, differences are

significant: only every tenth “experienced”

startup does not have any employees, whereas

every fourth “novice” has no employees. Almost

a half of “experienced” startups employ over ten

people, and among “novices” – every third.

It is interesting to note that there are

no differences between the two groups as

far as the tendency to enter foreign markets

is concerned. However, the “experienced” startups

more often license or patent the technologies that

they produce, which may indicate that experience

in business results in better appreciation of these

methods of securing the competitive advantage.


8 Who are understood as at least Ph.D. students. 9 Precisely: Life Science/Healthcare/Biotechnologies. 10 Precisely: Analytics/Research Tools/Business Intelligence.

S t a r t u p s o f s c i e n t i s t s

15% of startups were established by persons

professionally related to science8. This group

is quite small (64 companies), but interesting;

therefore, a decision was made to list its main

features. First of all, “scientific” startups most

willingly operate in such areas as hardware,

biotechnologies9, analytical tools10, as well

as power industry and education. They perceive

their products as an innovation on a global scale

more often than others (63%).

Over a half of them cooperate with scientific

centers, yet they enter foreign markets

on a level similar to other startups.

Differences are most interesting in the area

of sources of financing – startups of scientists

are more efficient in procuring external financing,

in particular VC funds and EU funds, and they

use entrepreneurship incubators, technology

parks and acceleration programs much more

often. As a source of financing, such companies

obviously indicate scientific grants. A barrier

for their development may be difficulties

in access to properly trained personnel, which

the scientists indicate as a missing resource.

Therefore, such fears are not surprising with

respect to the fact that as many as a half of them

employ other scientists and three-fourths plan

to increase employment.

36 S TA R T U P P O L A N D R E P O R TE X P O R T

C h a p t e r I V – E x p o r t

Jakub Krzych, co-founder

and CEO of Estimote, Inc.

“When Dave Cockle, Developers

Relationship Manager from

Apple’s London branch visited the Cracow office

of Estimote over a year ago, I didn’t believe he

would help me solve the riddle: why is the global

technology services sector growing in Poland?

During one of my conversations with Dave,

he brought to my attention the strong community

of Apple device programmers in Poland as well

as such countries as Romania, Bulgaria, and

Ukraine. He didn’t know then how to explain

the phenomenon, but as soon as he named those

countries, I immediately knew what it was all

about: arbitrage.

Young, talented programmers, often called

freelancers, understand that by investing a small

amount of time in learning about technology, they

can offer high quality services to clients from

wealthy countries such as the United States or

Great Britain. By making their home in Warsaw,

Cracow, Poznan or Wroclaw they maintain a low

cost of living, but earn European-level wages.

They do their work remotely, and a knowledge

of English allows them not only to successfully

complete projects, but also seek out new ones.

With time, they come together in groups of

entrepreneurs, founding so-called ‘software

houses’ and adding new services to their offer.

Often the western clients they serve are startups

or agencies working on new products and looking

for lower costs. Several months’ experience with

these clients, the simplicity of their projects

and growing financial success cause local

entrepreneurs to try their hand at it on their

own. They start to create global and innovative

technology products, this time not for a client’s

order, but on their own initiative. This is the

beginning of a completely new generation

of startups, whose ambitions are immediately

international. This organic trend will continue

to grow in Poland, and I am convinced that

in subsequent years we will see many phenomenal

products Made in Poland!”

37 S TA R T U P P O L A N D R E P O R T E X P O R T

“Go global” is the slogan that accompanies

almost every startup initiative. On the one hand,

companies that conquer most demanding

foreign markets achieve success. On the other,

the domestic market is often a starting point

for broad-scale enterprises. What is the actual

dimension of the presence of Polish

startups abroad?

Among the examined startups, 54% are exporters;

on the other hand, 40% claim that they do not

sell outside of Poland11. This is a high result

considering that in the entire sector of Polish

MSE only 7% of enterprises conduct export

activity (Starczewska-Krzysztoszek 201212).

The export index on the level of 50% refers,

in Poland, to medium-sized companies,

i.e. with 50 and more employees.

Therefore, it can be stated that in reference

to export activity, startups behave as if they

had the potential of a medium-sized company

at their disposal, similarly evaluating their

competitive advantage.

Among exporting startups, almost a half performs

over 50% of their total sale abroad (diagram).

For 60% of exporters, the main country of

destination is Great Britain or the United States.

Germany is also an important recipient. These

are very demanding markets, and this testifies

to the high level of offer of Polish startups.

Every fifth startup maintains a foreign branch13.

