D1.5 Impact Report v1.2 Final - CORDIS · 2017-04-25 · D1.5 Impact Report Version: 1.2 Date:...

SpeedUP! Europe FP7‐632858 D1.5. Impact Report

End to End Innovation Support Program for

Future Internet Web Entrepreneurs

Combination of CP & CSA

Grant Agreement Number 632858

D1.5 Impact Report

Version: 1.2 Date: 30.5.2016

Nature1 R Dissemination

Level2 PU

Due date M24 Submission date M24

Main author(s) Mr. Ronald Kleverlaan, WEBclusive

Co‐authors

Reviewers Mr Youssef Sabbah, Europe Unlimited

Contributors Mr. Stefan Stengel, Glocal Consult

Keywords Impact, team,

Version Control:

v1.0 Status Draft Date 10.5.2016

V1.1 Status: Review Date 18.5.2016

V1.2 Status: Final Date 30.5.2016

1

Nature R Report P Prototype D Demonstrator O Other

2 Dissemination Level: PU Public PP Restricted to other programme participants (Including the Commission Services) RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (Including the Commission Services) CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (Including the Commission Services)

SpeedUP! Europe FP7‐632858 D1.5 Impact Report

©SpeedUP! Europe Version v1.2 Date: May 30th 2016 2

Co‐Funded by the European Union

under the Seventh Framework Programme

TableofContents1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 4

1.1 Project Description SUE and source of funding ..................................................................... 4

1.2 Description of consortium ........................................................................................................... 4

2. Impact Report ................................................................................................................................ 5

2.1 Objectives with the Impact Report .............................................................................................. 5

2.2 Target group for the Impact Report ............................................................................................. 5

3. Research used in Impact Report .................................................................................................... 6

3.1 Developing Entrepreneurial Ecosystem ..................................................................................... 6

3.2 Perceived EU bureaucracy in SUE program ............................................................................... 6

3.3 The personality characteristics of entrepreneurial teams. A case study of the Speed UP!

Europe program ..................................................................................................................................... 7

3.4 How can EU and its support eco‐system make social enterprises and their financial position

sustainable ............................................................................................................................................. 8

3.5 SpeedUP Europe Evaluation Survey ........................................................................................... 8

4. Results of SUE program .................................................................................................................. 9

4.1 Selection of teams (Team UP! & Call Up!) ................................................................................. 9

4.2 TrainUp! ................................................................................................................................... 10

4.2.1 Support by coaches .............................................................................................................. 10

4.2.2 Support by mentors ............................................................................................................. 11

4.2.3 Impact of financial and administrative structure................................................................. 13

4.2.4 Impact of workshops ............................................................................................................ 13

4.2.5 Impact of local Hubs............................................................................................................. 14

4.2.6 Impact of online platform Apptual ...................................................................................... 14

4.2.7 Impact of other online tools ................................................................................................ 15

4.3 Impact of Milestones and evaluations (ShowUp!) ................................................................... 16

4.4 Final results of SUE (StandUp!) ................................................................................................ 16

4.4.1 Growth of team members ................................................................................................... 16

4.4.2 Total jobs created ................................................................................................................ 17



4.4.3 Additional funding for teams ............................................................................................... 18

5. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 19

LISTOFABBREVIATIONSANDDEFINITIONS

SUE SpeedUP!Europe project

UvA University of Amsterdam



1. Introduction

1.1 ProjectDescriptionSUEandsourceoffunding

SpeedUP!Europe (SUE) is one of 16 accelerator projects financed by the European Commission to

support the dissemination and use of FIWARE to increase growth among European SME’s and

entrepreneurs. The development of FIWARE and the launch of the 16 Accelerator projects are part of

the European Union’s major venture, Future Internet Public – Private Partnership Programme (FI –

PPP), which aims at developing and accelerating the adoption of Future Internet technologies in

Europe. The launch of the program with 16 accelerators was part of the last phase (phase 3) of FI –

PPP and the purpose has been to create an ecosystem, which could form a solid basis for SME – driven

innovation. The SUE project is financed under the FP7 programme: FP7 – 2013 – ICT – FI with a total EC

budget of € 6,900,000 of which € 5,500,000 are dedicated to third parties as sub grants.

