DEGREE PROJECT IN INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT, SECOND CYCLE, 15 CREDITS STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN 2021

The Support of Incubator and Accelerator Programs in the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem with COVID-19

A Collective Case Study for Germany

LEONIE MAURER

FREDERIK NAGEL

KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT

The Support of Incubator and Accelerator Programs in the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem with COVID-19 A Collective Case Study for Germany

by Leonie Maurer Frederik Nagel

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank everyone who has been involved in the creation of this thesis paper. The support has helped us to get a deep understanding of the ecosystem surrounding incubator and accelerator programs. With the guidance throughout the whole process of the paper, we have successfully created a thorough research about incubators and accelerators in the entrepreneurial ecosystem impacted by COVID-19 in Germany. Thanks to Kristina Nyström for her support during the thesis process as well as the interviewees from the incubators, accelerator and startups that gave us valuable information for conducting this research.

Master of Science Thesis TRITA-ITM-EX 2021:137

The Support of Incubator and Accelerator Programs in the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem with COVID-19 A Collective Case Study for Germany

Leonie Maurer Frederik Nagel

Approved Examiner Supervisor 2021-06-11 Terrence Brown Kristina Nyström Commissioner Contact person n/a n/a

Abstract

The aim of this thesis paper is to analyse the support of incubator and accelerator programs in the German entrepreneurial ecosystem with the impact of COVID-19. Incubator and accelerator programs have been established across multiple innovation hubs worldwide over the last decade. They have become a substantial support system for entrepreneurship providing help for young companies to innovate. The benefits offered usually include access to capital, network, mentorship and office space in exchange for equity or to simply foster innovation. With a lot of uncertainties deriving from the current pandemic, entrepreneurship has an increasingly relevant role to ensure a flourishing economy in the future. As the world is adapting to new circumstances, incubators and accelerators need to reevaluate their support to startups as well. The literature review consists of relevant literature by elaborating on the existing entrepreneurial ecosystem theories. It further discusses incubators and accelerators and the German entrepreneurial market before introducing the theoretical framework for the paper. As part of the research, this thesis uses a collective case study method by conducting interviews with startup founders and employees of incubator and accelerator programs in Germany. The qualitative data collection will undergo a deductive reasoning approach to analyse the research phenomenon and to contribute to the field of entrepreneurship. After introducing each company from the collective case study, the empirical findings systematically lay out the data from the interviews by separating the data into a section for incubators and accelerators and a section for startups. The data highlights relevant changes regarding the support of the programs with and without the impact of COVID-19. The discussion chapter points out the findings by comparing the data with the literature and the theoretical framework. The findings are broken down into subsections that point out the importance of the support programs as well as the proposed changes in the offerings. Concluded, changes can be made in the area of mentorships and coachings as there is a need for more individuality. Also regular feedback cycles, a higher capital support and the change to a hybrid model with a remote and on-site structure as well as the use of software to stay connected are possibilities for accelerators and incubators to help the startups.

Keywords: Incubator, Accelerator, COVID-19, Support System, Entrepreneurial Ecosystem

Examensarbete TRITA-ITM-EX 2021:137

Stöd till inkubator- och accelerationsprogram i det enterpenörella ekosystemet med COVID-19 En kollektiv fallstudie för Tyskland

Leonie Maurer Frederik Nagel

Godkänt Examinator Handledare 2021-06-11 Terrence Brown Kristina Nyström Uppdragsgivare Kontaktperson n/a n/a

Sammanfattning

Syftet med denna uppsats är att analysera stödet av inkubator och accelerationsprogram i det tyska enterepenörella ekosystemet och hur det påverkats av COVID-19. Inkubator och acceleratorprogrammen har etablerats under olika innovationscenter över hela världen det senaste decenniet. De har blivit ett betydande stödsystem för entrepenörskap som ska ge stöttning åt nystartade företag för att hjälpa dom bli innovativa. Förmånerna är tillgång till kapital, nätverk, mentorsskap och lokaler, detta sker i utbyte mot delägarskap eller att bidra till att främja innovation. Med osäkerheten orsakat av den nuvarande pandemin, har entrepenörskap en mycket viktig roll för att säkerställa en uppåtgående ekonomi i framtiden. Då världen anpassar sig till nya omständigheter, behöver inkubationer och accelerationer se över stödet till startup företag. Litteraturöversikten innehåller relevant litteratur som utarbetar de redan existerande teorier inom det entrepenörella ekosystemet.. Vidare diskuteras inkubatorer och accelerationer och den tyska entrepönerella marknaden, följt av introduktionen av det teoretiska ramverket för uppsatsen. Som en del av forskningen används en kollektivt fallstudie metod där det genomförts intervjuer med start up grundare och anställda på inkubator och accelerator program i Tyskland. Den kvalitativa inhämtningen av data genomgår ett slutligt resonemang för att analysera forskningsfenomenet och bidra till forskningsområdet entrepenörskap. Efter att ha introducerat varje företag för den utvalda fallstudien, visas data systematisk med de empiriska resultaten från intervjuerna. Detta görs igenom att separera data i två sektioner. En för inkubatorer och accelationer, och en sektion för start ups. Uppgifterna belyser relevanta förändringar när det gäller stödet till programmen med och utan inverkan av COVID-19. I diskussionskapitlet pekas resultaten ut genom att uppgifterna jämförs med litteraturen och den teoretiska ramen. Resultaten delas upp i underavsnitt som pekar ut stödprogrammens betydelse samt de föreslagna förändringarna i utbudet. Slutsatsen är att förändringar kan göras inom området mentorskap och coachning eftersom det finns ett behov av mer individualitet. Regelbundna feedbackcykler, ett högre kapitalstöd och en övergång till en hybridmodell med en struktur på distans och på plats samt användning av programvara för att hålla kontakten är möjligheter för acceleratorer och inkubatorer att hjälpa nystartade företag.

Nyckelord: Inkubator, accelerator, COVID-19, stödsystem, enterpenörellt ekosystem

Table of Contents

List of Figures ...... III List of Tables ...... IV List of Abbreviations ...... V 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Problem Statement ...... 2 1.3 Purpose and Research Question ...... 2 1.4 Delimitations ...... 3 1.5 Sustainability Aspects ...... 3 1.6 Contribution to the Field of Entrepreneurship ...... 4 1.7 Outline ...... 5 2 Literature Review ...... 6 2.1 Entrepreneurial Ecosystem ...... 6 2.1.1 The First Definitions ...... 6 2.1.2 Three relevant Entrepreneurial Ecosystems ...... 7 2.2 Incubators and Accelerators ...... 11 2.2.1 Definition ...... 11 2.2.2 Distinction ...... 11 2.3 The German Entrepreneurial Market ...... 12 2.4 The COVID-19 Impact on German Startups ...... 13 2.5 Theoretical Framework ...... 15 3 Methodology ...... 16 3.1 Research Paradigm ...... 16 3.2 Research Approach ...... 16 3.3 Collective Case Study ...... 17 3.4 Interview Approach ...... 17 3.5 Data Analysis ...... 18 3.6 Research Quality ...... 19 3.7 Research Ethics ...... 19 4 Interview Partners ...... 20 5 Empirical Findings (Data) ...... 22 5.1 Incubators and Accelerators ...... 22 5.1.1 Classification of the Support Programs ...... 22 5.1.2 Program Existence and Startup Requirement ...... 22

I

5.1.3 Program Offering and USP ...... 23 5.1.4 Program Partners ...... 23 5.1.5 The role within the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem ...... 24 5.1.6 Changes due to COVID-19 ...... 24 5.1.7 Future Perspectives ...... 25 5.2 Startups ...... 25 5.2.1 Program Experience ...... 26 5.2.2 Importance of Support Programs ...... 27 5.2.3 Changes due to COVID-19 ...... 28 6 Discussion and Analysis ...... 29 6.1 Accelerators and Incubators within the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem ...... 29 6.2 Program Support and the COVID-19 impact ...... 30 6.2.1 Program Support ...... 30 6.2.2 Impact of COVID-19 ...... 32 7 Conclusion ...... 33 7.1 Answering the Research Question ...... 33 7.2 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research ...... 34 References ...... 35 Appendix ...... 42 Appendix 1: Interview Guide for Incubator and Accelerator Interviews ...... 42 Appendix 2: Interview Guide for Startups Interviews ...... 44

II List of Figures Figure 1: The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, n.d.) ...... 4 Figure 2: An Entrepreneurial System of New Venture Creation (Neck et al., 2004) ...... 7 Figure 3: Domains of the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem (Isenberg, 2011) ...... 8 Figure 4: Entrepreneurial Ecosystem by World Economic Forum and Booz & Company in 2011 (WEF, 2011) ...... 9 Figure 5: Entrepreneurial Ecosystem and Components of the pillars by World Economic Forum 2013 (WEF, 2013, pp.6) ...... 10 Figure 6: Theoretical Framework Diagram (own construction) ...... 15 Figure 7: Updated Theoretical Framework Diagram (own construction) ...... 29

III List of Tables Table 1: Codification of Interviewees ...... 20

IV List of Abbreviations

APX Axel Springer and Porsche Accelerator EE Entrepreneurial ecosystem FCI Future City Incubator GDP Gross Domestic Product GDPR General Data Protection Regulation SDGs Sustainable Development Goals Unicorn Company with a billion-dollar valuation USP Unique selling proposition WEF World Economic Forum

V 1 Introduction

The introduction of the thesis paper aims to familiarize the reader with the underlying problem of the research phenomenon and the consequential research question including the delimitations, the contribution and the sustainability aspects.

1.1 Background

Being an entrepreneur is tough and risky. About 9% of people were involved in managing or setting up a new business in Germany in 2017 (OECD, 2018). Those that try have a very small chance to succeed no matter how great the business idea or how determined the entrepreneur might be (Schmidt, 2020).

However, entrepreneurship is an essential driver for innovation across all industries. In fact, it is a driving force for rapid job creation, gross domestic product (GDP) growth, and long-term productivity increases (Isenberg, 2014). It is a vital source of change that represents the symbol of business tenacity and achievement (Pahuja, 2015). With the world going through a pandemic currently, entrepreneurship is more important than ever. Statistics show economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic that cannot be underestimated. Global economic activity has declined in the short-term and has recorded a loss of around $US 12 trillion in 2020 (Naudé, 2020). Especially startups suffer from the crisis in the form of uncertainty concerning key partners, investors and customers as the “economic climate is currently unfavorable for innovation” (Kuckertz et al., 2020, p. 3). As the median firm runs out of liquidity in two to six months in Europe (Djankov, 2020), a disastrous count of bankrupt companies is foreseeable unless supported financially. The consequences might be devastating as it is ongoing with an unknown time period (Ratten, 2020). The support of entrepreneurship is crucial as it can improve our lives and bring change to a crisis (Schwarzkopf, 2016). Therefore, fostering entrepreneurship and the ecosystem around it during this time can be defining for a thriving economy in the future.

The entrepreneurial ecosystem (EE) is a framework that consists of individual elements to conduct an environment for innovation to thrive (Morant-Martínez et al., 2019). This includes various key factors evolving around capital markets, customers, culture, leadership and support systems (Isenberg, 2010). Bringing these factors together can turbocharge venture creation and growth (Isenberg, 2010).

