globalBenchmark

15/16report

Top UniversitY Business IncubatorsEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

UBI GLOBAL

TOP UNIVERSITY BUSINESS INCUBATORS

GLOBAL BENCHMARK 15/16 REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

AUTHOR: DHRUV BHATLI CONTRIBUTORS: LAURO CARNICELLI, MIHAELA MARIN, AJAY SINGH

CONTACT US UBI Global

info@ubi-global.com Stockholm, Sweden

PUBLISHED JULY 2015© 2015 UBI Global

Incubation impact and networkAll rights reserved

http://ubi-global.com

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

Global Benchmark 15/16 Report Executive Summary3 - Executive Summary

Some Key Insights

Incubation Landscape

Cities remain the predilect location for top incubators. A very large proportion carry out their activity in urban areas, while less than 10% are based in rural areas.

The distribution by geographical regions reveal a more varied landscape. Europe leads our sample with nearly 35% of total incubators representing that region, while Latin America makes a strong presence with 30% of total incubators.

Technology dominates the trending sector for global incubation. More than half of the incubators that participated in our benchmark concentrate their presence in the ICT sector, while the remaining part register a more decreased distribution. In this way, social incubators come next, making up 13% of the total sample, while non specialized incubators form 9% of the sample.

As far as the operational budget breakdown is concerned, our research shows that the majority of incubators move in the range of $50k to $200k. In contrast, the smallest category is represented by the incubators with an operational budget higher than $2 million.

Performance of Top Incubators

The disparity in distribution by sectors goes along with the economical performance indicator. Our study shows that top benchmarked incubators provide almost half of the total economic impact within the incubation market. One of the main reasons is that top incubators are able to provide better value, both for the ecosystem and their clients. In this regard, they stand out from the average-performing incubators with better outcomes on economy enhancement, access to funds and post incubation performance.

A factor that helps top incubators in achieving this feat is the intensity with which they engage the ecosystem and are able to attract exceptionally high quantity of deal flow. This stands over two times higher than an average incubator.

As for the stage of the incubated client startups, our benchmark found that top incubators have nearly one third of their startups in the early phase. Additionally, the stage of the incubator client

startups has little effect on the incubator performance. In this regard, the results show a homogeneous distribution, where over 50% of the clients at top incubators are in the idea or early phase. This is in contrast to only 26% of the clients at top incubators that are in the growth phase.

Value Offer

Another category that explains the performance of top incubators* is related to the service breakdown. In this regard, top incubators provide more services than an average incubator, where the three focus areas are- coaching and mentoring, access to funds and access to market through partnership and networking. In a similar vein, top incubators rely on a higher number of coaches and mentors that help their client startups with a more efficient and customized training.

Furthermore, top incubators are able to actively leverage the entrepreneurial community and continually engage the ecosystem through a higher number of events, which propels their ability to ensure better access to market for their clients. Additionally, the network of investors, partners and sponsors that top incubators provide to their client startups is significantly higher than the global average.

Apart from value-added services, the level of expertise of the business staff that participate in the incubation program represents another relevant performance indicator.

Finally, our benchmarking reveals a major disparity in how the incubators accrue and provide funding to their clients. In this context, top incubators have an augmented capacity to assist their clients with a better access to funds as compared to an average incubator.

Success Traits

According to our benchmark, the three most important success traits of an incubation program are attracting high-potential startups, ensuring enough resources for operations and creating a supportive entrepreneurial environment among the startups. Apart from that, supporting through a group of competent stakeholders and providing relevant contacts complete the primary areas of interest, while the least relevant focus area for the top incubators is to maintain a close relationship with their startups after graduation.

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Business incubators have always generated a suitable environment for the development of new entrepreneurial ideas. In this context, university incubation programs have been identified as an important source of talent flow and positive economical impact. The value they are providing to the local industry help them attract institutional backing and financial support from a growing network of public institutions and private organizations.