In SUE, up to 100 entrepreneurs and SMEs, could be funded with €50,000 with the possibility to apply

for additional € 20,000 funding later on in the project or/and to win an award at the end of the

program. The business areas in focus in SUE are agribusiness, smart cities and clean tech and the

application period was in the fall/winter of 2014 with the approved projects beginning by February

2015 and ending by October 31st, 2015. During this period, the teams had to go through three

milestones, which included pitching in front of a judging panel and evaluation of the coaches. A

summarized score given at each milestone, would either allow the teams to continue in the project or

they were excluded. The project made use of ‘hubs’ in four different European cities: Amsterdam,

Copenhagen, Hamburg and Stockholm and all teams were allocated to a specific hub during the

project period. Apart from being an office space, the teams had access to coaching and mentoring in

their hub. Furthermore, workshops on different topics, including sales processes, business

development and FIWARE were carried out in the hubs, the majority being held in Hamburg.

1.2Descriptionofconsortium

The consortium consists of nine partners representing non – profit organisations, universities and

private companies from five countries: WEBclusive (NL), Accelerace (DK), Agro Business Park (DK),

European Crowdfunding Network (BE), Europe Unlimited (BE), University of Amsterdam (NL),

Stockholm Innovation & Growth – STING (SE), Social Impact Lab (DE) and Glocal Consult (DE). With this

selection of partners, the consortium covers knowledge and network within FIWARE, investments,

business development, crowdfunding and innovation, which forms the basis of creating a sustainable

ecosystem for the process for the teams during their project period.



2. ImpactReport

In the following sections the objectives for the impact report will be described and the tools that are

used to measure impact of the SUE program. Results from research carried out by UvA on

characteristics of the teams will be used and results from the internal survey on growth of the

companies will show the impact on the growth of the companies. Finally, recommendations for future

entrepreneurial programs will be presented.

2.1ObjectiveswiththeImpactReport

The objective of the Impact Report is to describe the direct and indirect impact of the tools used in the

SUE program and the complete SUE program on startups in the SUE accelerator program. Goal is to

come up with improvements and solution to implement in future entrepreneurial support programs to

improve the impact of these programs.

2.2TargetgroupfortheImpactReport

The target group for this Impact Report are stakeholders in the innovation value chain, who work with

SME’s and entrepreneurs, such as public national, regional and local business developers, private

business developers, other projects, nationally or EU – financed, working with business development

for entrepreneurs and SME’s. Furthermore, other accelerator projects can get insight in the

experiences of the SUE project.



3. ResearchusedinImpactReport

The University of Amsterdam conducted 4 studies on the impact of SUE. The focus of these reports

were on developing an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem, the perceived bureaucracy in a large accelerator

program, a personality study of members of the SUE teams and finally the sustainability of social

business being support by EU grants. Furthermore a detailed survey was started to measure the

growth of start‐ups during the project and the impact of the program on their growth.

The conclusions and main summary of the research papers:

3.1 DevelopingEntrepreneurialEcosystem

The term Entrepreneurial Ecosystem ‐ which has gained a lot of attention, recently ‐ is relatively new

in academic literature. The term refers to an interdependent set of actors that is governed in such a

way that it enables entrepreneurial action. Due to its novelty, the number of studies related to this

topic is limited, however continuously expanding. The purpose of this thesis is to identify the key

interdependent pillars of entrepreneurship ecosystems, define how these pillars can be observed in

The Netherlands, and analyse whether SpeedUP! Europe, a ground‐breaking and disruptive

acceleration and support programme of the European Union can contribute to the development of

entrepreneurial ecosystems in The Netherlands.

After identifying the key factors that emerged during the programme, it was possible to answer

whether such initiatives are necessary, whether they can create value and stimulate productive

entrepreneurship, or the holistic approach to such ecosystems is already working smoothly. It was

interesting to see how elements such as cultural support, accessible markets, regulatory frameworks,

support mechanisms, education, universities and the access to capital could be observed through

different viewpoints and understand how each can either add value, or raise barriers to

entrepreneurship in The Netherlands.