In this context, incubator and accelerator programs are important innovation actors of the EE that support young companies (Bliemel et al., 2018). The rise of these programs has grown around the world with well over 3,000 programs today (Isabelle and Del Sarto, 2020). By offering young startups access to office space, mentorship, network and capital (Cohen and Hochberg, 2014), the incubator and accelerator programs lower the barrier of entry for entrepreneurs to get started. Most early-stage startups fail, because of resource and capacity limitations, managerial inexperience, lack of market exposure and competitive retaliation (Chan, Patel and Phan, 2020). Joining such a program should limit the risk of failure for startups. An incubator program extends over a longer time period of at least eight months that is usually publicly funded by the government (Al-Mubaraki and Busler, 2011). In contrast to that, an accelerator program is 3-6 months long and privately funded by limited partners that

1

oftentimes also take equity in the companies they support (Bliemel et al., 2018). The general alignment is that these programs play a crucial role in supporting startups (Chan, Patel and Phan, 2020).

1.2 Problem Statement

However, developing ventures and supporting entrepreneurship with incubators and accelerators is a fairly new concept around the world (Isabelle and Del Sarto, 2020). Some studies show the effects of these programs have mixed outcomes (Cohen and Hochberg, 2014), while other studies point out their ability to achieve their objectives (Gonzalez-Uribe and Leatherbee, 2018). Programs oftentimes struggle to tailor their offering to the specific needs of a startup as every company is so different in the early stages (Chan, Patel and Phan, 2020). On top of that, being the link within the EE for startups is a challenge as well. As these programs run for a relatively short period of time compared to the lifecycle of the startups, there is a lack of evidence for the involvement of the programs to the start-up development activity, such as the hiring and training of talent (Chan, Patel and Phan, 2020). On top of that, the current pandemic has brought remaining uncertainty to the economy. The support programs have also been affected. With the overwhelming impact of COVID-19 to the world, these programs have the opportunity to reevaluate their offerings for early-stage startups and the economy.

1.3 Purpose and Research Question

A thorough review of relevant literature showed the relevance of three different types of theories for the EE. While the different EEs are partly criticized to be incomplete, they mostly agree on the individual domains that define what such a system consists of (WEF, 2011; Isenberg, 2014; WEF, 2013). The three different EE’s all specifically mention the support systems that include incubator programs, but only one highlights both, accelerators and incubators (WEF, 2013). As recent developments show, incubator and accelerator programs have become a widespread method as a support system to help foster innovation (Isabelle and Del Sarto, 2020). With the remaining pandemic’s high level of uncertainty on the economical situation in the world, long lasting changes are certain (Naudé, 2020). The obvious relevance to foster entrepreneurial endeavors and ensure a thriving future economy highlights that the role of incubators and accelerators needs to be investigated more deeply (Ratten, 2020). While it remains questionable how effective these programs are to ensure successful venture building, they still remain an important aspect of the EE (Chan, Patel and Phan, 2020). Additionally, the economical impact of COVID-19 needs to be considered while analysing incubator and accelerator programs as support systems for startups.

Hence, this thesis paper focuses on the ability of incubator and accelerator programs to change the support for startups within the EE impacted by COVID-19. The formulated research objective for this paper is the following: Analyzing the offering of how incubators and accelerators provide access for startups within the entrepreneurial ecosystem impacted by COVID-19.

2

The research is tackled in response to the research objective of this thesis paper with the following research question:

How can incubator and accelerator programs change the support for startups within the entrepreneurial ecosystem considering the impact of COVID-19?

1.4 Delimitations

The purpose of the delimitations is to set boundaries for the thesis and to provide a clear focus on the research topic. The thesis topic focuses on the support of incubators and accelerators for startups, specifically within the EE with the impact of COVID-19.

The assessment of the EE is bound to the analysis of the World Economic Forum (WEF) model from 2013. That involves eight key elements with equal relevance consisting of accessible markets, human capital, funding and finance, support system, regulatory framework, education and training, major universities and cultural support (WEF, 2013). Existing criticism partly questions the completeness of the theories including a lack of complexity (Schwarzkopf, 2016). The geographic location is a constraint of the EE (Schwarzkopf, 2016). The analysis of incubator and accelerator programs therefore captures a perspective on publicly and privately funded programs as well as startups within the German region only. The qualitative interviews enable a holistic picture including the COVID-19 impact with feedback from key professionals that have current experience with incubators and accelerators. With the dynamics of each main pillar being represented in the German ecosystem as well, it does not limit the paper in achieving a full understanding of the research phenomenon.

With the present and uncertain outcome of COVID-19, the area of application is delimited to impacts of the pandemic to the structure of incubator and accelerator programs only. Other impacting factors of COVID-19 are not considered due to the scope of the thesis. On top of that, the future impact of COVID-19 could also result in different outcomes in the long-term as it is ongoing, which could not be included in this research yet. The current challenge poses tremendous opportunities for entrepreneurship to flourish (Ratten, 2020), which offers a particularly interesting research opportunity at this time.

1.5 Sustainability Aspects

Sustainability is a common term involving entrepreneurship and innovation at the core. The topic is essential to fight emerging climate change threads. Within the EE and its support systems, sustainability is expected to grow in importance from the standpoints of organizational legitimacy, reputation, and performance (Varadarajan, 2015). On a broader spectrum, there is no alternative to sustainable development (Rangaswami, Prahalad and Nidumolu, 2009). This is why the United Nations‘ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development of 2015 contains 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (see Figure 1).

3

Figure 1: The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, n.d.)

The research objective of the thesis focuses on supporting systems, in fact incubators and accelerators that help startups to grow. High startup rates and entrepreneurial activities that are innovative generate growth in Germany (Audretsch and Keilbach, 2004). Furthermore, establishing new companies is “the best way to create jobs” (Schwarzkopf, 2016, p. 1).

In this context, goals eight and nine are being addressed with this thesis that are called “good jobs and economic growth” and “innovation and infrastructure”.

1.6 Contribution to the Field of Entrepreneurship

This thesis contributes to the knowledge within the field of entrepreneurship. A crucial aspect of entrepreneurship is successful venture creation to foster innovation and to ultimately create more jobs (Isenberg, 2014). In order to do that, a lot of internal and external factors need to align to ensure success. As entrepreneurship is oftentimes related to early-stage startups where uncertainties and failure rates are high, incubator and accelerator programs can play an important role to support in various ways (Bliemel et al., 2018).

With the analysis of accelerator and incubator programs within the EE, this thesis identifies characteristics of the framework in how they support young companies. The impact of COVID- 19 plays a crucial role for the support as well. By analyzing the role of incubators and accelerators within the EE to ensure support for startups, this thesis can serve as a basis for the program owners to assess the relevance of their support as well as an increased understanding of the quality of their offerings. On top of that, this thesis can help anticipate additional problems for entrepreneurship that might occur from COVID-19 in the long run and is therefore also helpful for young founders that want to get support from incubators and accelerators (Isabelle and Del Sarto, 2020).

As the young theories of EEs are criticized to be incomplete, this thesis takes a specific view on the support systems within the ecosystem that can provide more evidence and knowledge for the development of the theories at large.

4

1.7 Outline

This thesis paper is structured in seven main chapters. With chapter 1 as the previous introduction, the paper continues with the literature review in chapter 2. In this chapter, relevant literature with a focus on the entrepreneurial ecosystem, incubator and accelerator programs, the impact factors of COVID-19, and the German entrepreneurial market are introduced. As part of this chapter, the theoretical framework is presented which lays the foundation for the following subsequent research. In chapter 3, the methodologies of this thesis are explained. A collective case study method including deductive research and qualitative data collection are core elements of the methodologies. In chapter 4, the interview partners from the collective case study are introduced. The following chapter 5 presents the empirical findings of our data before being discussed in chapter 6 with respect to the theoretical framework. Finally, chapter 7 provides a conclusion of the research including limitations and suggestions for future research.

5

2 Literature Review

The literature review explores the characteristics of the EE including the role of incubators and accelerators as well as the impact of COVID-19. This section introduces, explains and puts theories of the respective fields relevant for the research question into context, which creates a fundamental knowledge for the subsequent analysis.

2.1 Entrepreneurial Ecosystem

Entrepreneurs are known as key drivers for the economy and with their startups, they influence growth, employment and innovation (Audretsch and Fritsch, 2003; Audretsch and Keilbach, 2004). That is the reason why the government supports entrepreneurial behaviour in different ways (WEF, 2013). Nowadays, ecosystems can be found in several economical or organizational contexts such as the Cloud Ecosystem, the Mobile Banking Ecosystem or the iPad Ecosystem (Darlin, 2006; Rothschild, 1995).

The following chapter explores the term ‘ecosystem’ and specifically the EE. Finally, one model will be chosen for further studies in this thesis.

2.1.1 The First Definitions

The word ‘ecosystem’ originates from biology and implies a special type of biological system. Whereas the term ‘system’ in the word ‘ecosystem’ is Latin and has the “[...] meaning whole compounded of several parts or members and can today be described as a set of interacting or interdependent components forming an integrated whole” (Schwarzkopf, 2016, p. 21; Merriam-Webster, 2011). Moreover, systems have components with a specific structure and behaviours between each of them as well as a connection to each other. These characteristics can be found in economics, social life, physics, biology or politics (Schwarzkopf, 2016).

There are different important actors which formed the term ‘ecosystem’ such as Arthur Tansley, a British plant ecologist who was the first person using this term and started a discussion about its definition and components (Tansley, 1935). Until today, there are components he once defined which are still contemporary such as “the matter of time and size or dependencies and interactions” (Schwarzkopf, 2016, p. 22). The main criteria and definitions for ecosystems are as follows (Jax, 2004):

• Independent elements’ interaction with each other • Defined environment (open or closed) • Laws and regulations for the interaction • Time dimension reflecting on the relation of the elements • Purpose of existence

Moore (1993) is known as the first person who used the term ‘ecosystems’ in an economic matter and used the concept for an organizational community to show how individuals interact with each other in a business background. Nevertheless, the use of ‘ecosystem’ within an entrepreneurial context is still seen as new and in its infancy (Schwarzkopf, 2016; Stam and

6

Van de Ven, 2019). Van de Ven (1993) drew a connection between the participants of the system to the venture creation process and therefore formed the EE. Spilling (1996) built on Moore’s thought and used it as a theory in an entrepreneurial context. He elaborated the complex connection and interaction between the actors within the system, their roles and environmental aspects and found out that it takes place in a defined geography or community (Schwarzkopf, 2016).

In 2004, Neck et al. designed a model for a system based on venture incubation communities after surveying founders (see Figure 2). The percentages within the model “indicate [the] frequency of the responses” e.g. 67 percent of the founders that got interviewed corporate in an informal network (Neck et al., 2004, p. 198). That implies that this system does not fulfill a holistic approach and does not explain regulations and interactions, but rather presents every single actor within the EE and fails the connection between each of them. Moreover, their model is seen as incomplete as it is lacking important factors such as informal support which is a factor that influences the system immensely (Schwarzkopf, 2016).

Figure 2: An Entrepreneurial System of New Venture Creation (Neck et al., 2004)

2.1.2 Three relevant Entrepreneurial Ecosystems

Schwarzkopf (2016) points out three main EEs. In the following chapters the Daniel Isenberg EE and two EEs by the World Economic Forum (WEF) are getting introduced. Finally, one approach will be chosen for further study.

7

2.1.2.1 The Isenberg Entrepreneurial Ecosystem

According to Daniel Isenberg (2014), “The predominant metaphor for fostering entrepreneurship as an economic development strategy is the “entrepreneurship ecosystem”. Moreover, he defines that an “ecosystem is a dynamic, self-regulating network of many different types of actors” and therefore not driven by a single person (Isenberg, 2014). That is why he defined six major domains with 12 elements and created the following Figure 3 with which he described the characters for the biotic and abiotic elements in entrepreneurship (Isenberg, 2011). The six domains are called: policy, markets, human capital, support, culture and finance. Biotic elements or so called ‘living components’ are the investors, family or customers whereas the abiotic or so called ‘non-living components’ such as law, economy or the products (Mader, 2011).