Nevertheless, university incubators are also striving to become a global referent in an increasingly competitive sector where it is essential to understand what lays behind its complex ecosystem. For this reason, we pledge to provide them with the necessary tools and insights so they could overcome the challenges and build a sustainable business incubation model.

In this regard, UBI Global is a pioneer in measuring the performance of university business incubators from all over the world. In this latest edition UBI Global includes an in-depth analysis of more than 300 incubators from 64 countries in a comprehensive benchmarking that recognizes the top performing ones. Doing so and highlighting some of their best practices will help universities, governments, incubation agencies and corporations to improve the incubators they support.

UBI Global Stockholm, Sweden

*Top 10% most performing in the sample

4 - Table of ContentsGlobal Benchmark 15/16 Report

Executive Summary

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................... 3

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................ 4

3 DEFINITIONS AND METHODOLOGY ....................................................... 601 DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6

02 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RANKING AND BENCHMARKING ................................................................................... 6

03 RANKING METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................. 7

04 BENCHMARKING CLASSIFICATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 9

4 SAMPLE AND LANDSCAPE ................................................................... 1001 REGIONS ..........................................................................................................................................................................10

02 SECTORS ..........................................................................................................................................................................10

03 PHASES ............................................................................................................................................................................10

5 BENCHMARK .............................................................................................. 1101 GLOBAL SCORE ..............................................................................................................................................................11

02 APPLICATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................11

03 VC OR ANGEL FUNDING ...............................................................................................................................................11

04 SURVIVING AND GROWING .........................................................................................................................................11

06 BUDGET ALLOCATION ...................................................................................................................................................12

07 TOP SERVICES PROVIDED ............................................................................................................................................12

6 INSIGHTS & BEST PRACTICES ............................................................... 1301 YOUR METRICS ...............................................................................................................................................................13

02 WHAT WILL YOU USE THE SCORECARD FOR? ........................................................................................................13

CASE: SETSQUARED ...........................................................................................................................................................16

Global Benchmark 15/16 Report Executive Summary5 - Table of Contents

7 PARTICIPANT DIRECTORY ....................................................................... 18

8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................... 19

6 - Definitions & MethodologyGlobal Benchmark 15/16 Report

Executive Summary

01 DEFINITIONS THREE TYPES OF BUSINESS INCUBATORS

MANAGED BY OR AFFILIATED TO UNIVERSITY (-IES)

BUSINESS INNOVATION CENTER

• Dedicates its efforts and resources to help entrepreneurs with innovative ideas and turn those ideas into viable, successful and sustainable businesses

• Core mission is to accelerate innovative entrepreneurship at the local level, through the customized delivery of a comprehensive range of professional support and incubation services (pre-incubation, incubation, post-incubation) targeted at innovative startups, spin-offs, entrepreneurs and SMEs

BUSINESS ACCELERATOR

• A fixed cohort-based program that focuses on catalyzing growth of ventures through an array of intensive mentorship and educational services to prepare client startups for market access

• Quality controlled intake of clients (startups) and regular time bound exits in form of graduates

3 DEFINITIONS & METHODOLOGY

BUSINESS INCUBATOR

• Primary objective: To facilitate entrepreneurship and support early stage (new) ventures through a systematic (mid-long term) and extensive incubation process that includes services and infrastructure

• Quality-controlled intake of clients (startups) and regular time-bound exits in form of graduate startup clients

02 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RANKING AND BENCHMARKING RANKING AND BENCHMARKING ARE NOT THE SAME

Developing a framework and methodology that measures the performance of university business incubators allows both for ranking and benchmarking. At UBI Global we have different types of ranking cateogories depending on the relationship with the university. An incubator is ranked depending of belonging to these category groups, but benchmarked against all.

The difference between ranking and benchmarking is that ranking implies the ordering of the incubators according to their performance, while benchmarking means the comparison of one particular incubator taken out of the sample against a point of reference which in this case are top performing incubators. In other words, if we were

to think of this difference in terms of numbers - ranking process would attribute an absolute number to each of them (the position in the series). Whereas benchmarking would be the ratio of incubator performance and that of the reference line (top global average, top regional average etc.)