3.2 PerceivedEUbureaucracyinSUEprogram

Encouraged by research on the importance of entrepreneurship for innovation and sustained

economic growth, governments aim to implement policies and programs that support entrepreneurs.

The incubator model evolved into the accelerator model over the years, which is increasingly used as

part of a broad‐based approach to enable entrepreneurial eco‐systems. This study focuses on a

specific accelerator program initiated by the EU called Speed Up! Europe (SUE).

Our preliminary research has shown that the involvement of multiple stakeholders in a public‐private

partnership (PPP) can result in a program that contains several rules and procedures that are

perceived as obstructive to the entrepreneurial progress by participants. If so, this could leave

participants to be dissatisfied with their experience. Through survey research we set out to find out

whether this holds true in the case of SUE.



Findings indicate that the SUE‐program indeed contains various rules and procedures that are

perceived as obstructive by participants. Through statistical analysis, a strong correlation between

perceived bureaucracy and satisfaction with the accelerator program was proved to be significant.

Although overall the participants were positive of the program, the structured rules and procedures

were rated lower. Qualitative responses on the survey confirm these outcomes. The results of this

study could have implications for policymakers aiming to stimulate and enable entrepreneurial eco‐

systems in the future, by offering more flexibility for the teams in the startup phase.

3.3 Thepersonalitycharacteristicsofentrepreneurialteams.AcasestudyoftheSpeedUP!Europeprogram

According to Chowdhurry, the existence of entrepreneurial teams is an emerging reality (Chowdhurry,

2005). Despite the benefit of selecting the optimal combination of entrepreneurial team members,

little research has investigated entrepreneurial teams from a social psychological perspective (Forbes,

Borchert, Zellmer‐Bruhn & Sapienza, 2006). This study made a beginning in filling this gap in the

literature by investigating the personalities of entrepreneurial teams within an accelerator program

called Speed UP! Europe, which is supported by the European Union.

The main research question of this study is: ‘To what extent have the selected team members of

Speed UP! Europe entrepreneurial personalities?’ To formulate an answer on the main research

question, this study used four personality traits of the Entrepreneurship’s Big Five model created by

Vecchio (2003); self‐efficacy, need for autonomy, need for achievement and internal locus of control.

Focusing on these personality characteristics, the results of the online questionnaire showed that

there is no significant difference between the personalities of the team leaders and the team

members, which supports the supplementary model. Several comparisons between the average

personality scores of this study’s sample and similar researches, suggest that the teams within the

Speed UP! Europe program score equally or even higher on self‐efficacy and need for autonomy than

the entrepreneurs in the sample of Chen et al. (1998) and Rahim (1994). However, both the team

leaders and the team members of this study scored on average lower on internal locus of control than

the managers of Rahim’s study (1994).



3.4 HowcanEUanditssupporteco‐systemmakesocialenterprisesandtheirfinancialpositionsustainable

This exploratory study analysed how the support given to start‐ups in the entrepreneurial eco‐system

in the European Union influences the sustainability of social enterprises. In particular, the research

evaluated options that entrepreneurs are considering for creating a sustainable social impact company

and what benefits does the EU support bring them.

Semi‐structured interviews were carried out among entrepreneurs from different European countries,

where their experience of the support ecosystem and their business financial position were studied.

The interviews have provided qualitative data, which was coded and to identify the type of a company

(e.g. seeking social value or profits, their core values and social problems that they are trying to solve,

as well as market inefficiency creating opportunity for the existence of their business) and the benefits

of accelerator program that they receive (e.g. financial, network, knowledge, legitimacy, trust,

business partners).

The results have an implication for a new conceptual framework, which results in a new and

sustainable financial position for social enterprises in the EU. Moreover, the findings suggest how the

support system in the EU can be improved, thus it brings measurable implications for the future (i)

researchers, (ii) entrepreneurs and (iii) governmental bodies providing the support.

