overview of the accelerator ecosystem in us and uk by cambridge university
Post on 03-Jun-2018
217 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
8/12/2019 Overview of the Accelerator Ecosystem in US and UK by Cambridge University
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/overview-of-the-accelerator-ecosystem-in-us-and-uk-by-cambridge-university 1/19
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE, JUDGE BUSINESS SCHOOL
Business Accelerators
The Evolution of a Rapidly Growing Industry
Michael Birdsall, Clare Jones, Craig Lee, Charles Somerset and Sarah Takaki
5/1/2013
8/12/2019 Overview of the Accelerator Ecosystem in US and UK by Cambridge University
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/overview-of-the-accelerator-ecosystem-in-us-and-uk-by-cambridge-university 2/19
8/12/2019 Overview of the Accelerator Ecosystem in US and UK by Cambridge University
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/overview-of-the-accelerator-ecosystem-in-us-and-uk-by-cambridge-university 3/19
2
With thanks to the following for assisting us with our research:
Entrepreneurs
Adizio
Arachnys
Believe.in
Birdback
Blottr
Duedil
eaziGet
TagStand
Likeminds
Mixlr
On Device Research
Rummble Labs
Silicon Fen Diagnostics
Vinetrade
WeStore
Accelerators
Startupbootcamp
Springboard / TechStars
London
Accelerator Research Program
in Israel
Upwest Labs
Bethnal Green Ventures
Betafoundry
Mentor at Startupbootcamp
The Junction
Paypal Accelerator Relations
Eleven
dotforge Accelerator
Startup Highway
Microsoft Accelerator
SeedcampH-Farm
HealthXL
Healthbox
Venture Investors
#1seed
Accel Partners
Amadeus Capital Partners
Atomico
Balderton Capital
Ballpark Ventures
Connect Ventures
IQ Capital
Passion Capital
Prime Ventures
Samsung Venture Investment
Corporation
Also with thanks to:
Franck Nouyrigat at Startup WeekendJared Konczal at the Kauffman Foundation
Stewart McTavish at Ideaspace
Robin Evans at the Cambridge University Stats Lab
Jerry He at Cambridge University’s Judge Business School
Simon Stockley at Cambridge University’s Judge Business School
Tian Luo at the US Bureau of Labor Statistics
Annette Kramer Coming to America Mini-Accelerator
8/12/2019 Overview of the Accelerator Ecosystem in US and UK by Cambridge University
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/overview-of-the-accelerator-ecosystem-in-us-and-uk-by-cambridge-university 4/19
3
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 4
2. Aims ..................................................................................................................................... 5 3. Background on Accelerator Programmes ............................................................................... 5
3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 5
3.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 6
3.3 Analysis ..................................................................................................................................... 6
4. Viewpoints from within the ecosystem ................................................................................. 9
4.1 Founders ................................................................................................................................... 9
4.2 Follow-on Investors ................................................................................................................. 10
5. Are accelerator programs successful? .................................................................................. 13
6. Conclusions and thoughts for the future .............................................................................. 15
6.1 Accelerator Best Practices ...................................................................................................... 15
6.2 The Evolution of a New Asset Class ........................................................................................ 15
References ............................................................................................................................. 17
8/12/2019 Overview of the Accelerator Ecosystem in US and UK by Cambridge University
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/overview-of-the-accelerator-ecosystem-in-us-and-uk-by-cambridge-university 5/19
4
1. Executive Summary
This research report examines the accelerator ecosystem, looking at how accelerator programmes
have developed over time and what value they create for different parties within the ecosystem,
including founders, angel investors and venture capital funds. It then examines the performance ofcompanies that have been through accelerator programmes, using company survivorship and
acquisition data, as compared to benchmark comparators. In conclusion, it identifies a number of
findings, including key success factors and best practices for accelerator programmes, and proposes
the development of accelerator funds as a new type of asset class.
A variety of research methods were employed in preparing this report, including interviews with 14
accelerators, 15 investors, and a survey of over 130 entrepreneurs. This research was sponsored by
Playfair Capital, a seed fund and a potential investor in accelerator programmes.
The origins of modern day accelerator programmes lie with early incubator models, but bear a
number of differentiating features. These differentiators include low-level funding in exchange for
equity and a focus on time-limited initiatives with training, events and mentoring. Most accelerator
programmes employ a similar approach and design, though some points of differentiation exist.