Figure 3: Domains of the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem (Isenberg, 2011)

As with every system, Isenberg's system is lacking, too. It gets criticised for the subgroups that are incomplete or which should sometimes be placed at different elements. For instance, ‘friends and families’ which can be found at the domain ‘finance’ but not at ‘supports’ where many founders would see it, is one of the main critiques (Schwarzkopf, 2016). He also receives criticism for the missing component ‘founder’ as it is seen as an important element that interacts in the environment and which is necessary for the behavioural context. Moreover, the connection between the elements as well as the communication between each other within the ecosystem is not obvious and clear (Schwarzkopf, 2016).

8

2.1.2.2 The World Economic Forum Entrepreneurial Ecosystems

The WEF created a model in 2011 (see Figure 4) in which they put the ‘Entrepreneur’ in the middle of the EE and all influencing factors around (WEF, 2011). WEF stopped developing this model with the circle approach and instead created a new model with a pillar illustration in 2013 (see Figure 5).

Figure 4: Entrepreneurial Ecosystem by World Economic Forum and Booz & Company in 2011 (WEF, 2011)

The new approach was created in cooperation with Stanford, EY and Endeavor after surveying over 1000 entrepreneurs around the world and talking to investors, politicians and government officials (WEF, 2013). The EE consists of eight main pillars or domains whereas six of them are similar and cover the same domains as the Isenberg EE. Unlike the circle approach, the pillar approach does not focus on one specific actor within the EE. All actors are on the same stage without putting one in the focus. Compared to the Isenberg EE, two pillars called ‘Education & Training’ and ‘Major Universities as Catalysts’ were added in the latest model. However, the ones added are covered in Isenberg’s model in the subcategory ‘Educational Institution’ within the domain ‘Human Capital’ (see Figure 3). Furthermore, WEF’s EE receives the same critiques as the Isenberg model (Schwarzkopf, 2016).

9

Figure 5: Entrepreneurial Ecosystem and Components of the pillars by World Economic Forum 2013 (WEF, 2013, pp.6)

2.1.2.3 Choosing an EE Approach

The Isenberg EE created in 2011 can be found in several literature but is also strongly discussed and gets criticised for several reasons as stated before. The circle EE by WEF is not relevant at all as WEF stopped working on it and replaced it with the new pillar EE. Considered that the thesis is analysing incubators which can be found at the ‘support’ domain within the Isenberg EE, the thesis is not only focusing on incubators but also accelerators which can not be found in Isenberg’s EE at all and therefore does not provide a basis for the study. However, contrary to the Isenberg EE, the second WEF EE (see Figure 5) is more elaborated in the sense that it covers accelerators at ‘support system’ which makes the WEF EE more applicable for the thesis and beyond it is the latest established model.

10

2.2 Incubators and Accelerators

Incubators and accelerators are organizations that push and help startups to grow and are part of the ‘support system’ pillar of the WEF EE (Hansen et al., 2000; WEF, 2013). Besides supporting the startups with mentorships, they can provide an infrastructure of important companies and industries, offer events to connect to people, inform about governmental support and give seed capital to the startups (Shwetzer, Maritz and Nguyen, 2019).

The first movements of incubators can be traced back to the 1960s and 1970s where they first emerged in the USA and Europe. The most famous accelerator program called ’Y Combinator‘ was launched in Silicon Valley in 2005. The program is the most successful program of all with over 21 unicorns (startups with a billion-dollar valuation) in their portfolio so far (Yatsiv, 2020). Nowadays there are thousands of incubators and accelerators around the globe created privately or governmentally (Albert and Gaynor, 2000).

The following chapter will look deeper into the construct of incubators and accelerators. A definition and distinction will be given as well as types of models and offerings of incubators and accelerators will be pointed out.

2.2.1 Definition

As well as the word ‘ecosystem’, the word ‘incubator’ originates from medicine and biology. In a biological term it is “a device that provides optimal conditions for growing microbiological cultures” (Smith and Zhang, 2012, p. 227). In the medical field, the word ‘incubator’ signifies a device that controls and regulates an environment for premature babies and helps them to survive within the first days. In the entrepreneurial context, ‘incubators’ have a similar purpose (Smith and Zhang, 2012). Professionals offer a place and provide “an organised, resource-rich environment and support services dedicated to strengthening the development” to found new startups (Albert and Gaynor, 2000, p. 158).

The word ‘accelerator’ implies that these organizations want to accelerate or speed up the growth of a startup (Mason and Brown, 2014). It first emerged in the US in the early 2000s and was seen as a new type of incubator model (Pauwels et al., 2016; Wise and Valliere 2014). One of the most accepted definitions for accelerators is: “fixed-term, cohort-based program, including mentorship and educational components, that culminates in a public pitch event or demo-day” (Cohen and Hochberg, 2014, p. 4).

2.2.2 Distinction

The distinction between incubators and accelerators tends to be seen as fluid and the words as similarly used as there is an overlap in what they offer (Drori and Wright, 2018; Sivakumar, 2020; Sepulveda, 2012). Nevertheless, there is a general difference between them as incubators help new venture creation and focus on early stage startups whereas accelerators are seen as a new generation of incubators that help advanced startups, as the word already says, to ‘accelerate’ growth and often go along with investment (Mason and Brown, 2014; Sivakumar, 2020). However, both help the startups to grow, guide them and provide mentorship, but the

11

distinction is, that the startups are at different lifetime stages and therefore the help looks differently contentwise (Sepulveda, 2012). Moreover, the length of the programs varies. Accelerator programs usually run 3 to 6 months whereas incubator programs tend to run longer and have a long-term focus, sometimes even some years (Sepulveda, 2012; Sivakumar, 2020). Another differentiation is that incubators are often funded by the government or academic institutions and are usually non-profit which is contrary to accelerators which are usually for- profit and funded by established businesses and corporations (Sivakumar, 2020).

2.3 The German Entrepreneurial Market

Audretsch and Fritsch’s study from 2002 elaborated that in the 1990s, Germany “has shifted away from the established incumbent firms [...] to entrepreneurial firms [...]” as “[...] entrepreneurship provides the engine of growth [...]” (Audretsch and Keilbach, 2004, p. 610; Geibel and Manickam, 2016, p. 639; Audretsch and Fritsch, 2003, p. 66). Germany has 2045 startups and is ranked 5th among 202 countries measured by the strength of their startup system (Semrush, 2021). Looking from a rather regional perspective, according to Malecki (1997, p. 63), “regions with high levels of entrepreneurship will tend to spawn further entrepreneurs”. In Germany, these regions are found in Berlin, Munich, Hamburg, Düsseldorf and Frankfurt (Semrush, 2021). There are incubator and accelerator programs in Germany that are rather general and others that focus on specific industries such as tech, media and food (N.A., 2020). Famous programs in Germany are ‘Next47, Next Commerce Accelerator and APX Axel Springer Porsche GmbH & Co. KG.’ (Semrush, 2021).

According to a study from Geibel and Manickam (2016) about German and American startups, there are different factors that have different importance to the startups. Looking at internal factors, German startups see more importance in the product itself, the marketing strategy and their scalability. To compare that with US startups, they believe that the overall importance is found in the co-founder, work culture and the employees. That implies that US startups focus more on the people and how to create a powerful core whereas German startups are product, idea and market-entrance oriented. Venture capitalists (see Figure 5 - Funding and Finance), which are important actors within the EE and important for startups to receive funds, see rather more importance in a strong team and are more keen to invest in a skilled crew which is diverse (Geibel and Manickam, 2016). Therefore, there is a need for German startups to build a stronger team before thinking too much about the product or idea.

Geibel and Manickam (2016) also discovered that the role of incubators and accelerators (support programs) is seen as very high in Germany and contributes to their success. As explained before, incubators and accelerators in Germany can differ in some ways. However, most of them provide a network to the startup which helps them for example to find future customers or investors. Moreover, they give workshops, office space, provide legal help and infrastructure. Compared to the models in the US, German support programs tend to be more a model of a co-working space and incubators are oftentimes state-subsidised, whereas the US versions are profit driven and therefore support the startup with the needed financial resources (Geibel and Manickam, 2016). Investors’ willingness to take risks is higher in the US than in Germany. Therefore, more capital is provided to early stage startups and the amount is usually higher than what the startups ask for. In Germany, the amount of capital provided is lacking, as the demand of financial support startups ask for is usually higher than what they actually receive (Schwarzkopf, 2016; Brandis and Whitmire, 2011).

12

Generally, the entrepreneurial culture in Germany is different than in America. Safety, slow and steady growth are important factors in the German business culture which can kill an entrepreneurial spirit and the risk-taking attitude of entrepreneurial firms when they are not supported by other actors within an ecosystem (Schwarzkopf, 2016).

For Germany to become stronger within entrepreneurship it is necessary to develop a support system which provides more financial help, connects the startups with more venture capitalists and offers mentorship from experienced founders of relevant industries (Geibel and Manickam, 2015). Moreover, increasing risk financing and an understanding of entrepreneurial culture are substantial factors, too (Schwarzkopf, 2016).

2.4 The COVID-19 Impact on German Startups

The current pandemic called COVID-19 and its effects concern the whole society as well as the economy worldwide (GDA, 2020). This surprising and unpredictable event which also brings consequences for politics and the economy with it, can metaphorically be called a ‘black swan event’ (Winston, 2020). These events can create opportunities, but with the lockdown for the society in many parts of the world, the COVID-19 situation is generally rather pointed out as a crisis than an opportunity (Kuckertz et al., 2020). Even in normal times, startups face problems with liquidity and are dependent on support and funding which affects them even more during a crisis as there are more barriers to access this help (Kuckertz et al., 2020).

On March 18th in 2020, the German chancellor Angela Merkel announced a nationwide lockdown which made the people stay at home and workwise everything possible turned remote. That includes business events which either turned remote as well or have generally not taken place. Due to a lot of suffering companies and self-employed people, the German government decided to introduce help programs to support the economy (Naumann et al., 2020; Baldwin and Weder, 2020). The support for startups includes “taxation support, state support for short hour working, improved measures at guarantee banks, as well as loans and special programs provided by KfW, a state-owned development bank” (Kuckertz et al., 2020, p. 2). Even though the German government provides help, for bureaucratic reasons it is hard for some startups to receive the help as especially early stage startups often do not meet the criterias that allow them to receive the aid-package or loans (German Startups Association, 2020a; PWC, 2020). Besides that, these startups also suffer from loss of investors or have problems finding new investors as the willingness to invest into uncertainties decreases in a crisis (German Startups Association, 2020a and 2020b). Kuckertz et al. (2020) observed that the German startups rely even more on help from their internal resources and their external resources within the EE in the current crisis situation. These include partners, the startup community and support systems such as incubators and accelerators (Kuckertz et al., 2020).

Being innovative, flexible and adaptable to changes is a startup's strength (Smallbone et al., 2012) and therefore they can adjust their business model, organizational infrastructure and change employment practices, sales, marketing and processes or even go completely into new directions with their firms to survive within the COVID-19 crisis much easier than big companies (Kuckertz et al., 2020). With the help of qualitative interviews with actors of the German EE, Kuckertz et al. (2020) discovered that there are business people within the German EE that see opportunities due to the COVID-19 crisis to solve problems by making use of

13

entrepreneurial expertise. Especially certain areas such as the development of digital work solutions or products from the medical sector are seen as emerging opportunities to employ entrepreneurial measures and therefore there is an increase of startups that develop these ideas or products (Kuckertz et al., 2020).