3.5 SpeedUPEuropeEvaluationSurvey

At the end of the program all teams were asked to evaluate the program with an online survey. 36

teams finalized the survey and answered detailed question on the growth of their company

(employees), the amount of additional external funding they raised and the impact of the offered

support by SUE program, from local hubs, coaches and workshops.

The results are also used to find out the number of companies still in operation and the final impact

and results of the program.



4. ResultsofSUEprogram

The program started with 96 teams that were approved funding, based on 177 applications that were

eligible. 82 teams finalized the program. This is a success rate of 85%, very high for an accelerator

program. Based on current knowledge the program generated 351 jobs and raised approx. 7.5 million

euro additional funding during and after the program.

The goal of the program was to select and create the best possible teams and support them with

training, workshops, coaching and basic funding for the first months to accelerate their growth and

raise additional external funding afterwards.

Based on competitions (every 3 months an evaluation) and Lean principles it made efficient use of

grants to select the best teams and ideas and help the successful teams to scale up and grow in

number of employees and raise additional funding.

Figure 1. Steps in SpeedUp! Europe program

4.1 Selectionofteams(TeamUP!&CallUp!)

The platform was used for participants to register itself and to match with potential team members.

1224 people registered on the site. At least 20% of the teams were formed by the SpeedUP Europe

organization, with the help of the online tool where the participants could search and find potential

co‐founders based on the skills they entered. This was supported by “flirt camps” and other pre‐

launch meetings organized in the several Hubs where people would be able to personally meet each

other.

In the first two phases (Team Up! and Call Up!) teams are created and offered the possibility to submit

their proposals to get accepted in the program. 183 teams send in their application from which 177

were eligible and after selection and negotiations 96 entrepreneurial teams were accepted in the

program.

During and after the program several research activities were conducted to find out the motivations of

the teams and find out the impact of the SUE program on the success of these teams.



Motivations of team members to join the program

Figure 2: The underlying motives of team member to join the program (Team Characteristics, Jurrema)

The research “The personality characteristics of entrepreneurial teams. A case study of the Speed UP!

Europe program” analyzed the individual characteristics of the team members and what the result was

of selecting these teams based on the characteristics of the individual team members. The selection of

the teams was partly done based on the quality of the submitted proposal and partly based on the

team characteristics, but all done by an independent online evaluation process without a personal

meeting with the team and team members. Literature in the startup ecosystem show that a good

team is one of the most important elements of success.

Recommendation: One of the recommendations of the report is to arrange a meeting (and possibly a

more in‐depth personality test) with the entire team to get a first impression of the personalities of

the team members, whereas they are able to explore if the team members show entrepreneurial

characteristics and persuasiveness.

4.2 TrainUp!

During the program the teams were given support with coaches, co‐working locations in local hub in

Hamburg, Copenhagen, Stockholm and Amsterdam and approx. 100 workshops.

They had also access to online communication tools for communication between team members and

coaches and between teams inside the program.

4.2.1 Supportbycoaches

Support by coaches in general was evaluated good, although not all teams were happy with their

assigned coach, because not all of them had hands‐on experience with startups or where not fitted to



the needs of the teams. Some teams were able to switch coaches during the program (within the

program it was possible to switch coaches after every milestone) and after that they highly rated the

support they received from their coaches. Over 90% had most contact with their coaches by face‐2‐

face meetings and they rated their contact with coaches in these face‐2‐face meetings also as most

effective. Therefore, support from local coaches (around hubs) is very important to improve results of

the support of the coaches.

Figure 3: “Your collaboration with you coach in general”

Recommendation: Coach support was very valuable for all teams who had a good coach assigned and

has a strong impact on the growth of the companies. Flexibility of changing a coach is therefore

important if teams and coaches want to change during the program. A suggestion for new accelerator

programs would be to assess early the satisfaction of each team with their coach and replace if

necessary.

4.2.2 Supportbymentors

Within the program mentors were available for teams to support them with specific questions

(FiWARE, crowdfunding, etc). For these specific issues it was very useful, but because most mentors

were located in Hamburg, it was difficult for most teams in Copenhagen, Stockholm and Amsterdam to

use them enough. 25% of all teams were not able to use any of the mentors and also the quality of the

available mentors was not always good enough.