In examining different viewpoints from within the ecosystem, we sought to investigate a number of
key questions including why entrepreneurs select particular accelerators programmes and how
accelerators affect follow-on funders’ investment decisions.
Findings showed that quality of the mentors, brand of the accelerator, and networking opportunities
are the three major factors entrepreneurs consider when selecting programmes. For follow-on
funders, accelerator programmes provide a filtered source of dealflow, but have little impact on
investment decision making.
Our performance analysis indicated that accelerator programs increase the level of company
survivorship by 10% to 15% by the fifth year following the exit from such a programme.
Furthermore, we found that the rate at which companies get acquired after completing top tier US
programmes is significantly higher than the average rate for US VC backed companies.
We identified a number of best practices for accelerator programmes including the development of
a strong brand and a positive international reputation, as well as the use key performance indicators
and quantitative data to drive programme development.
Based on our findings, we believe that accelerators have the potential to evolve into a new asset
class. This is predicated on differentiated investment strategy, involving a large number of small,
early stage investments, and a higher success rate than a typical venture capital firm, albeit in a
wider range of achieved valuations, through the evolution of alternative exit routes, including
technology transfer and acqui-hire processes.
We believe that this asset class, which we term ‘value-based venture capital’, provides an alternative
to traditional models of venture capital, and will satisfy currently unmet demands of LP’s and other
investors.
8/12/2019 Overview of the Accelerator Ecosystem in US and UK by Cambridge University
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/overview-of-the-accelerator-ecosystem-in-us-and-uk-by-cambridge-university 6/19
5
2. Aims
The aim of this research is to examine the accelerator ecosystem, with particular regard for three
groups of actors: entrepreneurs, follow-on funders, and accelerator programmes. The objective is to
answer the following three questions:
1) Why do entrepreneurs choose accelerator programmes?
2) How do follow-on funders choose investments and to what extent does an accelerator
programme influence their decision to invest in a company?
3) What are the best practices in accelerator programmes?
This research intends to provide a strategy for positioning accelerators and investors within this
market.
3. Background on Accelerator Programmes
3.1 Introduction
Accelerators are the focus of intense interest yet constitute a challenging research topic due to
ambiguous definition, fast growth, and little data suggesting their success.
Accelerators are compared to business incubators. Barrehag et al (2012) states that an “accelerator .
. . derives many of its characteristics from the business incubator.” Yet Christiansen (2009) describes
the two as having a “dramatic difference in business model[s]”. Li et al (2012) captures the situation
stating “the distinction between business incubators and accelerators is subtle and, at times,
ambiguous.”
The definition used in this research is provided by Miller and Bound (2011), distinguishing
accelerators from incubators by five features.
1) An application process that is open to all, yet highly competitive.
2) Provision of pre-seed investment, usually in exchange for equity.
3) A focus on small teams not individual founders.
4) Time-limited support comprising programmed events and intensive mentoring.
5) Cohorts or ‘classes’ of startups rather than individual companies.
The number of accelerator programmes is increasing. In 2011, Miller and Bound stated that, “The
number of accelerator programmes has grown rapidly . . . ” In 2012, Li et al reported that in the Los
Angeles area there are “more than 15 accelerators housing more than 200 startup companies,” and
questioned whether demand will sustain this rapid growth. Carr (2012) quotes David Tisch,
Managing Director of TechStars New York, as saying, “The majority of accelerators are not good for
companies and will fail. There are too many of them.” Rapid growth and little demonstration of
returns have resulted in the success of accelerators being called into question.
8/12/2019 Overview of the Accelerator Ecosystem in US and UK by Cambridge University
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/overview-of-the-accelerator-ecosystem-in-us-and-uk-by-cambridge-university 7/19
6
However, the definition of success is unclear. Viewed from a policy perspective, Konczal (2012)
suggests that one measure of success might be job creation. Hochberg and Kamath (2012) evaluate
a variety of criteria, including financing activity, exits, and alumni network, to rank accelerator
programmes. Based on our research, accelerators define success based on follow on funding and
investor returns.
Using exit valuation as a success metric aligns with the interests of investors in accelerator
programmes. This metric is offered by Paul Graham, founder of the first accelerator, Y-Combinator,
“… the best measure of something like Y Combinator is the average value of the companies it funds”
(Graham, 2011). However, conflicting or absent data and evidence that standard techniques result in
unrealistic valuations (Damodaran, 2009) prevented our use of valuation data to measure success.