While the travel sector and event sector suffer from the pandemic, the online grocery sector increases. The Germans almost bought double the amount of groceries online compared to the year before the crisis (N.A., 2021). Other winners are the FoodTech sector with urban farming and software and analytics with digital solutions for instance for HR application processes or process modeling (N.A., 2021).

Nevertheless, Germany is lacking risk financing and entrepreneurial culture as entrepreneurship is not very prestigious since there is a high risk for startups to fail (Schwarzkopf, 2016; Schmidt, 2020). That implies that there are opportunities for startups in certain sectors while generally speaking it is a hard time for them and support is needed to still be innovative and be able to survive.

14

2.5 Theoretical Framework

Based on the literature review, we propose the following framework which combines the WEF’s EE, the early stage startups, the accelerators and incubators and the COVID-19 impact (see Figure 6).

Important factors of the EE that are missing and being criticised in all three relevant models are the connections between the domains and how the interaction is made (Schwarzkopf, 2016). In the following theoretical framework, these connections and interactions are illustrated by arrows. With the help of this framework, an analysis can be conducted to study how incubators and accelerators can improve the help they provide startups with consideration of the impacts of COVID-19.

Figure 6: Theoretical Framework Diagram (own construction)

15

3 Methodology

In the following chapter, we are covering all methodology related aspects from the research. With the explanation and a discussion on the research paradigm and approach, the paper lays out its research logic with a critical view on it. It further covers the collective case study strategies and the interview approach. Subsequently, analysis and research quality follow and are being clarified before ending the chapter with a short explanation of the ethics.

3.1 Research Paradigm

Historically, research has been fundamental to human progress as it inculcates scientific and inductive thinking (Nallaperumal, 2013). Collin and Hussey describe a research paradigm as the “philosophical framework that guides how scientific research should be conducted” (Collis and Hussey, 2014, p.43). They also describe the two main paradigms of Interpretivism and Positivism. In Interpretivism, more qualitative research expresses a rather subjective paradigm (Collis and Hussey, 2014). It consists of qualitative data and an inductive analyzing approach (Rehman and Khalid, 2016). On the other hand, Positivism uses deductive research that includes explanatory theory, which is usually more objective. In this case, the research can be categorized as exploratory research (Nallaperumal, 2013) as it aims at analyzing the support of incubators and accelerators for startups within the EE and the impact of COVID-19. The paradigm is a combination of Positivism and Interpretivism. This thesis focuses on exploratory qualitative data collection with a deductive reasoning approach.

3.2 Research Approach

The research approach was chosen in response to the research paradigm and the thesis objective. Qualitative or quantitative research are two basic approaches described by Nallaperumal. The qualitative approach “with a subjective assessment of attitudes” (Nallaperumal, 2013, p. 9) represents the characteristics of our research phenomenon. The analysis of incubators and accelerators within the EE as a support system is a rather subjective analysis of unpredictable circumstances and qualitative feedback due to our delimitation. As a result of that, this thesis consists of qualitative interviews with key professionals that are actively involved in the field.

Furthermore, the research approach to theory development can be classified into a deductive, an inductive, and an abductive method (Saunders et al., 2019). Abduction focuses on theory generation, whereas the inductive approach develops a theory. Deduction falsifies or verifies an existing one. As previously described in the literature review, this thesis analyzes an existing EE framework and the offerings of incubators and accelerators. Therefore, this paper applies deductive research. This is done with the qualitative data collection as a collective case study to examine the research question of the thesis.

16

3.3 Collective Case Study

There are three main types of case studies based on Stake’s work: intrinsic, instrumental and collective (Slight et al., 2011). The intrinsic case study method has a narrow focus to learn about a unique phenomenon, whereas instrumental case studies investigate a particular case with the goal to gain a broader appreciation of the research phenomenon. The collective case study becomes useful as it involves studying multiple cases simultaneously or sequentially in an attempt to generate a still broader appreciation of a particular issue (Slight et al., 2011). For this thesis, a collective case study method was chosen. This research could not be limited to one incubator or accelerator program only to accomplish meaningful results and therefore required a collective exploratory research. With the specification of the research phenomenon on the support of incubators and accelerators within the EE, the method helps to explore and investigate contemporary real-life phenomena (Zainal, 2007). It is a particularly useful method for research without clear outcomes (Baxter and Jack, 2008) and when there is only limited previous work to refer to (Collis and Hussey, 2014). Using the method enabled the research to ask questions about the general concept, and further explore the theoretical framework as well (Zainal, 2007).

To effectively analyse the current support of incubator and accelerator programs within the EE, various programs as well as startups were investigated. The research focused on companies within the German region to get a direct connection between the support programs and the startups. The EE is limited as it is defined by a network of elements that exist in certain environments such as a national market. Therefore, limiting the conducted research to a reasonable geographical scope for the EE allowed for more meaningful data. Not only getting the perspective of the incubator and accelerator programs was crucial. The collective case study included four different early-stage startups that all participated in incubator and accelerator programs throughout the pandemic. It also involved two incubator programs called Future City Incubator from Berlin and Werk X from Bochum. The accelerator program for the research was digihub from Düsseldorf. Three of the startups participated in the Future City incubator. One startup was part of the digihub accelerator. The overlap from startups and programs were chosen to receive valuable information with regards to the theoretical framework and specifically the impact of COVID-19.

3.4 Interview Approach

This research has a primary focus on qualitative data collection from exploratory interviews. The collective case study method helps to gain insights into the research phenomenon at a broader scope. It is crucial to understand that data collection is primarily used to answer the research question, and to evaluate the research outcomes (Kabir, 2016). The two main types of interviews referred to by Bolderston (2012) are synchronous or asynchronous interview techniques. In contrast to asynchronous interviews, the synchronous approach “takes place in real time using online venues such as video-conferencing” (Bolderston, 2012, p.73). This research exclusively focused on synchronous interviews in order to create an atmosphere of comfort and informality, which could ensure a better research outcome. Due to COVID-19, interviews have exclusively been held online.

17

Due to the complexity of the research and its open-ended characteristics, the focus on qualitative data results is a more time consuming and thorough process. Additionally, qualitative data collection is “normally transient, understood only within context and associated with an interpretivist methodology that usually results in findings with a high degree of validity” (Collis and Hussey, 2014, p. 130). It therefore highlights how exploratory and experimental the data collection method is (Morgan and Harmon, 2001).

Additionally, there are three major categories of interviews identified by Frances, Coughlan, and Patricica (2009): the standardized interview, the semi standardized interview and the unstandardized interview. The standardized approach limits its structure with a predefined schedule that “does not allow room for veering off the topic in question” (Frances, Coughlan and Patricia, 2009, p. 310) and the unstandardized interview is purely based on an open conversation around a topic. The semi-standardized interview category is a combination of the other two. This thesis adapted the semi-standardized approach that allows for unanticipated responses throughout the interview. This interview format enables an explorative research process while being deductive. Additionally, the one-to-one interview is a social interaction and therefore demands a working relationship between interviewer and interviewee. That also requires a comfortable setup for a successful conversation (Frances, Coughlan and Patricia, 2009). This has been achieved by proposing an in person private meeting via Zoom with an open ended timeframe.

Interviewees participated voluntarily and shared their experiences openly. Based on the research phenomenon, startup founders were selected in direct response to the incubator and accelerator programs, so that there would be a direct overlap for better data collection. All interviews lasted about an hour and allowed for interesting findings for the research.

With the focus on the collective case study method, the interview approach was divided into two separate formats. One format focused on the key professionals and decision makers at accelerator and incubator programs. The other format focused on founders of early-stage startups. Both formats followed the same approach, but with the goal to get information from different viewpoints within the EE. In total, seven interviews were conducted. Four interviews with startup founders and three interviews with incubator and accelerator programs. Both formats further consisted of at least twenty questions that stayed consistent throughout the interviews (see Appendix 1 and 2). The questions were formulated in response to the research topic and to enable subsequent information for the theoretical framework.

3.5 Data Analysis

The data for the thesis has been analyzed as described by Collis & Hussey (2014). Therefore, the approach was divided into comprehending, synthesizing, theorizing, and recontextualizing the information (Collis and Hussey, 2014). As a start, the data was structured to comprehend full understanding on the collective case study topic including the interview data. The interviewees were then codified to establish a clearer overview. For better understanding in the findings chapter, codification helped to divide the data into relevant groups (Griffee, 2005). The two interview formats were synthesized separately and laid out in the empirical findings within two main sections. Firstly, the incubator and accelerator section with seven subsections. Secondly, the startup section with three subsections. The grouping of answers enabled a meaningful understanding of the differences and the similarities for discussion in the following

18

chapter. The findings were also analyzed in comparison with the theoretical framework and the literature. Findings that did not match with the proposed framework were pointed out and the theoretical framework was modified accordingly.

3.6 Research Quality

The understanding of the research quality can be explained with the concept of validity and reliability. Firstly, validity measures the accuracy of the method and consequently defines how well the intended outcome is achieved (Kirk and Miller, 1986). As the internal validity focuses on mistakes in the analysis, double-checking the data or clearly structuring the analysis can help to reduce problems. On the other hand, external validity focuses on generalizability (Saunders et al., 2019). In this thesis, the collective case study investigates a limited number of companies of startups and support programs within the German EE that make it difficult to generalize the research thus far (Zainal, 2007). Usually, it is also more difficult to evaluate the generalizability of the research with qualitative data collection. The research and the theoretical framework need to be further validated in other contexts and regions with the collection of more data.

Secondly, reliability is another concept that determines the research quality. It measures the consistency and the credibility of the method. The method is reliable if the same outcome can be generated under the same circumstances (Kirk and Miller, 1986). The qualitative interviews of seven individual professionals is reflecting a limited research capacity and therefore has a negative impact on its reliability. Other factors include the English language during interviews that might have affected German speaking interviewees in giving cohesive answers. The interviews were voluntary and online which might have affected the reliability as well. As researchers tend to be subjective, it remains critical to stay as objective as possible during the analysis (Zainal, 2007). However, with clear data collection guidelines described in section 3.4, reliability is given as well. On top of that, the Appendix states all interview questions which further underlines the reliability of the research. With that, the same results can be achieved by other researchers if the same approach is followed. Therefore, the research can be defined as reliable.

3.7 Research Ethics

In this thesis paper, ethics guidelines have been followed as described in the book Business Research: A Practical Guide For Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students including aspects of confidentiality and privacy (Collis and Hussey, 2014, p. 31). Every interviewee has been informed about the method, approach, and goals of the research in advance (Bolderston, 2012). They were offered the ability to withdraw their interview from the paper at all times. All collaboration for this paper was entirely voluntary and at no point binding throughout the research phase. With the consent of each interviewee, names and personal information were included in the paper. One interviewee requested to stay anonymous, while the remaining six offered to be mentioned throughout the paper. This excludes any required General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules such as personal information including phone number or email address from any collaborator.

19

4 Interview Partners

In this chapter, the companies of our interview partners from the collective case study are introduced. The companies are divided into three support programs and four startups (see Chapter 3.4). All companies are active in the German market and directly connected within the EE. The seven interviews were codified to simplify the data presentation in the following chapters.

Abbreviation used in the next Company Type of Company Chapters

digihub Accelerator A1

WerkX Incubator I1

FCI/BIA Incubator I2

Keepist Startup S1

Along Startup S2

VoteRookie Startup S3

Anonymous Startup S4

Table 1: Codification of Interviewees

A1 - digihub digihub offers the startup accelerator program Ignition from Dusseldorf in Western Germany. The program is run by the agency Goalhunter and has been active since 2016. The program works with 15 startups throughout three periods per year that are located in North Rhine- Westphalia. The teams need to present an idea to get accepted. The program ends with a demo day where startups can win additional capital.