Share of export in sale

11 6% of respondents did not answer the question about export.12 Starczewska-Krzysztoszek A. “Konkurencyjność sektora MSP. Raport z badań”, PKPP Lewiatan, Warsaw 2012.

http://issuu.com/pkpplewiatan/docs/raportmsp2012_pl13 The term “foreign branch” was treated broadly, also as an informal resident who takes care of the company’s interests.

I do not have clients abroad

40%

90-100%

16%

50-90%10%

no answer 6

%

10-50%10% up to 10%

18%


The group of “exporters” (227 entities) includes

companies that have been functioning at the

market longer than “locals” (171 entities).

However, these differences are not significant.

In the business models of exporters, production

of software in B2B and SaaS models is significantly

dominant. As far as specific products are

concerned, they create software houses where

they produce software for companies, tools

for developers, electronics and products

related to utility design more often.

“Exporters” wait for regular income much shorter

than others: every fifth generates income

immediately; in 60% of cases revenues become

stabilized within one year from commencement

of work on a project. The advantage of “exporters”

is also clear with respect to valuation of companies

(diagram). These results confirm a thesis that sale

on foreign markets accelerates monetization

of business and increases its value. This situation

is similar in the case of “experienced” vs. “novices”

yet with respect to valuation of companies,

the effect here is much stronger.

After what period of time has the project started to bring regular income?

“ E x p o r t e r s ” v s . “ l o c a l s ”

21%

9%

39%

23%

13%11%

9% 8%

18%

47%

immediately after several months, up to one year

after a year or two years

after more than two years

we still have no regular income

exporters locals


14 Only taking into account those that indicated increase in revenues in the annual cycle.

Therefore, this estimate is underrepresented, as it does not include the ones that have a high growth rate, but marked the monthly cycle.

E X P O R T

Revenues of “exporters” not only appear quicker,

but also grow quicker: every third14 declares

annual growth exceeding 50%. In the group

of “locals” this is every tenth company.

It is interesting to note that there are almost

no differences with respect to sources of financing

of “exporters” and “locals” – apart from “exporters”

being financed by investment angels twice

as frequently (25% vs. 12%); what is more,

“exporters” participate in acceleration programs

three times as often as “locals.”

Structure of startups at various stages of valuation

22%

47%

20% 21%

32%

22%18%

7% 8%3%


START


PRE-SEED


SEED


SEED+


ROUND A

exporters locals


In the second case, this may be related to

the fact that such programs are targeted, almost

exclusively, to startups focused on the foreign

expansion; therefore, they are not accessible

to companies that do not plan such expansion.

“Exporters” more often license or patent

their technologies (40%, with respect to only

16% of “locals”). Most obviously, similarly

to “experienced” start-ups, they treat it as

an efficient method of securing their competitive

advantage on foreign markets.

“Exporters” create more work places than

companies selling at the domestic market:

only 10% have no employees (25% of “locals”)

and over a half employs a minimum of five people

(every fourth “local”).

It is interesting to note that almost the same

percentage of “novices” and “experienced” exports

their products, thus an experienced partner

is not more prone to conduct operation abroad.

Hence, if the results of the questionnaire clearly

confirm that expansion outside of Poland is more

profitable than local operation, this result may

be surprising and, at the same time, may prompt

questions concerning the causes of such decision.

The issue should be investigated in more detail

in subsequent studies.

41 S TA R T U P P O L A N D R E P O R T I N N O V AT I O N

C h a p t e r V – I n n o v a t i o n

Leszek Grabarczyk,

Deputy Director

of the National Center

for Research and Development

(NCBR), member of the

Advisory Board of the Startup Poland

“The study conducted by the Startup Poland

was concerning a specific area of Polish

startups’ operations and concentrated

on companies building the digital industry.

It should be openly stated that here in Poland

we are still at the formative stage of the startup

market, and the activity of many of these

startups – as indicated by the research results –

is not yet at a professional level.

From the perspective of the needs of the economy

and the need to increase innovation in individual

industries, a basic challenge for Polish startups

remains changing the way they function and

basing their growth on R&D projects.

Too few companies are involved in research

and development, which – though costly

and time-consuming – can be successfully

financed from public and private sources.

We are still dealing with an oversupply

of money on the market.

Equally important is raising and broadening

the level of technological competence, whether

it is based on their own RDI team or external

experts, e.g. researchers interested in

commercializing R&D results. Achieving these

goals is the aim of NCBR’s BRIdge programs,

particularly BRIdge Alfa, thanks to which

technology startups can gain not only financial

and substantive support, but also comprehensive

business management.”