Figure 4: Your collaboration with SpeedUP Europe mentors in general

Recommendation: For the teams that were able to use mentor for specific issues and questions they

were having (FiWARE, Crowdfunding, marketing) it was very useful to brainstorm with knowledgeable

mentors. The main issue was that it was for most teams difficult to connect to the right mentors. A

better matching system to find and connect to these mentors would be very helpful in future

programs.



4.2.3 ImpactoffinancialandadministrativestructureThe teams have to produce detailed monthly reports including their costs and have to wait until their

report is processed before they are being paid. The consortium had to process therefore 96 files every

month and because there is no pre‐financing for the teams, they had to make costs and get their

payments 3‐4 months later. This is not ideal for young startups and it creates additional frustration if

any costs are rejected afterwards.

Recommendation: It would be better to have a funding scheme with some pre‐financing to better

support the startups. This funding scheme should not be based on costs but more on deliverables with

independent evaluation of the deliverables.

4.2.4 ImpactofworkshopsThe teams were able to follow workshops that were useful to learn and grow their business. In total

over 100 workshops were organized. Topics included (amongst others) marketing, FiWARE, but also

access to finance (EU, crowdfunding, Venture Capital) and workshops on different types of business

models. Participation in the workshops was part of the evaluation criteria to monitor the progress of

the teams and to ensure the teams were receiving the needed training to grow their startup.

Because the experience level of teams and team members was very different (from experienced

entrepreneurs/teams, to first time entrepreneurs), some workshops were too simple. But because the

workshops were part of the evaluation process, it was necessary for all teams to follow them. Because

most of the teams and organization were located in Hamburg, most workshops were also organized in

Hamburg. This was also unpractical for teams in the other Hubs.

Figure 5: The content and relevance of the workshops offered on the program

Recommendation: For the less experienced teams the workshops were very useful. For more

experienced teams it would be an option to make the workshop optional. It will also help if more

workshop can be followed online. For example, the first part of the crowdfunding workshop was done

online as a webinar. This was very useful for the teams who didn’t have to travel. Another

recommendation would be to survey the teams in advance about the type of the workshops they need

and/or are interested in.



4.2.5 ImpactoflocalHubs

The research: “Developing Entrepreneurial Ecosystems” from the University of Amsterdam describes

the impact of the local Hubs

While Apptual (formal) and Slack (informal) were the communication tools to communicate with all

the teams, the discussions in the local hubs were also important to discuss the next steps in the

program and receive additional background information about the program. It also worked as a

“Home” for teams to support each other and informally share experiences and entrepreneurial tips.

One of the other main results of the Hubs was the access to a larger network of entrepreneurs and

investors. Next to the formal workshops and pitch events, it helped the entrepreneurs to get in

contact with other entrepreneurs and experts who were also working in the Hubs or were connected

to these networks.

Because the teams were not evenly distributed over the Hubs (70 in Hamburg and approx 10 in

Stockholm, Copenhagen and Amsterdam) the added value of working in a Hub with a lot of other

teams was less in the non‐Hamburg cities. Research also showed that teams that benefitted most

from the program, were working full‐time on their new company and working from one of the Hubs.

Because this was sometimes not clear for the teams in advance, some joined the program while

already having another office or working on other projects. To get most out of this program the teams

should be able to focus 100% on this company.

Recommendation: Make sure teams know they have to work from a local Hub full‐time and make sure

enough teams are working from every Hub. When several locations are used, make sure to create a

selection process where the number of teams are distributed balanced over the different locations.

4.2.6 ImpactofonlineplatformApptualThe matchmaking platform consists of two main areas: a community and a project area, where each

approved project has their own forum.

The community part of the platform was used in the first phase of the project to create the teams and

apply. 183 teams applied to become part of the program. Based on the evaluation by external

evaluators, 107 teams were asked for negotiations to get into the program. 96 teams were finally

allowed to get into the program.

After the acceleration process started, teams used the online platform to find out what other were

doing and established relationships with them.