I1 - WerkX

WerkX is a young local incubator from Bochum founded in 2019. The program is located in Western Germany and has its focus on the local area. The application process goes through two main stages before acceptance and each batch supports at least two startups.

I2 - Future City Incubator (FCI)

The Future City Incubator is an incubator program from Berlin in Eastern Germany. The first batch was launched in the first quarter of 2020. The program is run by the Berlin Innovation Agency and is currently going through its second batch with a total of six teams.

20

S1 - Keepist

Keepist was founded by three co-founders in 2021. The company focuses on a reward system for sustainable products to give these brands access to more customers. As a platform, the two- sided marketplace requires Keepist to generate products from the sustainable brands that become available to end-consumers on their platform. Keepist facilitates that transaction between the two.

S2 - Along

Along was founded by two co-founders in 2020. The company offers software as a service tool for interior designers. The tool improves communication throughout projects and is a subscription based business model.

S3 - VoteRookie

Vote Rookie was founded in 2020. The company is a non-profit and community focused ambassador that supports democracy and its values. VoteRookie was founded by two co- founders and intends to build out a software as a service solution to enable online voting in the political realm.

S4 - Anonymous

This anonymous startup was founded by one founder and is a corporate benefits platform for sustainable products. As an early-stage startup, the company just recently launched and is based out of Berlin.

21

5 Empirical Findings (Data)

In the following section, the results from the collective case study will be presented. The analysis of the qualitative data from the interviews was done according to the data analysis part (see Chapter 3.5) from the methodologies section and is split into two main sections. First, the incubators and accelerators with a total of seven subdivisions. Second, the startups with three subdivisions. As seen in table 1 in the last chapter, the interviewees were categorized and coded with abbreviations for further and simplified application.

5.1 Incubators and Accelerators

As a result of the over sixty minute long interviews, two interviews with key professionals from incubators (I1 and I2) and one interview with a professional from an accelerator program (A1) have provided information about the classification of their programs, their program existence and startup requirements, their program offerings and USP, their program partners, their role within the EE, changes due to COVID-19 and future perspectives.

5.1.1 Classification of the Support Programs

First of all, the question why the program is an incubator or an accelerator program has been analyzed early in each interview. The focus on early stage startups and knowledge sharing are seen as reasons for being an incubator (I1 and I2). Also the fact that the program was made to take place before an accelerator program is another reason (I1 and I2). In fact, I2 said that “we consider ourselves as an incubator that happens before an accelerator program comes in.” Moreover, the fact that the program is governmental funded is described as the main reason for being an incubator (I1 and I2). Contrary, the accelerator program is governmental funded, too (A1). Nevertheless, it is called an accelerator program due to the short time period of five months (A1). I1 and I2 stated that their programs run a bit longer with around six and eight months. Generelly, a clear distinction between accelerators and incubators is seen as difficult (I2).

5.1.2 Program Existence and Startup Requirement

As stated before, the support programs are governmental funded. They exist as the government has the aim to create jobs and foster innovation in the city where the programs take place (A1, I1 and I2). That is why they established the support programs. Besides job creation and innovation development, the surplus funds they are using for the support programs help startups grow with the prospect of getting taxes back while the company becomes bigger (A1). This is seen as a circle approach or win-win situation for both, the government and the startups (A1). Moreover, the government wants to bring investments to North Rhine-Westphalia (A1) and wants to foster entrepreneurship in Germany and Europe (I2).

There are some requirements for the startups to be part of such a program. For all programs the requirement is that the startup is placed in the respective city (I1 and I2) or state (A1). For two

22

programs it is necessary to have a digital product (A1 and I2) whereas the third program does not limit this (I1). Specifically, A1 said that “the product must be digital but the industry does not matter except food startups are not allowed.” Two of them also have a limitation for the age of the startup which must not be older than one year (A1) or three months (I2). The size of the startup is relevant too as they only support 2+ people (A1), solopreneurs or 2-3 people (I2). Moreover, all founders must work full-time on the startups (A1, I1 and I2) and one program asks for mandatory attendance each week (I2).

5.1.3 Program Offering and USP

During the interviews with professionals from incubators and accelerators, additional questions have been asked about the offering to startups including the focus on community. This part shows the advantages a startup can have with the opportunity to become part of such a program in the early stage.

The offerings of all support programs are similar. With the power of 11 (A1), two (I2) and five (I2) people working at the support programs, they all offer office space, entry into the ecosystem, access to companies and investors, seminars and coachings and financial support for no equity. The term of funding amounts to 25.000€ as a one time payment as well as the chance to win another 25.000€ at the end for on program (A1). The other two programs (I1 and I2) offer a scholarship per founder of 1500€ per month. Nevertheless there are some restrictions regarding the money-use as for one program it is only allowed to use it for the product development and not for hardware (A1). Besides, they have unique offers such as regular exchange with alumni (I1), milestone planning (I1) and strategy sessions (I2).

Also the general offerings, the program's unique selling proposition (USP) was specifically pointed out in every interview. All of them see the entrance to their ecosystem and the financial offering as their USP (A1, I1 and I2). Another USP are their events and that they give the startups the chance to speak on big stages (A1). For I2 the USP is also” the connection through the Smart City Hub including the doors they can open for the startups within the city administration.“

5.1.4 Program Partners

Partners are important within the EE to help each other and to create value. The three support systems have different partners as they are from different regions but some are similar kinds of partners such as co-office providers (A1 and I2). Moreover all of them have partnerships with consultancy firms and their alumni startups that once joined their program and now help the new startups whenever possible (A1, I1 and I2). I2 also points out the Berlin Innovation Agency and the Smart City Hub which is a community of professionals in Berlin including people from corporates, the government and other startups, to be important partners to them. A1 also mentions big companies, like Henkel and Vodafone, which are located in their area as important partners.

23

5.1.5 The role within the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem

The opinions of the support programs differ when it comes to how they see themselves within the EE. They believe that they are not a pillar within the EE but rather connection knots within the system to link the startups with the other pillars (A1 and I1). Another perspective is that they see themselves as “Match-Makers” as they are in close contact with most of the people behind each pillar and therefore couple them (A1). Moreover they organize events where they bring all the actors (such as universities, companies, people from different industries and the startups) together and introduce them to each other or look for new future startups to join the program (A1). A different opinion is that they see themselves as a bridge, helping to close a gap between new innovation and the older established businesses and the public sector (I2).

5.1.6 Changes due to COVID-19

Before COVID-19 the support programs mostly reached out to new startups on physical events, now with the pandemic they had to change the process to scout new startups with the use of social media and even more promotion via alumnus (A1 and L1) as well as online remote networking events (L1).

The pandemic related aspects of the program’s operating structure has also been analyzed. All of them changed to an online version without in person meetings (A1, I1 and I2). Seminars, coachings, events, lunch breaks and other occasions went digital (A1, I1 and I2) and they used new software to meet in a virtual space (I1). It was a hurdle to turn digitally as they were not used to working remotely or had video calls before (A1, I1 and I2). They had to turn the whole program offering to digital which was a struggle as it was completely planned for in person (I2). They saw a difficulty to create or keep a culture and atmosphere within a virtual world (I2). Moreover, as a public-funded program, documentation and signatures are essentials and these were difficult to get due to the corona situation and that no one comes to the co-working space (I2). Moreover, they found it harder to connect with the startups and connect the startups to the network (L1). Also it is seen as more difficult to receive feedback or track the progress of the startup as the interaction with them is seen as harder (L1).

Later on, when the startups got used to working digitally, they could identify that they are working more effectively now than before COVID-19 (I2). The remote work setup has made it easier for them to share information and knowledge (I2). People have become more receptive to that. Also it creates space for people to engage more individually (I2).

To take a look at the costs of the COVID-19 impact, both incubators said that they see no increase for their costs even though everything turned digital (I1 and I2). The cost savings from office space rents were used for software or other necessary tools to implement the digital shift perfectly.

Due to the fact that all startups have been working from home due to the pandemic the accelerator (A1) sees chances to help startups in the future that have their business located a bit further away as they do not need to travel every day to the accelerators’ co-working place and can work remotely. Therefore they try to become more attractive to startups located further away.

24

5.1.7 Future Perspectives

In fact, the explanation from each interviewee about the future of their program showed more about the structural changes moving forward. Due to the COVID-19 impact and how they experienced working digitally, they want to keep some digital features such as online seminars and short video calls (A1, I1 and I2) as well as an online meeting tool they introduced during COVID-19 (I1). That is why all of them want to apply a hybrid model after the COVID-19 time to stay flexible (A1, I1 and I2). This model would be partly remote but mostly in person as they all want to go back to the co-working space (A1, I1 and I2). With the shift to a hybrid model, they try to address startups that live a bit further away in their state as it would be easier for them to join seminars (A1). Moreover, they will always keep a focus on fostering the online or virtual community to create a bigger group of people from the alumni network and external people (I2).

Beyond that, an increasing number of accelerator and incubator programs are stepping into the market (A1) due to the fact that the government releases more funds for entrepreneurship (I2). Nevertheless, this growth is not seen for privately funded incubator or accelerator programs from corporates as their support programs did not turn out the results they wanted to see and there is rather a trend for them to go into a venture capital format (I2). Moreover, remote incubator and accelerator programs are not seen as a threat for their programs in the future due to the fact that startups that join the non remote programs value the co-working space and the connection with people in person (A1 and I1).

Another future perspective is that they want to support the startups in a better way by offering more individual coachings which require more employees that they do not have at the moment (I2). Moreover, they would like to connect the startups to more venture capitals (I1 and I2) but the ecosystem in Berlin is not seen as strong enough right now and investments are not as high as needed (I2). There is a limited number for investments compared to the number of programs (I2). Besides, there is still a cultural gap concerning entrepreneurship in Germany and therefore the image of the startup world must increase (I1 and I2).

Finally, another way for the future can be to get more focused within the program, for instance pick one industry to support the startups in the best possible way and become experts within a field (A1).

5.2 Startups

Findings regarding the experience of four early stage startups with incubator and accelerator programs have been collected throughout the interviews. Additionally, the interviews included specific questions about the needed changes based on the individual feedback of each interviewee. The results are presented with a focus on the program experience and the importance of the support programs. The section concludes with the changes derived from COVID-19.

All four startups have experience with support programs. One startup (S1) participated in two accelerator programs, digihub and another one called Startplatz. Three of the other startups (S2, S3, S4) all participated in the Future City Incubator before joining other programs as well. Two of them (S2, S4) also mentioned the participation in the accelerator program of Axel Springer

25

and Porsche called APX. All programs that the startups participated in were mainly government funded except from APX.

5.2.1 Program Experience

The program experience of the startups was measured by the feedback considering the program offerings and the startup’s goal before joining. Interestingly, program offerings mainly consist of various types of access such as office space or network. All four startups (S1, S2, S3, S4) agreed on benefits that were provided. There was consistent feedback about the success in getting access to office space and the access to people in the industry. However, there was misalignment on the experience around the following aspects.

The program support revolves around the personalization for startups. Some programs market themselves as being tailormade like APX, which seemed to offer on-demand support. Two of the startups (S1, S4) mentioned that the programs they joined gave mandatory lectures that were not necessarily relevant for their companies. S4 also mentioned that they partly felt like they received input from unqualified individuals throughout the programs. One startup (S3) specifically said that the support lacked specific input on their needs, while another startup (S2) mentioned that the given input was essential for their business to grow.