At UBI Global we follow a two pronged approach to rank and benchmark university business incubators. First, a thorough ranking process identifies the top performing incubators (which become the reference line), second a benchmark process that stacks incubators against the reference line to identify the strengths, weaknesses and best practices associated with improving the performance of benchmarked incubators.

RANKING BENCHMARKING

Global Benchmark 15/16 Report Executive Summary7 - Definitions & Methodology

1. APPROPRIATE RESEARCH DESIGN – A framework to ensure that the relevant metrics are considered for the ranking

2. APPROPRIATE DATA COLLECTION – The survey and preparation of the data for analysis are carefully screened to ensure non erroneous data collection and treatment

3. DATA ANALYSIS & RANKING INDEX – To ensure reliable data analysis, fair comparisons and non-biased ranking

DESK RESEARCH

INCUBATION EXPERTS

03 RANKING METHODOLOGY RANKING PROCESS: 3 KEY STEPS

1. RESEARCH DESIGN

The UBI Global ranking is built using the Bhatli & Eriksson framework, a comprehensible and exhaustive structure, which is made up by clusters of indicators that form the basis of a standardized framework for comparison. The same has been perfected through in-depth desk research and extensive consultations with over 30 incubation experts around the world. It measures each participating incubator on three broad categories. These three categories are further divided into 7 sub categories and constitute of over 50 key performance indicators.

RELIABLE AND HOLISTIC METHODOLOGY

ECONOMY ENHANCEMENT

Measures the economic impact generated by the incubator

TALENT RETENTION

Measures the incubator’s contribution to talent (work force) in the region

COMPETENCE DEVELOPMENT

Measures incubator’s ability to impart important skills to its client startups

ACCESS TO FUNDS

Measures incubator’s ability to provide relevant access to funds to its client startups

ACCESS TO NETWORK

Measures incubator’s ability to provide its client startups with quality access to the market place

INCUBATOR OFFER

Measures the quality of the incubator’s services and premises

POST INCUBATION PERFORMANCE

Measures incubator’s ability to produce growth companies

VALUE FOR ECOSYSTEM VALUE FOR CLIENTS ATTRACTIVENESS

* Bhatli & Eriksson framework to measure incubator performance (2013)

RESEARCH FRAMEWORK*

8 - Definitions & MethodologyGlobal Benchmark 15/16 Report

Executive Summary

3. DATA ANALYSIS & RANKING INDEX

For enabling comparison and removing bias, benchmark adjustments are conducted based on incubator type, age, size and sector to make their performance comparable.

The incubator managers were consulted to ascertain the weights of the KPIs, while a second validation came from the UBI Global research advisory board. Then, the research team moved on to cumulate the performance scores and correlations of KPIs to attribute points to each participant incubator. The results are weighted sums and attribute performance scores to each participant incubator. The attributed scores permits us to identify top performing incubators.

2. DATA COLLECTION AND TREATMENT

A global benchmarking of university business incubators should ensure a proper representation of worldwide incubators.

The final participants were selected from more than 500 applicants, where over 330 incubators were retained for the benchmark.

They were provided with an online survey based on the above-stated framework. The survey was made up by 64 questions and was available for completion in four languages: English, Spanish, Portuguese and Chinese. Each incubator had a period of three weeks to complete it and during this time, a help desk was set in place to make sure that all queries were responded to. The help desk was reachable 7 days a week by a dedicated telephone line and by e-mail, to which the survey team responded within 24 hours.

Data was gathered from over 330 incubators (in 64 countries and 6 geographical regions) and was screened for pattern data entry, outliers, anomalies, mistakes and inconsistencies. Secondly, coarse data was eliminated to ensure better

representativeness of the study. Next, based on the identified anomalies, the reported data was classified into two groups :

1. incubators which require additional verification (and support documents)

2. incubators that do not require additional verification.