As a result, we constructed proxies.
3.2 Methodology
We looked at quantitative data to confirm the success of accelerator programmes, and also
researched best practices through secondary sources. The lack of published research on accelerator
programmes resulted in researching best practices of incubators and venture capital funds.
We formulated hypotheses based on the secondary research. These hypotheses were tested by
interviewing 14 accelerator programmes and service providers to these programmes. These
programmes were located across the United Kingdom, Eastern Europe and Israel. Most of the
accelerators had limited historical performance data. The practices identified through these
interviews were contrasted with the practices identified as most valuable to entrepreneurs and
venture investors.
Our research objective was to gain an understanding of a typical accelerator’s programme structure
to identify key similarities or differentiators that mark the most successful programmes. We
investigated how each accelerator measured success, in order to provide a framework for
performance measurement. Finally, we researched the programme funding structures to identify
how funding sources affect performance.
3.3 Analysis
3.3.1 Accelerator Points-of-Parity and Points-of-Difference
Each accelerator programme had a structure similar to that of TechStars. The major points-of-paritybetween accelerator programmes are summarized below:
8/12/2019 Overview of the Accelerator Ecosystem in US and UK by Cambridge University
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/overview-of-the-accelerator-ecosystem-in-us-and-uk-by-cambridge-university 8/19
7
TABLE 1.
Accelerator founders identified their target audience as their major differentiator. Many
programmes are beginning to target specific industry sectors or given geographic areas. They are
limiting their target market and thereby offering sector expertise or local knowledge as their primary
point-of-differentiation (Kotler et al 2009, p. 280)
Although not identified as a “key differentiator,” there were observable variations in the structure of
some accelerators. A few notable differentiators aligned with our findings of entrepreneurs’ needs
from accelerator programmes. Some of these different features included:
- Longer programme length: Some programmes allow companies to use the workspace after
programme completion with continued support from mentors and staff.
- Follow-on funding: Many programmes offer follow-on funding after programme completion.
- Demo Day road show: Some programmes located outside of investment hubs offer road
shows to provide investor exposure in major cities.
- Investor participation in selection process: Many programmes involve their investors in
company selection.
3.3.2 Measuring Accelerator Success
All accelerators interviewed indicated follow-on funding and exits / investor returns as key success
metrics. However, many programmes were too young to have exits or returns. Follow-on funding
was used as the key short-term metric. Many top tier US programmes had exits within their first two
years of operations. The lack of short-term exits at European accelerators indicates that Europeanprogrammes exhibit different patterns than those in the US.
Accelerators which operate outside a main investing hub indicated secondary success metrics. These
included local jobs created or number of outside firms investing in the region. Some accelerators
were partially government funded. These programmes are used to spur the local economy;
therefore, growing the local startup ecosystem is a key goal.
3.3.3 Accelerator Funding Structure
The accelerators interviewed raised their funds from angel investors, venture capital funds,
government grants, or NESTA. Later stage venture capital firms were occasionally investors, but this
was uncommon. This is notable. We believe that accelerator companies may have a difficult time
8/12/2019 Overview of the Accelerator Ecosystem in US and UK by Cambridge University
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/overview-of-the-accelerator-ecosystem-in-us-and-uk-by-cambridge-university 9/19
8/12/2019 Overview of the Accelerator Ecosystem in US and UK by Cambridge University
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/overview-of-the-accelerator-ecosystem-in-us-and-uk-by-cambridge-university 10/19
9
4. Viewpoints from within the ecosystem
The chart below illustrates who the principal actors are in the accelerator ecosystem.
DIAGRAM 1.
4.1 Founders
4.1.1 Methodology
To answer the first research question, “Why do entrepreneurs choose accelerator programmes”, we
began with a review of secondary materials, which informed the development of hypotheses that
were tested through interviews. The entrepreneurs were selected from referrals from Playfair
Capital, a Startup Bootcamp event, and Google Campus, an entrepreneur workspace. Fifteen
interviews were conducted.
The results of the interviews suggested survey questions. The survey was distributed through the
Playfair Capital network, the research team’s personal networks, and entrepreneur - and startup-
themed online communities on Facebook and LinkedIn. The survey reached 182 respondents, of
which 131 indicated they were entrepreneurs. This survey included a conjoint analysis question and
a net promoter score question. Please see the web appendix for the design of the conjoint question.