42 S TA R T U P P O L A N D R E P O R TI N N O V AT I O N

The final part of the Report was devoted to the

issue of innovation in startups and the character

of research/ development and innovation (RDI)

activity which is to be undertaken by such entities.

Closed-end questions – taking into account the

fact that the study was performed for the first

time – were supplemented by four open questions

and startups were allowed to provide answers

freely. Even though analysis of the materials

obtained in this manner was much more difficult,

it allowed for observing general tendencies

and procuring spontaneous opinions about

innovations and their place in every-day “life”

of startups.

At the beginning, a question was asked about the

level of product innovations; the respondents

were asked to select the proposed range of

its “innovation.” Almost half of startups declared

that their solution was “new on a global scale.”

Every third respondent believes that it is working

on a solution that is a novelty on a local scale,

and every fourth admits that its product is “more

of an imitation, even though it has specific

advantages.”

Many startups indicated product as a carrier

of the key innovation. This referred

to a breakthrough innovation (52% innovations)

and an innovation that is an improvement

of an existing solution (40%).

As mentioned in the chapter devoted

to resources, every fourth startup cooperates

with science, which is perceived as a potential

source of innovative solutions. Relatively

many, i.e. 59 companies (15%) declared

that their operation is related to KET:

Key Enabling Technologies.

Almost every third examined startup declared

that it possesses a patent or a reserved trademark,

purchases or sells licenses for technologies –

this group was called the “patent group.”

15 When creating categories of innovation “carriers”, a classic division was used, compliant with the OECD guidelines contained in the “Oslo Manual”

and a publication entitled “Nauka i technika” published cyclically by the Central Statistical Office: OECD. “Oslo Manual”. Guidelines for Collecting

and Interpreting Innovation Data, Ministry of Science and Higher Education, 3rd edition, Warsaw 2008 and: “Nauka i technika” in 2013, Central

Statistical Office, Szczecin 2010.


the product – technological

novelty, significant

change, new solution

the product – improvement,

new version of a solution

the process of product

manufacturing/ service

provision

organisation (work,

production, company)

marketing (channel,

communication, customer

experience, design, etc.)

business model

any element may be

indicated)

I do not consider

this startup innovative

The key innovation is embedded in…

43%

54%

21%25%

18%

5%

20%

our product is a new solution on a global scale

our product is a new solution on a local scale

our product is an imitation

Level of product/ service “innovation”

49%

32%

23%


The “patent group” has 149 startups16. The group

of remaining startups is almost twice as numerous

(278 entities).

There are many differences; they appear already

on the stage of selection of legal form. Patenting

startups definitely more often selected the form

of a commercial company; single person business

activity was chosen two times less frequently

(only every tenth startup). It is interesting to note

that clients of the “patent group” are often

(over 35% of cases) institutions – it is possible

to venture saying that this type of client

particularly willingly purchases products

protected by industrial property laws. It is

understandable that the “patent group” sees its

products as “innovation on a global scale” twice

as often as “others” (almost 70% of them).

The key difference between the analyzed groups

is the source of financing. The “patent group”

startups reach for (and receive) money from

investors such as venture capital or investment

angels. In general, they are more active: they

participate in competitions more often, use

mentoring, incubators, crowd-funding and they

participate in industry meeting.

They also count upon EU subsidies more often,

especially in the perspective of financing their

development (and not current activity).

They grow fast: every fifth company from

the “patent group” declares level of growth

of 100% annually – this is twice as frequent

as in the “others” group. Having patents is also

conducive to contacts with the world of science,

which is natural: as many as 40% startups from

the “patent group” cooperate with universities

(only every fifth in the case of “others”); they

more often hire researchers and have founders

who are researchers. The “patent group” more

often decides for a global expansion. Every third

member of this group has foreign branches

(three times more frequently in comparison

to other companies) and as many as 3/4 sell their

products abroad (half of other startups).

„P a t e n t g r o u p ” v s . o t h e r s

16 The “patent group” also includes companies that marked the “remarks” option in the answer,

as all of these remarks referred to the situation where the patent period (or derivative) is pending.


“ N o n - i n n o v a t i v e ” s t a r t u p s

To balance the “optimism” of innovative startups,

an in-depth analysis of a small group of entities

(21 companies) that see themselves as “non-

innovative” was also performed. The recipients

of the offer of such startups were more often

individual clients (60% vs. 50% for the entire

population) and far less frequently companies.

It seems that the core of “non-innovation” of this

group consists in the character of the product

which startups clearly determine as “imitations.”

At the same time, we are not certain whether

innovation does not occur in other areas of

operation of this group of companies.