For incubators in the first group additional documents and clarifications were sought. The cleaned and verified data was normalized, from different formats and units to scale of 0-1. Additional measures were taken to assess distribution of values (e.g. through plotting histograms), adjusting performance based on size of the incubators (e.g. converting outputs and yields into ‘per capita, per year’ terms), adjustments related to type of the incubator (e.g. reducing weights for commercialization stage incubators) and ecosystem of the incubator (e.g. linking weights to the development level of the entrepreneurial ecosystem in the country). All these measures resulted in

making the final performance indicators highly comparable and with minimum bias.

In every research study, there is still some risk for biases in the values of the variables. The key adjustments to counter this risk here were asking additional documents from selective participants to verify self reported data; ensuring statistical measures to eliminate errors; and when available, the research team used secondary sources of data to validate the assumptions. However even after trying to correct those problems, bias can exist. Hence, the resulting benchmark is an excellent description of the reality but can never be reality itself.

Global Benchmark 15/16 Report Executive Summary9 - Definitions & Methodology

ON SIZE

Incubator’s

budget

# Incubator’s employees

# Incubator’s client startups

ON AGE

0-4 years Young

5-10 years Mid-aged

10+ years Mature

ON INCUBATOR TYPE

• Business Incubator & & Business Innovation Centre

• Business Accelerator

ON SECTOR

Biotech Life Sciences

ICT Non-specialized

Social Other

Cleantech

RANKING ADJUSTMENTS

04 BENCHMARKING CLASSIFICATIONS BASED ON THE TYPE OF THE INCUBATOR AND THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE UNIVERSITY (-IES)

UNIVERSITY ASSOCIATED Works closely with the university but has no formal affiliation with any university

ASSOCIATED

UNIVERSITY MANAGEDMajorly operated by the university

BUSINESS INCUBATORFacilitate entrepreneurship and supports new startups through a systematic and extensive incubation process

BUSINESS ACCELERATORA fixed cohort-based program that focuses on catalyzing growth of startups through an array of intensive mentorship and educational services

MANAGED

UNIVERSITY AFFILIATED Not managed by the university but has a formal affiliation with the university

AFFILIATED

As suggested earlier, there are numerous classifications that are considered when benchmarking incubation programs. These can be broadly grouped into the type of incubator, i.e. business incubator or business accelerator or type of relationship between the incubator and the university.