4.1.2 Entrepreneur Interviews
Through the interviews, entrepreneurs highlighted the importance of the reputational effects of
accelerator programmes. The majority believed that graduates of top-tier programmes gain a stamp
of approval. Interview responses indicated that entrepreneurs anticipated benefits of programmes
were alumni network, investor networking opportunities, and follow-on funding. Mentoring and
training were also mentioned. Pitch training, however, was seen as an over-emphasized programme
component.
4.1.3 Quantitative Survey
8/12/2019 Overview of the Accelerator Ecosystem in US and UK by Cambridge University
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/overview-of-the-accelerator-ecosystem-in-us-and-uk-by-cambridge-university 11/19
10
The quantitative survey identified the top three factors entrepreneurs consider when selecting
accelerator programmes: Quality of mentors, brand or reputation of the programme, and networking
opportunities. Chart 3 below illustrates the distribution of responses.
CHART 2.
The conjoint analysis question asked respondents to make a series of trade-offs on accelerator
programme features to identify the value of each feature. The two most highly valued features were
the brand and the location of the programme. The other factors, in order of value, were likelihood of
follow-on funding, alumni interaction, and the equity for funding offer.
Respondents were further asked to select one of two levels for each feature. Respondents
perceived an international brand to be nine times more valuable than a local brand. Respondents
perceived a programme that has had 80% of graduates receive follow-on funding to be eight times
more valuable than a programme with a 50% follow-on funding rate. A complete summary of
responses can be found in the web appendix. These findings are suggestive due to a small survey
response rate to this question.
Not all survey respondents had applied to accelerators, and therefore did not respond to the above
questions. These respondents were asked to select the reasons for not applying to accelerator
programmes. The top two reasons were lack of understanding the benefits of and lack of awareness
of the programmes.
Eighty percent of respondents who had participated in accelerators said their expectations for the
programme had been met or exceeded. When asked whether they would recommend the
programme they had participated in to a friend, 100% of respondents answered positively.
The themes for suggested improvements centred around the timing and structure of the programme,
including providing support beyond three months and facilitating connections with investors earlier
and more frequently.
4.2 Follow-on Investors
4.2.1 Methodology
8/12/2019 Overview of the Accelerator Ecosystem in US and UK by Cambridge University
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/overview-of-the-accelerator-ecosystem-in-us-and-uk-by-cambridge-university 12/19
11
To answer the second research question, “how do follow-on funders choose investments and to
what extent does an accelerator program influence their decision to invest in a company”, we first
consulted secondary sources and identified four principal areas of research:
1. Do accelerator programmes represent a linking platform in a multi-sided network
(Eisenmann, T., Parker, G. & Van Alstyne, M.W., 2006), between startups and ventureinvestors?
2. What value do accelerators programmes create for venture investors?
3. What do venture investors regard as the principal benefits of accelerators to startups?
4. Do accelerators programmes affect certain aspects of venture investor decision-making?
We then explored these research areas through meetings with fifteen venture investors. These
comprised a cross-section of investors, including large VC firms and smaller seed and angel investors.
4.2.2 Accelerators as Linking Platforms
We found a ‘disconnect’ between the startups coming out of accelerators and the primary focus of
many larger venture capital funds. The principal target investor for these startups was an earlier
stage of venture investment, which we identified as a type of seed funding in the $100k-$1m range,
coming from a combination of institutional seed investors, dedicated seed funds within larger VC’s,
and angel investors. Additionally, we found that accelerator programmes averaged 5-10% of deal
flow for venture investors active in this category, a smaller percentage than initially thought. These
findings are illustrated in the diagram below.
DIAGRAM 2.
4.2.3 Value Creation of Accelerators for Venture Investors
The first, and most direct source of value to venture investors, is the role accelerators play in
providing a small, but highly filtered source of deal flow. The advantage cited by venture investors is
that these programmes filter hundreds of startup applicants down to an average of 10. This process
can save investors considerable time and effort.
8/12/2019 Overview of the Accelerator Ecosystem in US and UK by Cambridge University
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/overview-of-the-accelerator-ecosystem-in-us-and-uk-by-cambridge-university 13/19
12
The second source of value for venture investors is the general role accelerators play in supporting a
startup ecosystem. This is can be particularly beneficial for new technology sub-sectors and
provides opportunities for investors for interaction, knowledge gathering and general networking.
This interaction can provide investors with early visibility of new technology developments and
trends and provide an input into future investment strategies and future deal flow opportunities.