The project area was used when the program started. Teams were requested to submit their progress

reports and coaches were able to respond on the progress made. Although it was very useful to track

progress of all teams in theory, the teams and coaches were more interested in the face‐2‐face

meeting to discuss their progress.



Figure 6: Statistics of online matchmaking tool and SpeedUP Europe platform

The online statistics of the tool support the usage of the platform in different phases. At the start of

the program we see a few visitors looking for information about the program. From September 2014

we saw a strong growth in visitors on the platform, because participants were able to register

themselves and search for potential co‐founders (Team UP! phase). After the matchmaking was done,

the call for proposals was open until the end of December 2014 (Call UP! Phase), resulting in the

highest peak in the statistics where people were looking for last team members and teams submitted

their proposal.

After the matchmaking phase the platform was restructured for supporting the Coaching & Mentoring

phase. We see in the statistics a structured use of 100‐300 sessions a day by users to submit their

progress reports and share insights with their coaches.

Recommendation: For matchmaking and submitting the proposal, the community part of the platform

was useful and can be used for other organizations that work with large groups. The project part of

the platform was mostly used for administrative purposes for the consortium and didn’t have a lot of

added value for the teams. It would help the teams if another solution can be found for monitoring

the teams and if micro‐managing is not needed.

4.2.7 Impactofotheronlinetools

For internal communications most teams used face2face meetings and telephone calls, but also

mentioned a range of different online communication platforms, such as Skype and Slack. Especially

Slack was mentioned a lot, as being used by 2/3 of teams for internal communications in teams and

even by 93% of teams for communicating with other teams in the program. The online Slack

community was not a formal communication channel by the SUE project and started by one of the

teams themselves. During the project it was the quickest and most efficient way for instant

communication between all the teams for simple support questions about technology, sales,

marketing, but also as tool to share success stories and experiences.



Advise: Based on the experience in this program we see that self‐organizing of these (high‐tech) teams

is very high. By launching their own Slack‐network (new technology) for internal communications, it

had a very strong support from the teams and in these months that was the perfect tool for them.

Another suggestion for a new accelerator program was an online library with e‐books and e‐learning

(MOOC) tools, for example for some of the workshops and additional background information about

FiWARE.

4.3 ImpactofMilestonesandevaluations(ShowUp!)

To keep track on the progress of the teams, there were 3 milestones during the project after 3,6 and 9

months of the project. Teams were given points based on attendance in the Hub and at workshops,

the coach gave points and the teams received points while pitching at the Hamburg Hub (where all

milestone events were planned). Most teams worked together in their local hub or Hamburg Hub in

the days before the pitch events to practise their pitch.

Based on the total points received (attendance + coach + pitch) they had to score a specific minimum

to continue the next phase of the program. This endured only the motivated and good teams stayed in

the program and the consortium and coaches were able to focus their energy and time on the most

promising teams. 82 teams made it into the last 3 months. After the 3th pitch event, the best 30 teams

were invited to compete for the final award during the ECFI event.

Because evaluation points of the first milestone(s) were considered in the final evaluation, the teams

who just made it to the 3rd phase were sometimes less committed to continue in the program and

participate in workshops, because they knew their chances of getting to the final 30 were not very

high.

Recommendation: Make sure that evaluation criteria keep as many teams motivated in all phases, by

evaluating every phase individually.

4.4 FinalresultsofSUE(StandUp!)With an average growth of 75% in employees during the SUE program for the 39% best teams, 351

jobs created and Approx. 7.5 million euro in funding raised by the teams, the results of this accelerator

program are good.

4.4.1 Growthofteammembers

Based on the lean methodology, the SUE program focuses on supporting the successful companies and

make sure non‐successful companies are able to Fail Fast, Fail Early. The high‐growth companies will

create most jobs and have the most impact. Therefore, the SUE program started with 96 teams and

after 3 months and 6 months only the best teams were able to go to the next phase. Only the best 30

teams were allowed to pitch in the final to win the prize money.