UNIVERSITY RELATION INCUBATOR TYPE

10 - Sample and LandscapeGlobal Benchmark 15/16 Report

Executive Summary

4 SAMPLE AND LANDSCAPE

02 SECTORS DOMINANT SECTOR AT THE INCUBATORS

03 PHASES STAGE OF CURRENTLY ENROLLED STARTUP CLIENTS WHEN ACCEPTED

ACCELERATION PHASE

28% 30% 21% 14%

EARLY PHASE

GROWTH PHASE

IDEA PHASE

01 REGIONS 64 COUNTRIES IN 6 GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS

9%ASIA PACIFIC

35%EUROPE

17%NORTH AMERICA

6%AFRICA

3%MIDDLE EAST & NORTH AFRICA

30%LATIN AMERICA

ICT

39%

OTHER

13%

NON-SPECIALIZED

9%

LIFE SCIENCES

7%

BIOTECH

7%

CLEANTECH

8%

SOCIAL

13%

1224

INCUBATORSASSESSED

505 332

INCUBATORSAPPLIED

INCUBATORSBENCHMARKED

Global Benchmark 15/16 Report Executive Summary11 - Sample and Landscape

5 BENCHMARK

01 GLOBAL SCORE AVERAGE SCORE OF PARTICIPATING INCUBATORS 02 APPLICATIONS

DEALFLOW AT PARTICIPATING INCUBATORS

03 SEED FUNDING PERCENTAGE OF STARTUP CLIENTS THAT HAVE RECIEVED IN THE LAST 5 YEARS

04 SURVIVING (GROWING AND PROFITABLE) STARTUP CLIENTS THAT MAINTAIN OPERATIONS AND ARE EXPANDING AFTER GRADUATION

412

19353

GLOBAL TOP AVG: 72

GLOBAL AVG

GLOBAL AVG

GLOBAL AVG

GLOBAL TOP AVG

GLOBAL TOP AVG

81%

58%

49%

48%

2.1 x

19%

GLOBAL TOP AVG

69%

* GLOBAL TOP AVG - THE 10% BEST PERFORMING INCUBATORS

ANALYSIS - Top incubators provide significantly better

financial support, giving access to seed funding for

81% of their client startups. The same drops 48% for

average incubators’ client startups, which translates

to significantly lower economical assistance provided

by average incubators to their client startups when

compared to a top performing incubator

ANALYSIS - The survival rate of the graduates of

top incubators’ clients startups stands at 58%,

mostly generated by their higher capacity to provide

resources, competence development and financial

support. The ratio reveals that the clients at top

incubators have 19% higher survival (growth and

profitability) rate than the clients at an average

incubator

12 - Sample and LandscapeGlobal Benchmark 15/16 Report

Executive Summary

05 BUDGET ALLOCATION PERCENTAGE BREAKDOWN OF BUDGET ALLOCATION

06 TOP SERVICES PROVIDED PERCENTAGE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED

GLOBAL TOP AVG

GLOBAL AVG

88%

78%

97%

89%

94%

73%

91%83%

85%66%

76%40%

OFFICE SPACE

ACCESS TO FUNDS

ACCESS TO MARKETS

HUMAN RESOURCES

TECH TRANSFERS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

COACHING AND MENTORING SERVICES

Salaries & HR costs

Marketing & communications

Events

Equity fund

OtherInfrastructure maintenance

Space mortgage & rental

* Only a few of the services highlighted

GLOBAL AVG

GLOBAL TOP AVG

45% 9% 13% 8% 10% 6% 8%

44% 14% 12% 7% 7% 7% 9%

Global Benchmark 15/16 Report Executive Summary13 - Insights & Best Practices

6 INSIGHTS & BEST PRACTICES

01 YOUR BENCHMARK METRICS HOW DID YOU PERFORM?

All participating incubators have the exlusive opportunity to get their benchmark visualized in beautifully designed and intuitive scorecard packages. The package includes infographics, powerpoints and publications - with information on the incubator’s performance on the UBI Global framework. Comparisons are made against the global average, global top average, regional average, sector average and country average.

Would you like to know how you have performed? Contact us today at info@ubi-global.com for more information.

UBI GLOBAL

i n c u b at o r b e n c h m a r k S C O R E C A R D 15 /16ALPHA INCUBATOR

01 ORGANIZATIONAL BACKGROUNDINCUBATOR PROFILE

02 COMPARED TO TOP INCUBATORS IN THE WORLDGLOBAL PERFORMANCE

UBI INDEX FRAMEWORK ©

03 COMPARED TO TOP INCUBATORS IN YOUR REGIONREGIONAL PERFORMANCE 04 COMPARED TO TOP INCUBATORS IN YOUR SECTOR

SECTOR PERFORMANCE

06 GLOBAL PERFORMANCE SCORE

05 ON KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORSBENCHMARKS

ENTREPRENEURIAL EXPERTISE (SERIAL ENTREPRENEUR)

$ SIZE INVESTMENT (IN MILLION USD)

% STATUS: GROWING AND PROFITABLE

Global Top Average: 78

©UBI Global 2015 - All Rights Reserved to UBI Index AB SE556937405001 - For more information contact info@ubi-global.com or visit http://ubi-global.com

R1 Competence development

R2 Incubator o�er

R3 Post incubation performance

YOUR GLOBAL BENCHMARK SCORE 2014

73

EU1999Regional Top Avg

Competence development

Incubator o�er Post incubation performance

EU1999Sector Top Avg

EU1999Global Top Avg

841000

VALUE FOR CLIENTS ATTRACTIVENESS VALUE FOR ECOSYSTEM

76

Economy enhancement

Talent retention Post incubation performance

Competence development

Access to funds

Access to network

0

20

40

60

80

100

R3R2R1

0

5

10

15

20

25

EU1999

Global Top Avg

Global Avg

0 50 100 150 200 250

0 10 20 30 40 50

EU1999 Global Top Avg Global Avg

EU1999 Global Top Avg Global Avg

Yearly operational budget

>2m

NoFunding available yearly for clients ($)