Therefore, it may be assumed that startups

that fail to generate product innovations have

a tendency for rigid evaluation of the level of

their innovation sensu largo. On the other hand,

imitation clearly brings profits to them: 2/3

of them started to make money immediately

or in the course of the first year and even though

the declared revenue increase is not very high,

hopes for development in the course of the next

couple of years are more ambitious than for

the entire population on average. Among “non-

innovative” companies, there are many “optimists”

who believe that the value of their company will

increase at least 5 times: as many as half of these

companies make such claim.


As mentioned before, in order to evaluate sources

of innovation in startups, the respondents were

asked four open questions. In the first question,

they were asked to describe the manner in

which innovations are created in the company;

in the second – to list the sources of inspiration.

The third question referred to the RDI activity:

what is the understanding of this process by

startups and the manner in which they implement

it. In the last question, they were asked to provide

information on whether their team has a separate

“RDI section.” Analysis of data procured from

answers to the open questions was conducted

via the method of keyword coding, code

grouping and analysis.

The first conclusion drawn on the basis of

analysis of collected data is that the foundation

for creating new solutions, are their clients.

For the majority of examined companies,

inspiration is provided primarily by: talks with

their clients, needs voiced by tem and received

feedback. At the same time, it is worth noting

that when creating new solutions, startups are

more guided by the opinion of their present

users and relatively rarely test new solutions on

potential recipients out of their own incentive.

Companies sporadically decide to undertake work

on innovation, being guided by classic market poll

results; they try to respond, by creation of new

products, to specific problems that are voiced

by clients or they create solutions on the basis

of their own market analysis (quotation from

the questionnaire): “searching for a problem

within the scope of health protection of youngest

children, which so far has not had an ideal solution.”

In the process of creating new solutions,

previously acquired experience is of great

significance. Responses often featured names

of industries from which the owners derive

(e.g. marketing, e-commerce). However, not only

professional qualifications turn out to be useful –

equally important and sometimes even more

valuable sources of inspiration are conclusions

drawn from real life experiences: being a parent,

a patient or an ordinary Internet user.

As far as work methods on the idea are concerned,

it is definitely more often a “brainstorm”;

“Lean Startup” appeared several times too.

Many answers confirmed lack of a clear manner

of creating innovations by suggesting that they

emerge “in the head” or “under the shower” or

are simply an inspiration. Only few startups

mentioned cooperation with external experts

or advisors.

Another question referred to sources

and inspiration and here, the respondents most

often indicated suggestions and needs voiced by

clients. Analysis of answers leads to the conclusion

that sources of innovation in companies are quite

pragmatic, e.g. modeling other startups, following

trends, analysis of needs of various groups

of clients. A significant part of respondents draw

ideas simply “from the surroundings”

or “from people whom they meet.”

Only few people indicated “visions”, “ideas”

or “drawing inspiration from travels and

nature.” Inspiration is also provided by industry

conferences and inspiring large companies that

are successful, such as Apple or Amazon.

Among Polish startups, a significant group

of people is inspired by “development directions

of modern technologies”; hence, they willingly

follow information about this and meet at

conferences and other industry “rallies.”


The effects of these activities are, for example,

attempts at applying a given solution

in a completely new area or combining two ideas

into one and searching for new applications for it.

Success stories also tend to provide inspiration –

both Polish and foreign startups and examples

of companies and successful people from the

world of business.

A small group of respondents indicated that they

are looking for ideas for new products in books

or scientific studies. The concept of universities

in the context of potential cooperation during

innovations appeared only in several spontaneous

answers, which is to be considered a weak result.

The idea of innovation brought answers regarding

imitations. Some startups simply indicated the fact

that their solution was copied from other markets

(quotation): “we are not outstanding innovators,

we are intelligent observers.”

The third question referred to the fact how

startups understand and implement RDI operation.

The most frequent answer was: “improvement

of existing product/ process.” Less frequently,

startups declared that they are looking for

completely new solutions and ideas to implement.

Other answers also included: “preparation of

solutions for specific clients” and (again) “analysis

of data describing behavior of own users.” Among

answers to this question, there were also several

answers indicating that creation of innovations

takes place via intended copying of solutions

from other markets. Once again, the issue of

cooperation with science appeared quite rarely,

more in the context of insufficiency of such

cooperation, its informal nature and sometimes

even disappointment with its absence.

The last open question referred to the existence

of RDI team in the company. Four times

more answers indicated absence of a group

of employees dedicated exclusively to work

on innovations. Justification for failure to separate

such a unit in the company was varied. In some

startups, creation of new solutions is vested

with the founders, whereas the employees focus

on ongoing customer servicing. A significant part

of respondents believes that if the entire company

is innovative, “there is no necessity of setting

up a separate team working on something

new.” There is also the issue of low number

of people in teams: “There are the two of us so we

do everything on our own.” Among answers, there

are several indicating that Polish startups do not

work on innovations at all, e.g. “RDI is in our plans.