Throughout the program duration, the startups shared their experience about the program schedules. One startup (S4) shared that a lot of mandatory meetings acted as a distraction and that the program was too time consuming. S4 specifically pointed out that there were “a lot of unnecessary meetings that keep you from building our company.” The feedback was shared across almost all startups that felt like the program schedule caused confusion or was too generic. They wished for more on-demand support rather than a predefined schedule. One startup (S1) specifically shared that some mandatory seminars were canceled on the same day with short notice. That messed up their productivity and they wished for better communication. Though, the startup also mentioned the positive aspect of being able to sign up to a seminar in advance. Another startup (S2) pointed out that the experience at APX was different, because mandatory meetings were decreased to a weekly check-in call only. Therefore, the schedule was almost completely independent from the program.

Each of the programs offered a mentorship or coaching component that intends to give the startups hands-on experience and feedback. Throughout the interviews, one startup (S2) pointed out that “sometimes the mentoring was more confusing than actually helpful.” As every company focused on a different market with a different business model, the focus on one coach across all startups did not provide the necessary feedback or expertise. Another startup (S4) mentioned that the access to specific expertise was given at times and that they specifically benefited from legal help during fundraising. Another startup (S1) pointed out that the different perspective from the program of digihub helped them get ideas for their business.

It is hugely important for a lot of early-stage startups to find access to fundraising opportunities. The incubator and accelerator programs offer some capital opportunities and provide additional access to networks within the EE. However, not every startup confirmed the success of those support programs to deliver here. S4 mentioned that the incubator program had “little to no fundraising help.” But, they also said that fundraising was a major benefit of the accelerator program at APX. The program had an incentive to help with fundraising as an active

26

shareholder of each company they support. The feedback from startups (S1, S2, S3) highlighted that all government funded programs did not directly engage in fundraising and only partly opened up opportunities to get more access to capital.

Another big factor of the support programs is their community. As the community is defined by the network of the incubators or accelerators, one startup (S1) specifically pointed out that the size of the network had a direct impact on their ability to achieve their goals. Another startup (S3) pointed out that especially the Future City Incubator enabled local connections. That was also confirmed by one more startup (S2) that mentioned local access to the government was primarily given through the FCI. The diverse fellow startups in the program of the FCI was also pointed out by one startup (S3) to be a positive factor for the community during the program.

The lifetime of a startup usually spans over a much longer period of time than the participation in an incubator or accelerator program. In order for the programs to add significant value, they need to ensure post program engagement and benefits. As all four startups (S1, S2, S3, S4) are early-stage, the post engagement with the programs was pretty recent. However, it already showed that the engagement was alumni dependent. For one startup (S2) the “self-organized alumni meetings created the most value and shape the community at the moment.” Two of the other startups (S3, S4) mentioned that post program feedback is given via Slack groups and direct contact information to the program organizers.

A few specific comments throughout the interviews gave interesting insights into the program experience of startups in general. Two startups (S2, S4) specifically pointed out the focus on building their actual company over participation in the program as being the biggest learning factor. Even more important than the program offerings is the actual resilience of the founding team as mentioned by one startup (S2). With all the uncertainties in the early stage, the business concept can change a lot. The startup (S2) further touched on several pivots throughout the pandemic that forced the founders to make tough decisions. The experience was never easy and the founders needed to stay positive during hard times.

5.2.2 Importance of Support Programs

The importance of the support programs was specifically touched on in every single interview. All four startups (S1, S2, S3, S4) agreed that the financial support enabled them to get started in the first place. One startup (S4) pointed out specifically that keeping the company alive throughout the pandemic was only possible with the support programs. Two startups (S1, S3) described the support programs as an entry point to the ecosystem that allowed them to get access to a network they did not have before. Even if the startup shared a critical view about some parts of the programs, the support system functioned as a door opener for them within the field of entrepreneurship. The same was shared by two other startups (S2, S4) that described the programs to be an ideal fit for inexperienced founders and early-stage ideas. Both needed help and guidance to be successful, which is provided by incubators and accelerators. For the other startup (S3) the acceptance to the FCI was the reason for the team to get started, which would have not been possible otherwise.

The startups (S1, S2, S4) also shared that joining another program would be dependent on the offerings. They would rather join a shorter accelerator program without the mandatory and

27

predefined schedules in the future. Two startups (S2, S4) pointed out the financial support being imperative for the decision. The startup (S4) made clear that joining another support program would only be considered if the team had no experience in the industry. Otherwise, the startups (S1, S4) would look for funding directly rather than going through another program.

5.2.3 Changes due to COVID-19

With the impact of COVID-19, incubator and accelerator programs had to adapt basically over night. The startups (S1, S2, S3, S4) describe the changes as a new experience of working hybrid. A lot of the program meetings were moved online and held via Zoom. One startup (S1) described the difficulties of online seminars that lasted six hours, which made it hard to form real relationships with fellow startups in the program. The feedback varied, but had a lot of similarities in the answers of three startups (S1, S2, S4) that criticized the lack of physical interaction to meet people. For another startup (S2), the benefits of the changes from COVID- 19 could be a potential. A more cross-border exchange with other startups could be offered as they could now join the same program. The same startup highlighted that it would be useful for international expansion as the relationships might be more useful than solely offering local programs.

28

6 Discussion and Analysis

After the review of the empirical findings and the examination against the reviewed literature in chapter 2 with the theoretical framework, the following chapter discusses and lays out the results. This chapter is structured into two main parts. Firstly, the discussion starts with the role of incubator and accelerator programs within the EE. Secondly, the chapter analyses the program support and the COVID-19 impact. The updated theoretical framework (see Figure 7) is impacted by the results of the empirical findings and further explained in this discussion.

Figure 7: Updated Theoretical Framework Diagram (own construction)

6.1 Accelerators and Incubators within the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem

The role of incubators and accelerators was explained in the literature review in chapter 2.2. As a key finding from the interviews, literature and reality tend to differ. Moreover, an important part seems to be missing within the EE.

29

As already stated, the terms accelerators and incubators are not sharply differentiated from each other and are overlapping (Drori and Wright, 2018; Sivakumar, 2020; Sepulveda, 2012). This was also revealed in the interviews by the support programs - the accelerator is governmental funded and the incubator programs run less than a year. Another finding is that all support programs provide entrance to the EE and state it as their USP. The connection between support systems and the EE was already visualized before in figure 6. All startups agreed and saw an importance in the support programs to receive access to the EE to get started with their ideas and to connect with all the other pillars. This matches with the study of Geibel and Manickam (2016).

However, the support systems see themselves rather as connection knots, Match-Makers or a bridge than a separate pillar as illustrated in the WEF EE (WEF, 2013). That underlines the critiques the WEF EE receives concerning the missing connections and relationships between the pillars (Schwarzkopf, 2016). Governmentally, there is a need for incubator and accelerator programs as all support programs state that their background for existence is to bring investments, jobs and innovation to their areas. That coincides with the statement that “entrepreneurship provides the engine of growth” (Audretsch and Keilbach, 2004, p. 610). Nevertheless, it became obvious from the incubator interviews that the EE in Germany lacks infrastructure to offer the necessary support, especially financially. The entrepreneurial culture is not as accepted as for instance the entrepreneurial culture in the US which was also reflected by the literature (Schwarzkopf, 2016). The support programs confirmed the importance of partners and their connection to them as they are in contact with a lot of different actors from the EE to help the startups in the best possible way. Nevertheless, they limit the access for different startups when they only focus on specific types such as digital startups.

6.2 Program Support and the COVID-19 impact

All startups mentioned that they were even more dependent on the financial support during the pandemic (see Chapter 5.2.2). Apart from that, the program support has been looked at critically in the literature review, which has been confirmed throughout the interviews with direct feedback from startups.

6.2.1 Program Support

The program offerings were stated throughout the interviews and concluded to consist of various benefits such as office space, mentorship, network and access to capital. The same has been confirmed in the literature review already and therefore only undermined that the support programs function as a bridge for startups into the EE (Schwarzkopf, 2016). The startups therefore get access as shown in the theoretical framework.

However, integrating the feedback from the startup interviews is partly required to update the theoretical framework. As highlighted in Chapter 5.2.1, the founders team have a significant role in early-stage startups. With a lot of uncertainties in the early stage of a company, a business idea can change. It is highly important to stay open for pivots. Only resilient founders can take the pressure as an entrepreneur to take advantage of the opportunity within the support programs. The importance of founders and how American investors prioritize that over a

30

business idea was discussed before (Geibel and Manickam, 2016). The findings support the advanced American approach. Therefore, the theoretical framework has been updated to include a field for startup founders specifically (see Figure 7).

Additionally, the incubator and accelerator programs market their offerings as benefits, which has partly been criticized by the startups. Mentorship is necessary and helpful but has not been implemented successfully considering the feedback from the startups (S2, S3). It would be advised that the support programs implement a feedback formular to improve their offering with a questionnaire that could be filled out by each startup at the end of the program. That would allow incubators and accelerators to reevaluate their offerings for optimization. The miscommunication about the offering also applies to the access to network and capital, where startups shared the experience. Specifically, the incubator programs participated partially during fundraising. Only the privately funded accelerator APX that actually takes equity in the company helped significantly with fundraising and individualized mentorship. Becoming an active shareholder in the startups expanded the offering of the support programs beyond the program duration, especially with regards to fundraising. The startup lifetime usually extends far beyond the participation in the support programs and therefore benefits more from the active involvement of the accelerator.

The most valuable offering revolves around the access to capital for startups upon joining the programs. Incubators and accelerators both offer some capital for startups but sometimes even limit how it is spent. With the financial support for founders in the form of scholarships, company related expenses were not covered and might be lacking. In other cases, the capital could only be allocated to certain product related developments. This is reflective of the German market where risk capital for startups is more controlled and limited compared to the United States (Schwarzkopf, 2016; Brandis and Whitmire, 2011). Therefore, adjustments to the restrictions around offered capital could provide a more dynamic program experience for startups. Extending the focus on providing more access to capital directly within the program and beyond would be an increased support benefit.

The incubator and accelerator programs from the research created generic and predefined schedules that resulted in critical feedback from the startups. The feedback made clear that the different needs of each startup required personalization. The less restrictive schedule would allow for startups to be more focused and productive. As described in chapter 5.2.1, program personalization is crucial to avoid unqualified feedback to startups and the focus on providing help on-demand. The programs offer access to various stakeholders within the EE, which has different requirements for each startup, especially in the early stage. Some might need legal help for fundraising, while another needs access to local contacts in the government.

As a result of the program experience from startups, joining another incubator or accelerator program was questioned. With the current structure, startups shared their feedback of these programs to be useful for first time founders. However, programs seem repetitive. The access to capital was the most valuable offering as it was easy to get after a short application process. That questions the effectiveness of the support programs fundamentally as they expect to offer a variety of things that are of value to startups, not just capital.

31

6.2.2 Impact of COVID-19

The impact of COVID-19 has forced incubator and accelerator programs to adapt remote work structures that were not part of the programs before. While some personal connection is falling short with the online seminars, one incubator shared that the startups were more effective working remotely during the pandemic (see Chapter 5.1.6). Though, the experience of interacting with people in person could not be replicated online and has to come back in the long run. They also pointed out that the office space remains a crucial part of the offering and stays a necessary aspect of the support programs. Also, external dependencies have become a problem during COVID-19, as one incubator program shared the importance of physical administrative work that involved the startups. The external factors and the focus on local development do not allow some support programs to go fully remote. The new hybrid model of remote and in person structures has received positive feedback and is here to stay.

On top of that, the findings also reflect general changes within the workplace affected by COVID-19 that should be highlighted. The findings compare changes throughout the last year impacting the way we interact in the workplace as described above. All startups collectively agreed that the fully remote experience has lacked real life connection. The findings therefore support the general consensus of the workplace to become a hybrid model where both, online and offline, have reason to exist.