48m

Number of employees8

Number of events organized, or co-organized per year

10Number of sponsors

11

Incubator has a seed fund

Average acceptedapplications per year

25%Average applicationsreceived per year

200Duration of incubation program

30 mo

Number of partners28

Size of investor network

100

Majority sector: Life Sciences (41%)

m=million, mo=months

Location: UrbanFounded: 1999University A�liation: Beta University

Website: www.alphainc.seUnique ID: EU1999

Region: EuropeSector: Life Sciences

Alpha Inc.Uppsala, Sweden

Incubator o�er

UBI GLOBAL

i n c u b at o r b e n c h m a r k S C O R E C A R D 15 /16ALPHA INCUBATOR

01 ORGANIZATIONAL BACKGROUNDINCUBATOR PROFILE

02 COMPARED TO TOP INCUBATORS IN THE WORLDGLOBAL PERFORMANCE

UBI INDEX FRAMEWORK ©

03 COMPARED TO TOP INCUBATORS IN YOUR REGIONREGIONAL PERFORMANCE 04 COMPARED TO TOP INCUBATORS IN YOUR SECTOR

SECTOR PERFORMANCE

06 GLOBAL PERFORMANCE SCORE

05 ON KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORSBENCHMARKS

ENTREPRENEURIAL EXPERTISE (SERIAL ENTREPRENEUR)

$ SIZE INVESTMENT (IN MILLION USD)

% STATUS: GROWING AND PROFITABLE

Global Top Average: 78

©UBI Global 2015 - All Rights Reserved to UBI Index AB SE556937405001 - For more information contact info@ubi-global.com or visit http://ubi-global.com

R1 Competence development

R2 Incubator o�er

R3 Post incubation performance

YOUR GLOBAL BENCHMARK SCORE 2014

73

EU1999Regional Top Avg

Competence development

Incubator o�er Post incubation performance

EU1999Sector Top Avg

EU1999Global Top Avg

841000

VALUE FOR CLIENTS ATTRACTIVENESS VALUE FOR ECOSYSTEM

76

Economy enhancement

Talent retention Post incubation performance

Competence development

Access to funds

Access to network

0

20

40

60

80

100

R3R2R1

0

5

10

15

20

25

EU1999

Global Top Avg

Global Avg

0 50 100 150 200 250

0 10 20 30 40 50

EU1999 Global Top Avg Global Avg

EU1999 Global Top Avg Global Avg

Yearly operational budget

>2m

NoFunding available yearly for clients ($)

48m

Number of employees8

Number of events organized, or co-organized per year

10Number of sponsors

11

Incubator has a seed fund

Average acceptedapplications per year

25%Average applicationsreceived per year

200Duration of incubation program

30 mo

Number of partners28

Size of investor network

100

Majority sector: Life Sciences (41%)

m=million, mo=months

Location: UrbanFounded: 1999University A�liation: Beta University

Website: www.alphainc.seUnique ID: EU1999

Region: EuropeSector: Life Sciences

Alpha Inc.Uppsala, Sweden

Incubator o�er

STANDARD PACKAGE

CLICK HERE TO KNOW MORE

SILVER PACKAGE

CLICK HERE TO KNOW MORE

GOLD PACKAGE

CLICK HERE TO KNOW MORE

“To see how well we are performing and what we can do to improve” “To share with my Board of Directors”

“To create the SWOT analysis” “To expand our network to other continents” “To strengthen my financial arguments”

“To use as a tool for data collection and monitoring” “To be inspired!” “To attract talents”

“To improve the strategy of the incubator, identifying weaknesses and strengths”

02 HOW TO USE THE BENCHMARK PACKAGES? THIS IS WHAT INCUBATOR MANAGERS SAY

14 - Insights & Best PracticesGlobal Benchmark 15/16 Report

Executive Summary

WHY PARTICIPATE IN THE UBI GLOBAL BENCHMARK

03 DOES YOUR PROGRAM HAVE WHAT IT TAKES TO BE #1? APPLY TODAY AT UBI-GLOBAL.COM/APPLY

Select business incubators and accelerators will get the opportunity to participate in the UBI Global rankings of top business incubation programs.