The expectations were that the most successful companies with the highest growth number would

create more additional jobs then the teams that stopped operations. 39% of startups in the program



announced they hired more people than before they started. On average they grew with 75%, with

some teams growing with 200‐300%. The largest teams after the program had 10 (2x) and 18

employees.

4.4.2 Totaljobscreated

From the survey we concluded that 39% of companies stopped completely or continue to operate on a

much smaller scale (mostly 1‐2 people). These were typically the founders who build their team

before/during the accelerator, but were not successful enough to raise enough additional funds based

on their MVP to continue with the complete team.

22% of teams were at the end of the program the same size as when they started. This shows they can

continue with their activities and SUE helped these companies in the first (and most difficult) phase to

build their MVP, find their first customers and (were possible) raised funding for growth.

The 39% of the successful companies created the most additional jobs. Not only were they able to

continue with the team they build to start in the accelerator, they also were able to hire more people

and on average they grew their company with 75%.

The 36 teams in the survey mentioned they employ 154 people after the program, including the

founders. Extrapolating the job creation to all teams that finished the program (82 teams) it will mean

the SUE program created 154 * 82/36 = 351 jobs.



4.4.3 Additionalfundingforteams

In the last phase of the project, startups were supported to raise additional funding after the seed

funding from SUE by organizing pitch events, showcasing at events, supporting with crowdfunding

campaigns and introducing to business angels and EU and national funds directly.

Figure 7: Additional funding raised by teams

39% of the companies surveyed responded they were able to raise additional funding.

Via Survey and talks to the teams, we are aware of additional private investments of 6.930.000 Euros

and some additional investments not disclosed. 16 teams have benefitted from external private

investments ranging from 100.000 euro to 1,4 million euro. In addition, 450.000 Euros have been won

by 13 teams in the form of acceleration programs, EU grants, grants from other accelerators or awards

ranging from 5‐100K and another 167.000 Euros was raised in 3 Crowdfunding campaigns by 2

SpeedUP Europe teams.

In total at least 7,5 million euro of additional funding was raised from business angels, investment

programs, public grants and crowdfunding campaigns.

For confidentiality reasons the names of the teams and the funding rounds will not be disclosed in this

document.



5. Conclusion

The overall impact of SUE is good, with a success rate of 85%, a job creation of 351 people and approx.

7.5 million euro of additional funding being raised, although several improvements can be implement

in similar accelerator projects in the future.

Launching and operating an accelerator with 100 teams in 4 countries is a very complicated project.

For future projects it is therefore advised to either distribute the teams in different sub‐groups that

start not at the same time, or in sub‐groups that are better distributed and coordinated by local Hubs

with more autonomy.

The impact of online technology was high. Because of the Apptual community tool, the consortium

was able to attract 183 good teams and supported the online matchmaking process. This is a good

lesson for future accelerator programs and an advice for them to use it also. The teams used

themselves a lot of online tools to work together in their teams and share their experiences with other

teams. As agile start‐ups they used best‐of‐breed technology that was available and they were familiar

with and already used frequently (Slack/Skype). It would be useful for future project to use these

available solutions instead of implementing a dedicated platform for this project.

To improve the quality of the teams even more, it would also be good for future programs to

implement an additional step after the first online selection and matchmaking step and plan offline

interviews with the teams. This should be done preferably by the local coordinator of the sub‐group,

for example in the local Hubs. Because from experience the most successful teams are teams that

work full‐time in the local Hub, it is important the teams are selected based on these criteria and they

know these criteria before they enter the program.

The milestones and 3‐monthly pitch events work very well to keep track on the progress of teams. For

such an international program is recommended to implement more online webinars

On the other hand, the administrative work for coaches and teams was really high in this program and

does not reflect the lean methodology and start up setting of the teams. In future programs this

should be simplified to improve the impact of the program as a whole.

D1.5 Impact Report v1.2 Final - CORDIS · 2017-04-25 · D1.5 Impact Report Version: 1.2 Date:...

Documents

Transcript of D1.5 Impact Report v1.2 Final - CORDIS · 2017-04-25 · D1.5 Impact Report Version: 1.2 Date:...