The findings show that the incubator programs, especially the FCI, have been hugely important for the survival of some of the interviewed startups throughout the pandemic. It was further explained by one startup that the founders had to pivot multiple times to adapt to the uncertain and incredible changes the world has been forced into, which was possible with the incubator backing and anticipates the potential for new business models to emerge. The paper therefore highlights the direct correlation between entrepreneurship of startups and its potential through the support programs as reflected in the findings. As already described in the literature review, the crisis could increase entrepreneurial endeavors in medical science related fields (Kuckertz et al., 2020). These changes could have a long-term effect across other industries as well. Since the outcome of the pandemic is still very uncertain with its impact on various other life forms, the support systems have proven to enable the survival of young companies that might create significant value in the future. This remains yet to be seen, but a potential that has become clear from the data and the literature review.

With the impact of COVID-19, incubators and accelerators also have the potential to extend their reach and network beyond its geographical location. The pandemic has forced everyone into forming relationships digitally, which is an opportunity for these programs to build upon, so that they increase the networking opportunities and their community nationwide and potentially even globally, if the program structure allows that.

The COVID-19 impact is suggesting to reevaluate part of the support system’s offerings to startups. The most significant impact relates to the offering of office space and community, that had been rethought during the pandemic. All interviewees referred to the changes here, but criticized its success partly. The need for new tools and softwares to improve the demanding changes in how people come together digitally within the support systems was essential and remains to be improved still. COVID-19 has also tested the resilience of incubator and accelerator programs that the findings describe as successful. The programs have proven to provide necessary support that is potentially only increasing as the pandemic continues to slow down the economy.

32

7 Conclusion

7.1 Answering the Research Question

This thesis paper addressed the research objective: Analysing the framework of how incubators and accelerators provide access for startups within the entrepreneurship ecosystem impacted by COVID-19. Further, it responded to the research question:

How can incubator and accelerator programs change the support for startups within the entrepreneurial ecosystem considering the impact of COVID-19?

Additionally, the development of a theoretical framework has been created in response to the discussed theory in the literature review and with the empirical findings from the collective case study.

All in all, this paper contributes to the field of entrepreneurship with its focus on the support of incubator and accelerator programs for startups within the entrepreneurship ecosystem impacted by COVID-19. By analysing the framework with a collective case study method, the research has been conducted for incubators and accelerators to evaluate their offerings and for entrepreneurs that want to know more. Consequently, the thesis paper helps the theory around entrepreneurship and its ecosystem for further research.

The results showed that incubator and accelerator programs have a variety of opportunities to change their support for startups within the EE considering the impact of COVID-19. The support programs defined various offerings that are provided to startups to get access within the EE. As the findings showed the importance of the founders team in early-stage startups, the theoretical framework was updated (see Figure 7). Firstly, programs need to implement feedback cycles regularly for instance through a questionnaire in order to optimize their offering. This has become clear after receiving feedback from startups about the weak mentorship and coaching sessions. The program structure was criticized with a lack of program personalization and the missing flexibility in the schedule. Both would need to be addressed by offering help on-demand to change the program support. With capital support being the most relevant offering to startups, incubators and accelerators need to prioritize an increase of capital deployed in the short-term or by offering more help during fundraising. One way to ensure that the fundraising help is given is to become an active shareholder in the startups like the accelerator APX does. That solves the problem of too little support from the programs in regards to the actual lifetime of the startups and changes the support. On top of that, COVID- 19 has brought significant changes to the way the incubator and accelerator programs are run. However, the well-tested hybrid model offering a flexible remote and in person program has received positive feedback from the startups. It has increased the productivity for some teams and therefore a hybrid program should be considered for an after COVID-19 situation (see Chapter 5.1.6). Moreover it can attract more startups that are located further away. Another opportunity for a change due to the COVID-19 impact is the usage of different kinds of softwares to provide online gatherings and connect startups and alumni more efficiently in a way to ensure a better interaction in a remote or hybrid program.

33

7.2 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research

The thesis focuses specifically on German startups, incubators and accelerators. With this limitation made, the findings might not be applicable for other countries. Additionally, with the limited data set and the subjective answers by the interviewees, it cannot be said if the findings apply also in other regions or cities within Germany. With COVID-19 being a black swan event (Winston, 2020), further changes on the German entrepreneurial market can be seen as unpredictable. However, the research creates a basis for further studies for other areas within Germany or other types of incubator or accelerator programs which are governmental or privately funded. Therefore, a quantitative approach could be taken into account to analyse more data for a more significant result and a broader view. Moreover, further study could use this thesis’ adjusted framework to compare it with other markets to study whether the framework is valid for their area, too. It would also be interesting how the support for startups is being handled in other regions or countries and how they handled the COVID-19 impact as well as how they intend to offer the best possible support. Another topic for further research is the EE. The literature review showed a model with space for improvement which also got validated by the interviewees as they saw themselves not as a pillar but as the connection knots within the EE.

34

References

Albert, P. and Gaynor, L., 2000. Incubators-growing up, moving out: A review of the literature. ARPENT: Annual review of progress in entrepreneurship, 1, p.158.

Al-Mubaraki, H., Busler, M., 2011. The Development of Entrepreneurial Companies through Business Incubator Programs. [Online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215477335_The_Development_of_Entrepreneurial _Companies_through_Business_Incubator_Programs (Accessed: 30 April 2021).

Audretsch, D.B. and Fritsch, M., 2002. Growth regimes over time and space. Regional studies, 36(2), pp.113-124.

Audretsch, D.B. and Fritsch, M., 2003. Linking entrepreneurship to growth: The case of West Germany. Industry and Innovation, 10(1), pp.65-73.

Audretsch, D.B. and Keilbach, M., 2004. Entrepreneurship and regional growth: an evolutionary interpretation. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14(5), pp.605-616.

Baldwin, R.E. and Weder, B. eds., 2020. Mitigating the COVID economic crisis: Act fast and do whatever it takes. CEPR Press.

Baxter, P. and Jack, S., 2008. Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers. [Online] Available at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1573&context=tqr (Accessed 19 May 2021).

Bliemel, M., Flores, R., De Klerk, S., Miles, M., 2018. Accelerators as start-up infrastructure for entrepreneurial clusters. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development [Online]. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328503829_Accelerators_as_start- up_infrastructure_for_entrepreneurial_clusters (Accessed: 8 May 2021).

Bolderston, A., 2012. Conducting a Research Interview. [Online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257735505_Conducting_a_Research_Interview (Accessed: 28 April 2021).

Brandis, H. and Whitmire, J., 2011. Turning Venture Capital Data into Wisdom: Why returns in Europe are now outpacing the US. Earlybird Europe Venture Capital Report, 28.

Bundesverband Deutsche Startups e.V. Auswirkung der Corona-Krise auf das Startup- Ökosystem (Impact of the Corona crisis on the startup ecosystem). [Online] Available at: https://deutschestartups.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/20200331_Report_Startups-in-der- Corona-Krise.pdf. (Accessed: 26 April 2021).

Chan, C. S., Patel, P., Phan, P., 2020. Do differences among accelerators explain differences in the performance of member ventures? Evidence from 117 accelerators in 22 countries. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. [Online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340161621_Do_differences_among_accelerators_e

35

xplain_differences_in_the_performance_of_member_ventures_Evidence_from_117_accelera tors_in_22_countries (Accessed: 30 April 2021).

Cohen, S. and Hochberg, Y.V., 2014. Accelerating startups: The seed accelerator phenomenon.

Collis, J. and Hussey, R. 2014. Business research: A practical guide for undergraduate & postgraduate students (Fourth Edition), New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Darlin, D., 2006. The iPod Ecosystem. [Online] Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/03/technology/03ipod.html?ex=&_r=0 (Accessed, 10 April, 2021).

Djankov, S., 2020. Europe's pandemic price tag to keep firms afloat. Testimony before the members of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) of the European Parliament. [Online] Available at: https://www.piie.com/commentary/testimonies/europes- pandemic-price-tag-keep-firms-afloat (Accessed: 15 May 2021).

Drori, I., & Wright, M. (2018). Accelerators: Characteristics, trends and the new entrepreneurial ecosystem. In Accelerators. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Frances, R., Coughlan, M. and Patricia, C., 2009. Interviewing in qualitative research. [Online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261471599_Interviewing_in_qualitative_research (Accessed: 28 April 2021).

GDA (Global Data Analysis), 2020. Coronavirus (COVID-19) Executive Briefing. Global Data.

Geibel, R.C. and Manickam, M., 2016. Comparison of selected startup ecosystems in Germany and in the USA Explorative analysis of the startup environments. GSTF Journal on Business Review (GBR), 4(3).

German Startups Association, 2020a. Ein ganzheitlicher Schutzschirm für Startups: Liquiditätsengpässe verhindern, Zukunftsperspektiven erhalten (A holistic protection shield for start-ups: Prevent liquidity bottlenecks, preserve future opportunities). [Online] Available at: https://deutschestartups.org/wp- content/uploads/2020/03/20200319_SchutzschirmfuerStartups_StartupVerband.pdf. (Accessed: 26 April 2021).

German Startups Association, 2020b. Auswirkung der Corona-Krise auf das Startup- Ökosystem (Impact of the corona crisis on the startup ecosystem). [Online] Available at: https://deutschestartups.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/20200331_Report_Startups-in-der- Corona-Krise.pdf (Accessed: 05 May 2021).

Gonzalez-Uribe and Leatherbee, 2018. The Effects of Business Accelerators on Venture Performance: Evidence from Start-Up Chile. Review of Financial Studies. [Online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324981985_The_Effects_of_Business_Accelerators _on_Venture_Performance_Evidence_from_Start-Up_Chile (Accessed: 15 May 2021).

36

Griffee, D.T. (2005). Research Tips: Interview Data Collection. Journal of Developmental Education, 28(3), 36.

Hansen, M.T., Chesbrough, H.W., Nohria, N., Sull, D.N., 2000. Networked Incubators: Hot houses of the new economy. Harvard Business Review (September–October), 74–83.

Isabelle, D., Del Sarto, N., 2020. How Can Accelerators in South America Evolve to Support Start-Ups in a Post-COVID-19 World? [Online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345779607_How_Can_Accelerators_in_South_Am erica_Evolve_to_Support_Start-Ups_in_a_Post-COVID-19_World (Accessed: 15 May 2021).

Isenberg, D., 2010. The Big Idea: How to Start an Entrepreneurial Revolution. [Online] Available at: https://hbr.org/2010/06/the-big-idea-how-to-start-an-entrepreneurial-revolution (Accessed: 30 April 2021).

Isenberg, D., 2011. The entrepreneurship ecosystem strategy as a new paradigm for economic policy: Principles for cultivating entrepreneurship. Presentation at the Institute of International and European Affairs, 1, p.13.

Isenberg, D. (2014). What an entrepreneurship ecosystem actually is. [Online] Available at: https://hbr.org/2014/05/what-an-entrepreneurial-ecosystem-actually-is. (Accessed: 18 April , 2021).

Jax, K., 2004. Haben Ökosysteme eine Eigenart? Gedanken zur Rolle des Eigenart-Begriffs in naturwissenschaftlich geprägten Naturschutzdiskussionen (Do ecosystems have a characteristic of their own? Thoughts on the role of the concept of characteristic in discussions on nature conservation shaped by natural sciences). Hamburg University Press.

Kabir, S., 2016. Methods of Data Collection. [Online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325846997_METHODS_OF_DATA_COLLECTI ON (Accessed: 30 April 2021).