Apply today at ubi-global.com/apply

+ Learn about best practices of the world’s leading University Business Incubation Programs

+ Find out how new companies are being created by the next generation of entrepreneurs

+ Be recognized as one of the world’s top incubation programs

TOP

UNIV

ERSITY BUSINESS ACCELERATO

R

UBI GLOBAL

WORLD TOP 102015

TOP

UNIV

ERSIT

Y ASSOCIATED BUSINESS INCUBATOR

UBI GLOBAL

WORLD TOP 102015

TOP

UNIV

ERSITY BUSINESS INCUBATO

R

UBI GLOBAL

WORLD TOP 252015

FREE PARTICIPATIONAPPLY NOW

TOP RANKED INCUBATION PROGRAMS HIGHLIGHTED IN

Global Benchmark 15/16 Report Executive Summary15 - Insights & Best Practices

PARTICIPATING UNIVERSITES*

04 DOES YOUR PROGRAM HAVE WHAT IT TAKES TO BE #1? APPLY TODAY AT UBI-GLOBAL.COM/APPLY

UNIVERSITY PARTICIPATION FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD

CASE WESTERN

RESERVE UNIVERSITYNORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

UNIVERSITY

OF BRISTOL

NATIONAL CHIAO TUNG UNIVERSITY

SOUTH CHINA UNIVERSITY

OF TECHNOLOGY

HUAZHONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

KUE LEVEN

UNIVERSITEIT GENT

UNIVERSITY

OF NAIROBI

STELLENBOSCH

UNIVERSITY

UNIVERSITY OF

MAIDUGURI

UNIVERSITY OF

MELBOURNE

GEORGIA TECH

PONTIFICAL CATHOLIC

UNIVERSITY OF RIO

DE JANEIRO

RICE ALLIANCE

INSTITUTO DE INNOVACIÓN Y TRANSFERENCIA

DE TECNOLOGÍA DE NUEVO LEÓN

UCLA

USC

CALIFORNIA INSTUTE

OF TECHONOLOGY

PONTIFICAL CATHOLIC

UNIVERSITY OF CHILE

AUSTRALIAN

NATIONAL

UNIVERSITY

UNIVERSITY

OF SYDNEY

UBI-GLOBAL.COM/APPLY *Only a subset

16 - Insights & Best PracticesGlobal Benchmark 15/16 Report

Executive Summary

SETSQUARED

• LOCATION: Bath, Bristol, Exeter, Southampton, Surrey, UK • FOUNDED: 2002• UNIVERSITY AFFILIATION: University of Bath,

University of Bristol, University of Exeter, University of Southampton, University of Surrey

• PROJECTS DIRECTOR: Karen Brooks• MISSION: Leading business support for tech companies

across Europe• WEBSITE: http://www.setsquared.co.uk/

INCUBATOR BRIEF

YOUR CASE STUDY?

PROFILE

This is an example of a best practice case study conducted by UBI Global. It contains an overview with incubator brief, performance on the latest benchmark, incubator profile, an interview with the managers about their processes, startup client success stories and the key takeaways on the case. Would you like to read more top cases or perform a study on your incubator for distribution? Contact us today at info@ubi-global.com for more information.