At the present moment, we do not have funds for it

(to set up a separate team).”

Summing up – the issue of implementing

innovations is important for startups

that described honestly and in detail the

implementation of this key process in their

companies. The answers often featured such

phrases as: “passion” and “clients” which jointly

constitute the main “fuel” for innovative processes

in startups. It is already possible to see a small

group of enterprises where such processes have

been professionalized: separated and structured.

Majority of startups still operate spontaneously,

but knowledge about the market and awareness

of its growing needs results in the fact that many

answers feature information about plans and

attempts at more serious approach to the subject.

We are going to learn about the specific character

of these intentions during the subsequent

editions of the study.

48 S TA R T U P P O L A N D R E P O R TA B O U T T H E A U T H O R S

Dr. Agnieszka Skala (PhD)

Doctor of Economics (PhD), graduate of the Warsaw

School of Economics, adjunct lecturer at Warsaw

University of Technology, co-founder of Innovation Nest

Entrepreneurship School (SPIN).

She teaches classes in entrepreneurship at the Warsaw

University of Technology and Kozminski University.

Her research covers the area of high-tech enterprises

and the digital economy.

Graduate of the first Lean LaunchPad Educators Program

at UC Berkeley. Member of the Startup Poland Advisory Board.

Organizer of the first Startup Weekend NEXT in Warsaw.

She supports valuable educational initiatives at the meeting

point between research, technology and business in Poland.

A b o u t t h e a u t h o r s

49 S TA R T U P P O L A N D R E P O R T A B O U T T H E A U T H O R S

Eliza Kruczkowska

Graduate of the University of Warsaw in the field of Journalism

and Public Communication as well as Middlesex University

in London, where she studied Communication. Currently

a doctoral student at the Collegium of Socio-Economics,

Warsaw School of Economics.

Eliza gained her experience while working in the IT sector

and cooperating with the Huawei and Mozilla brands,

as well as with non-governmental organizations (ePaństwo

Foundation and the “Code for Poland” („Koduj dla Polski”)

project). Thanks to her work for Jan Rokita, she became

familiar with the realities of the Polish political scene, and

those several years she had spent abroad (Madrid, London

and Munich) gave her a global outlook on business.

Since April 2015 she has served as President of the

Management Board of Startup Poland, a grass-roots

organization founded by modern entrepreneurs which aims

to help create better conditions for Polish startups, build

dialogue with public administration institutions, as well as

identify and recommend action to stimulate technology

entrepreneurship in our country.

50 S TA R T U P P O L A N D R E P O R TA B O U T T H E A U T H O R S

Magdalena A. Olczak

Graduate of the Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University

in Warsaw in the field of Media Education and Journalism.

Currently a doctoral candidate at the Collegium of Business

Administration at the Warsaw School of Economics.

She conducts research on venture capital funds

and startups in Poland.

She began her professional career as an economic journalist

for Gazeta Wyborcza and Dziennik Gazeta Prawna. She has

also taken part in international journalism projects, including

the one as a Thomson Reuters Foundation grant recipient.

She conducts classes at Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University.

She teaches journalism students how to write and speak in the

media about events connected with the economy and business.

The Startup Poland is a voice for the Polish startup community. Its aim is to build dialogue with public administration institutions as well as identify and eliminate barriers to the development of new, innovative companies in Poland.

This report was created with the support of:

Research coordinator: Dr. Agnieszka Skala

Research team: Eliza Kruczkowska, Dominika Basaj, Julia Kadłubowska, Kacper Kłos

Graphic design: Business Edge

Should you have any comments or remarks, send them to:[email protected] Startup Poland ul. Franciszka Bohomolca 1501-613 Warszawa

This publication is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Poland license,

some rights reserved to the authors and Startup Poland. The full text of the license

may be found at creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/pl. It grants permission for free use

of the contents of the publication under the condition that appropriate credit is given

to the authors and information on the license is provided.

S TA R T U P P O L A N D R E P O R TN A Z W A R O D Z I A Ł U

The Startup Poland represents a community of innovative entrepreneurs and is the voice of Polish startups. Its aim is to build awareness of startups’ potential among policymakers, politicians and local government representatives.

It focuses on identifying and eliminating barriers to the development of innovative companies in Poland and on supporting legislative efforts to build a startup ecosystem in Poland.

Documents

Startup Poland – raport 2015 ENG