For investors who take commercial interests in accelerator programmes, this may be a source of
significant value.
4.2.4 Principal Benefit of Accelerators
The majority of venture investors regarded branding as the principal benefit conveyed by top
accelerator programmes. This is closely linked to the filtering effect previously described, and we
attempted to capture this brand value effect in the following conceptual map.
DIAGRAM 3.
Nearly all respondents cited Seedcamp and Springboard as the top UK programmes both in terms of
perceived quality of the brand and perceived quality of startups emerging from the programmes.
Beyond the reputational effects, venture investors suggested that the additional value of many
programmes was variable. The most positive cited features of the programmes were businessdevelopment, in particular the establishment of a Minimum Viable Product (Ries, E., 2009) and early
customer validation. Pitch-training and networking received mixed responses. Some investors
stated that many programmes over-promote the value of these features.
4.2.5 Effect of Accelerators on Venture Decision-Making
Our final research objective was to establish whether the fact that a startup has been through an
accelerator programme affects the engagement or foreshortens the diligence process, and whether
there would be any direct influence on the final decision making process. In both cases, the
response was that these programmes have no discernible effect.
8/12/2019 Overview of the Accelerator Ecosystem in US and UK by Cambridge University
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/overview-of-the-accelerator-ecosystem-in-us-and-uk-by-cambridge-university 14/19
13
5. Are accelerator programs successful?
After gathering ecosystem viewpoints on accelerator programs, we turned to quantitative data to
investigate the success of existing programmes. Without publicly available valuation data on most
companies that had participated in accelerator programmes, we settled on two proxies ofaccelerator success: the survivorship of startups that have completed these programmes and their
mergers and acquisition activity.
Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the United States provided us with two benchmarks of
survivorship of startups: national survival rates and California’s survival rates. We compared survival
rates of Silicon Valley firms and two of the most widely referenced accelerators, TechStars and Y-
Combinator. This data is illustrated in Chart 1, below.
CHART 3.
These data indicate accelerator programs increase survivorship by 10% to 15% by year five. For a
complete description of the methodology, data sources, and applicability to the United Kingdom,
please see the researchers’ website.
After establishing that accelerators increase survivorship, we investigated accelerators’ effect on
acquisition activity of programme participants. We used Seed-DB to gather data on the percentage
of companies acquired in each Y Combinator and Techstars Boulder class between 2007 and 2010.
As a control group, we gathered data from Thomson Reuters on the number of companies that
received first round funding from US VCs each year from 2007 to 2010 and the percentage that were
acquired. This data is illustrated in Chart 2, below.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Number of Years Since Birth of Firm
Average Survival Rate of Startups
US National Data
California Data
Silicon Valley Data
Y-Combinator
TechStars
8/12/2019 Overview of the Accelerator Ecosystem in US and UK by Cambridge University
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/overview-of-the-accelerator-ecosystem-in-us-and-uk-by-cambridge-university 15/19
14
CHART 4.
These data illustrate two points.
First, the rate that companies get acquired after completing top tier US programmes is higher than
the average rate of US VC backed companies. Second, companies from top tier accelerators are
likely to see earlier exits than the average VC backed company. This is indicated by the relatively high
exit rates for Y Combinator and TechStars Boulder in 2009 and 2010.
US VC backed companies take 6 years to be acquired on average; thus, the control group’s exit
percentage steadily decreases from 2007 through 2010, as companies that were funded in later
years have not been acquired yet. Y Combinator and TechStars Boulder show no such trend.
Data gathered on Seedcamp, the longest running UK accelerator, can be found on the researchers’
website. These data indicate that our finding holds true in the UK.
8/12/2019 Overview of the Accelerator Ecosystem in US and UK by Cambridge University
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/overview-of-the-accelerator-ecosystem-in-us-and-uk-by-cambridge-university 16/19
15
6. Conclusions and thoughts for the future
6.1 Accelerator Best Practices
Once evidence was produced that accelerators produced positive outcomes, we began an analysis of
best practices.
The analysis of the above identified accelerator programme best practices. Some practices appear to
serve a similar purpose to Herzberg’s hygiene factors (1959) in that they do not provide positive
differentiation when present, but negatively impact the programme or the perception of the
programme when absent. Other practices appear to deliver unique value and can be considered best
practices.