University Managed Business Incubator Non Profit

>2mOperational budget

22Full time employees

YesVolunteers

30 mo 112 58Program duration Average applications

received per year Average applications

accepted per year

mo= months, k=thousand, m=million

Global Benchmark 15/16 Report Executive Summary17 - Insights & Best Practices

1. How does SETsquared spend their operational budget?

2. What tips would SETsquared give to other incubators looking to optimize their budgets?

3. How can incubators run and manage a successful incubation program? Does SETsquared have any best practices to share?

4. How can incubators attract deal flow and talent?

5. What are some of the best practices at SETsquared?

6. What advice would SETsquared give to incubators to screen and select good client startups?

7. How does SETsquared monitor their incubators performance?

An exclusive interview with Simon Bond, Director at SETsquared Centre, Bath and Karen Brooks, Projects Director at SETsquared partnership

What is SETsquared’s business model? What tips would you give to other incubators so they can have a sustainable business model?

The business model of SETsquared incubator is a membership model, one in which high growth potential startup companies that meet our criteria, pay a membership fee, in return for business acceleration services and premises. A business acceleration support package of services is made up of mentoring, regular business review panels where the business plan and strategy of the member company is reviewed by external serial entrepreneurs.

Our charter is to benefit and accelerate our companies. So, it is a deliberate decision we have chosen to not go the equity route. We feel that it might prejudice our neutrality so we have stuck with the membership fee model.

As for a revenue model, incubators that think they’ll be able to make money out of incubation are a bit naive. Certainly, it’s possible to be self sufficient but no incubator is going to become rich.

One tip could be to add additional service around your existing model, for instance...

Simon Bond Karen Brooks

KEY TAKEAWAYS

SUCCESS STORIES

READ MORE ABOUT

Would you like to read the full story? Contact us today at info@ubi-global.com for more information

18 - Participant DirectoryGlobal Benchmark 15/16 Report

Executive Summary

UPCOMING PUBLICATION BENCHMARK ANALYSIS & BEST PRACTICES

TOP UNIVERSITY BUSINESS INCUBATORS GLOBAL BENCHMARK 15/16 - FULL REPORT

The Global Benchmark 15/16 report closely examines more than 300 business incubators in 64 countries. You’ll see what qualities makes a top incubator and how they perform in comparison to average incubators. You’ll also discover how your incubator compares on a wide range of data points, so you can spotlight weaknesses and improve performance. This global benchmark report measures university incubators on the UBI Global benchmark framework with more than 50 performance indicators. It also features the story behind the success of top incubators and how they operate. You’ll find key figures about the performance of each featured incubator and the secret recipe to their success.

AFR

ICA 7 PARTICIPANT DIRECTORY

The participant directory is available in the full version of the Global Benchmark 15/16 Report

FULL REPORT - ORDER NOW » LEARN MORE

Cover design, layout and additional art: Yeray Pérez.

Global Benchmark 15/16 Report Executive Summary19 - Acknowledgements

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Author:

Dhruv Bhatli Director of Research, Co-founder, UBI Global dhruv@ubi-global.com

Dhruv is an author and entrepreneur with a deep interest in improving entrepreneurship ecosystems around the world.

He spearheads the research and product development at UBI Global and is the author of “Top University Business Incu-

bators - Global Benchmark 2013” and “Best Practices at Top University Business Incubators - Cases and Insights 2014”.

His research has appeared in reputed journals such as the International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Busi-

ness, International Journal of Market Research, Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, Journal of Re-

tailing and Consumer Services, Journal of Management Research and over twenty international research conferences.

Concurrently, he teaches at management programs of various European business schools, including the ENPC School of

International Management, Paris and IAE Eiffel School of Management at the Université of Paris Est.

Our sincere thanks to:

Kjell Håkan NärfeltChief Strategist, Vinnova, Stockholm, Sweden

Paolo BorellaDirector, App Campus, Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland

Jonathan BradfordManaging Director, Techstars, London, United Kingdom

Oriol Pascual Director, IQS Tech Factory, Barcelona, Spain

Contributors:

• Lauro Carnicelli• Mihaela Marin• Ajay Singh

UBI GLOBAL

Top UniversitY Business Incubators

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

global Benchmark 15/16 report