Kirk, D. and Miller, M., 1986. Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. [Online] Available at: https://books.google.se/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=YDFZlq_KM88C&oi=fnd&pg=PA5&dq=Kirk #v=onepage&q=Kirk&f=false [Accessed 19 May 2021].

Kuckertz, A., Brändle, L., Gaudig, A., Hinderer, S., Reyes, C.A.M., Prochotta, A., Steinbrink, K.M. and Berger, E.S., 2020. Startups in times of crisis–A rapid response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 13.

Mader, S., 2011. Concepts of Biology 2nd ed., McGraw Hill.

Malecki, E. J., 1997. Entrepreneurs, Networks, and Economic Development. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth 3, 57–118.

Mason, C. and Brown, R., 2014. Entrepreneurial ecosystems and growth oriented entrepreneurship. Final report to OECD, Paris, 30(1), pp.77-102.

37

Merriam-Webster, 2011. System. Merriam-Webster. [Online] Available at: http://www.merriam webster.com/dictionary/system. (Accessed: 10 April, 2021).

Moore, J.F., 1993. Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition. Harvard business review, 71(3), pp.75-86.

Morant-Martínez, O., Santandreu-Mascarell, C., Canós-Darós, L., Roig, J., 2019. Ecosystem Model Proposal in the Tourism Sector to Enhance Sustainable Competitiveness. [Online] Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/23/6652/htm (Accessed: 15 May 2021).

Morgan, G. and Harmon, R., 2001. Data Collection Techniques. [Online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11842651_Data_Collection_Techniques (Accessed: 30 April 2021).

Semrush, 2021. Startupblink.com. [Online] Available at: https://www.startupblink.com/startups/germany (Accessed: May 11 2021).

N.A., 2020. Top Startup accelerators, incubators and VCs in Germany. [Online] Available at: https://incubatorlist.com/top-startup-accelerators-incubators-and-vcs-in-germany/ (Accessed: 10 May, 2021).

N.A., 2021. German Start-ups Attract More Funding during Corona Crisis Year. [Online] Available at: https://www.gtai.de/gtai-en/invest/industries/german-start-ups-attract-more- funding-during-corona-crisis-year-650696#toc-anchor--1 (Accessed: 02 June 2021).

Nallaperumal, K., 2013. Engineering Research Methodology A Computer Science and Engineering and Information and Communication Technologies Perspective. 1st ed. Tirunelveli: Manonmaniam Sundaranar University. [Online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259183120 (Accessed: 30 April 2021).

Naudé, W., 2020. Entrepreneurial Recovery from COVID-19: Decentralization, Democratization, Demand, Distribution, and Demography. Institute of Labor Economics

Naumann, E., Möhring, K., Reifenscheid, M., Wenz, A., Rettig, T., Lehrer, R., Krieger, U., Juhl, S., Friedel, S., Fikel, M. and Cornesse, C., 2020. COVID‐19 policies in Germany and their social, political, and psychological consequences. European Policy Analysis, 6(2), pp.191-202.

Neck, H.M., Meyer, G.D., Cohen, B. and Corbett, A.C., 2004. An entrepreneurial system view of new venture creation. Journal of small business management, 42(2), pp.190-208.

Oecd.org. 2018. Inclusive Entrepreneurship Policies: Country Assessment Notes. [Online] Available at: https://www.oecd.org/cfe/smes/GERMANY-IE-Country-Note-2018.pdf (Accessed 19 May 2021).

Pahuja, D., 2015. Introduction to Entrepreneurship. [Online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301659818_Introduction_to_Entrepreneurship (Accessed 19 May 2021).

38

Pauwels, C., Clarysse, B., Wright, M., & Van Hove, J., 2016. Understanding a new generation incubation model: The accelerator. Technovation, 50, 13-24.

PWC (PricewaterhouseCoopers GmbH), 2020. Finanzielle Unterstützung in der Covid-19 Krisenlage - Factsheet für Startups und KMUs (Financial support in the Covid-19 crisis situation - Factsheet for start-ups and SMEs). [Online] Available at: https://www.pwc.de/de/startups/finanzielle-unterstuetzung-von-startups-und-kmu-in-der- covid-19-krisenlage.pdf. (Accessed: 30 April 2021).

Rangaswami, M.R., Prahalad, C.K., Nidumolu, R., 2009. Why Sustainability Is Now the Key Driver of Innovation. [Online] Available at: https://hbr.org/2009/09/why-sustainability-is- now-the-key-driver-of-innovation (Accessed: 30 April 2021).

Ratten, V., 2020. Coronavirus (covid-19) and entrepreneurship: changing life and work landscape. [Online] Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08276331.2020.1790167 (Accessed: 15 May 2021).

Rehman, A. and Alharthi, K., 2016. An introduction to research paradigms. [Online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325022648_An_introduction_to_research_paradig ms (Accessed: 30 April 2021).

Rothschild, M., 1992. Bionomics: Economy as ecosystem.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A. and Bristow, A., 2019. "Research Methods for Business Students" Chapter 4: Understanding research philosophy and approaches to theory development. [Online] ResearchGate. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330760964_Research_Methods_for_Business_Stud ents_Chapter_4_Understanding_research_philosophy_and_approaches_to_theory_developme nt (Accessed: 30 April 2021).

Schmidt, J., 2020. Making the Leap to Entrepreneurship. [Online] Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2020/04/making-the-leap-to-entrepreneurship (Accessed 19 May 2021).

Schwarzkopf, C., 2016. Fostering innovation and entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial ecosystem and entrepreneurial fundamentals in the USA and Germany. Springer.

Sepulveda, F., 2012. The difference between a business accelerator and a business incubator?. Inc. Web, 31, pp.1-14.

Shwetzer, C., Maritz, A. and Nguyen, Q., 2019. Entrepreneurial ecosystems: A holistic and dynamic approach. Journal of Industry-University Collaboration.

Sivakumar, B. (2020) Accelerator vs. Incubator: A comprehensive comparison [Online] Available at: https://www.feedough.com/accelerator-vs-incubator/ (Accessed: 10 April, 2021).

39

Slight, S., Cresswell, K., Robertson, A. and Huby, G., 2011. The Case Study Approach. [Online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51252479_The_Case_Study_Approach (Accessed: 30 April 2021).

Smallbone, D., Deakins, D., Battisti, M., Kitching, J., 2012. Small business responses to a major economic downturn: empirical perspectives from New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Int. Small Bus. J. 30, 754–777.

Smith, D. J. and Zhang, M. (2012). Introduction: The Evolution of the Incubator Concept. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation. 13(4), pp. 227–234.

Spilling, O., 1996. The Entrepreneurial System – On Entrepreneurship in the Context of a Mega Event. Journal of Business Research, (36(1)), pp.91–103.

Stam, E. and van de Ven, A., 2019. Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements. Small Business Economics, pp.1-24.

Tansley, A., 1935. The use and abuse of vegetational terms and concepts. Ecology, 16(3), pp.284–307.

United Nations, n.d.. Sustainable Development Goals [Online]. Available at: https://www.un-page.org/page-and-sustainable-development-goals. (Accessed: 06 April 2021).

Van de Ven, H., 1993. The development of an infrastructure for entrepreneurship. Journal of Business venturing, 8(3), pp.211-230.

Varadarajan, R., 2015. Innovating for sustainability: a framework for sustainable innovations and a model of sustainable innovations orientation. [Online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283029182_Innovating_for_sustainability_a_frame work_for_sustainable_innovations_and_a_model_of_sustainable_innovations_orientation (Accessed: 30 April 2021).

WEF, 2011. Accelerating Entrepreneurship in the Arab World. [Online] Available at: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_YGL_AcceleratingEntrepreneurshipArabWorld_Repor t_2011.pdf. (Accessed: 10 April, 2021).

WEF, 2013. Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Around the Globe and Company Growth Dynamics. Report summary for the annual meeting of the new champions 2013. [Online] Available at: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_EntrepreneurialEcosystems_Report_2013.pdf (Accessed: 30 March, 2021).

Winston, A., 2020. Is the COVID-19 Outbreak a Black Swan or the New Normal? [Online] Available at: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/is-the-covid-19-outbreak-a-black-swan-or- the-new-normal/ (Accessed: 25 April 2021).

Wise, S., & Valliere, D. (2014). The impact on management experience on the performance of start-ups within accelerators. The Journal of Private Equity, 18(1), 9-19.

40

Yatsiv, Y., 2020. The Top 4 Startup Accelerators: Is Y Combinator Still the Best? [Online] Available at: https://hackernoon.com/the-top-4-startup-accelerators-is-y-combinator-still-the- best-co483w3u (Accessed: 15 May 2021).

Zainal, Z., 2007. Case study as a research method. [Online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/41822817_Case_study_as_a_research_method (Accessed: 30 April 2021).

41

Appendix

Appendix 1: Interview Guide for Incubator and Accelerator Interviews

Name of Interviewer: Name of Interviewee: Name of Company: Type of Company:

(ask if interviewee wants to be named in the paper / ask if interview can be recorded) ______

1. Introduce yourself and the accelerator/incubator program? [name of accelerator]?

2. Are you an incubator or accelerator? why? How would you define it?

3. What do you offer startups?

4. What is the USP of your program? What makes your program special?

5. How does a startup qualify to be part of your program? Do you focus on certain startup backgrounds or industries?

6. How do you reach startups?

7. Is there a threat for your program due to everything going remote and it is easier to connect to other startups even without the help of your program?

8. Why not choose a remote incubator?

9. What do people value about your program?

10. Who owns or funds your program? Private/Governmental?

11. What does the accelerator/incubator team look like? How big is it?

12. Who are your partners for the program?

13. How would you explain the partnership?

14. Why does your program exist?

15. How would you describe the role of your program within the entrepreneurial ecosystem? (The relevance of a program like yours?)

16. How will the role of incubators and accelerators evolve in the next decade? Also in response to COVID-19? (In the next 5 years) 17. How will remote work change the workplace in general and how in response to your job/role?

42

18. What would you change about the program you work for?

19. Is the entrepreneurial ecosystem in your area seen as strong or what could be improved?

20. How can you support startups remotely?

21. What has changed with Corona and the way you operate?

22. How will the changes adapt after COVID?

23. What is the cost structure like?

24. Did the cost structure change because you mostly work remote now? Do you save money or invest more in other areas?

25. How do you foster and build community?

26. What is the biggest takeaway from COVID-19/ What do you want to keep from this time? What positive aspects are there?

43

Appendix 2: Interview Guide for Startups Interviews Name of Interviewer: Name of Interviewee: Name of Company: Type of Company:

(ask if interviewee wants to be named in the paper / ask if interview can be recorded) ______

1. What does your company do? What is the business model?

2. What is the background of your startup? How old is your company?

3. How big is your startup?

4. Do you work remotely? Why or why not?

5. Do you operate regional, national or international?

6. What type of support program (incubator and accelerator programs) did you go through to start your business?

7. What was the name of the company that offered the program / name of the program?

8. Was it funded by the government or a company? Which one?

9. What was the deal to get into the program? Equity?

10. Can you explain the process of the program and the duration?

11. Was it held remote or in person/ on site?

12. What were your goals for the program?

13. Did you achieve the goals? Why or why not?

14. What was the program schedule like? Mandatory meetings?

15. What was the most valuable learning outcome during the process? Your key takeaways?

16. What did you like about the program?

17. What did you not like about the program?

18. What do you think about the increase of remote work during the program as a result of Covid? In what way was that beneficial compared to on site programs?

44

19. How would you describe the role of incubator and accelerator programs for startups and entrepreneurs?

20. Would you join a program again in the future? Why or why not?

45 www.kth.se