One hygiene factor is the provision of seed funding by the accelerator to startups participating in the
programme. The amount of funding offered is relatively consistent amongst programmes, ranging
from approximately €10,000 to €50,000 per startup. The opportunity for follow-on funding was one
of the top four reasons identified by survey respondents for selecting accelerator programmes.
Other hygiene factors include an effective mentor network and active alumni community.
The best practices indicate that the following practices should be increased or decreased.
Increase:
o Accelerator brand
o Product development support
o Measurement of KPIs
o Rapid programme design iteration
Decrease:
o Pitch training
o Large scale demo days
6.2 The Evolution of a New Asset Class
Accelerated startups perform differently than businesses in which VC funds typically invest. As
noted above, a smaller percentage of businesses fail and the percentage of businesses that are
acquired in the years immediately after funding is greater than that of businesses that receive VC
investment alone.
Further, the investments themselves are different. Accelerators invest in companies that have
neither a prototype nor revenue and diversify across a greater number of companies. Smaller
investment amounts for low equity stakes further decrease risk.
Due to these differences, we predicted smaller, more consistent returns than are typically achieved
by venture capital funds. Christensan (2009, pp. 9) predicted 3.5X returns for an estimated 13.35%
IRR. This figure was confirmed by one of the accelerator founders.
8/12/2019 Overview of the Accelerator Ecosystem in US and UK by Cambridge University
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/overview-of-the-accelerator-ecosystem-in-us-and-uk-by-cambridge-university 17/19
8/12/2019 Overview of the Accelerator Ecosystem in US and UK by Cambridge University
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/overview-of-the-accelerator-ecosystem-in-us-and-uk-by-cambridge-university 18/19
17
References
Bradford, J. (2013) Interview on Startup Accelerators. Interviewed by Michael Birdsall [in person]
White Bear Yard, London, United Kingdom, April 11, 2013.
Carr, A. (2012) Are Accelerators Losing Speed. Fast Company , [online] 8th August. Available at:
http://www.fastcompany.com/3000036/techstars-david-tisch-highly-recommends-well-techstars
[Accessed: 19 April 2013].
Christansen, J. (n.d.) Y Combinator. [online] Available at: http://www.seed-
db.com/accelerators/view?acceleratorid=1011 [Accessed: 19 Apr 2013].
Christansen, J. (2009) Copying Y Combinator, A Framework for Developing Seed Accelerator
Programs. Masters of Business Administration. University of Cambridge: Judge Business School.
Eisenmann, T., Parker, G. & Van Alstyne, M.W. (2006) Strategies for two-sided markets. HarvardBusiness Review 84(10) pp. 92-101.
Graham, P. (2011) Y Combinator Numbers. [online] Available at: http://ycombinator.com/nums.html
[Accessed: 19 Apr 2013].
Hadida, A. (2013) Technical Note: Portfolio Planning and Portfolio Management . MBA10 Strategy.
Judge Business School, Cambridge, UK.
Henderson, B. (1970) The Product Portfolio. [online] Available at:
https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/Classics/strategy_the_product_portfolio/ [Accessed: 21
Jan 2013].
Herzberg, F, Mausner, B, & Snyderman, B (1959) 'Motivation versus Hygiene', Motivation to Work
pp. 113-119 n.p.: Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 20 April 2013.
Konczal, J. (2012) Evaluating the Effects of Accelerators? Not So Fast. Forbes, [online] August 8.
Available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kauffman/2012/08/08/evaluating-the-effects-of-
accelerators-not-so-fast/ [Accessed: 19 April 2013].
Kotler, P., Keller, K., Brady, M., Goodman, M., and Hansen, J. (2009) Marketing management.
Pearson, London.
Luo, T. (2013) Interview on Survival Data. Interviewed by Michael Birdsall [on phone] Cambridge, UK,
April 5, 2013.
Luo, T. and Mann, A. (2011) Survival and growth of Silicon Valley high-tech businesses born in 2000.
Monthly Labor Review Online, 134 (9), p.16-31. Available at:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2011/09/art2full.pdf [Accessed: 19 Apr 2013].
National Institute of Standards and Technology (1988) 2**(7-4) FRACTIONAL FACTORIAL DESIGN.
[online] Available at: http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pri/section3/eqns/2to7m4.txt
[Accessed: 19 Apr 2013].
8/12/2019 Overview of the Accelerator Ecosystem in US and UK by Cambridge University
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/overview-of-the-accelerator-ecosystem-in-us-and-uk-by-cambridge-university 19/19
top related