AUTHORS - Cisco · SOCIAL BENCHMARK 2015 TOP SOCIAL INCUBATORS IN THE U.S. ... d. Build up an...

Social Benchmark 20152

AUTHORS: DHRUV BHATLI AND AMANDA CUMBERLANDCONTRIBUTORS: MALIN ECKEL, AJAY SINGH, MIHAELA MARIN

in partnership with

CONTACT US UBI Global

[email protected] Stockholm, Sweden

PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 2015© 2015 UBI Global

Incubation Impact and NetworkAll rights reserved

http://ubi-global.com

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

SOCIAL BENCHMARK 2015TOP SOCIAL INCUBATORS IN THE U.S.

3 Executive Summary Social Benchmark 2015

The business incubator concept first emerged from the desire to share with others how to create and develop a successful business. This focus lead us to wonder if the same practices hold for social business incubators. In addition to benefiting society as a whole, these programs also benefit entrepreneurs, economies and the development of certain industries through innovative breakthroughs.

It is no wonder that social business incubators have flourished over the past few years and enjoyed strong support across the public sector, private investors, and various other stakeholders. The incubation experience has proven that, if done properly, it can stimulate social and economic vitality by placing continual, creative innovation at the heart of any industry.

In this social benchmark report you will see success stories profiling social incubation initiatives. Take Ushahidi, a PopTech graduate company that, together with partners Hivos and the Institute of Development Studies, implements a $55 million fund which focuses on transforming the relationship between citizens and their governments including seeding innovative solutions. Other initiatives include an online platform startup called HandUp, started by a Tumml graduate, which lets people donate directly to homeless people and others in need.

At UBI Global, our mission is to identify the key elements to manage a successful incubation program. These best practices will help everyone in the incubation ecosystem, from governments and supporting organizations, to investors, educators, coaches and aspiring incubator managers.

This first edition gathers data from 24 social incubators across the U.S. and tries to present the most accurate picture of social incubation across the country. Using interviews and data collected from these incubators, in this edition, there is a focus on how top social incubators are different from the average ones and how average incubators can try to make their way to the top using the best practices by the top ones. The present compilation of cases and insightful interviews with top incubator managers from diverse sectors and regions provide the tools for incubation success. These business cases with CEOs and directors are an easy way to discover exclusive insights provided by certified global leaders of incubation.

BUSINESS MODEL GENERAL TRENDS

The majority of the social business incubators in the U.S. are non-profit. Though a large number of them are philanthropically funded through government/private subsidies or by sponsors and partners, they all realize the importance of being financially self-sustainable. Some already have revenue streams whereas others are creating new ones in order to reach self-dependency. This is proving to be a necessity as well as a challenge to these social incubators.

BEST PRACTICES

According to the top incubator managers, the following best practices contribute greatly to their success.

a. Be aware of a sustainable business model to complement the funding that they get from various sources

b. Diversifying the revenue stream

c. Balancing the core objectives with financial sustainability

OPERATIONAL BUDGET GENERAL TRENDS

In general, most of the social incubators spend their allocated budget primarily on two important areas: Salaries & HR costs (employees, collaborators, coaches etc.) and events. These incubators realize the importance of building a network through organizing more and more events which also helps them get more recognition and can potentially help in a better deal flow as well.

BEST PRACTICES

a. Focusing the majority of the capital on talent and staff e.g. coaches, mentors, employees

b. Focusing on organizing events

c. Spending on equity funds for top incubators far exceeds those for the others

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

4 Executive Summary Social Benchmark 2015

DEAL FLOW ATTRACTION AND SELECTION GENERAL TRENDS

Social incubators realize how important it is for them to find the best entrepreneurs and startups for their own success. To attract and find such talent they use a few approaches. First they are very careful of who they select to be a part of the program. To find the best talent, these incubators organize a number of events and are also a part of a number of conferences where either the founders or other top representatives interact with the prospective clients.

Attracting talent is a two way street where incubators also have to prove and publicize their worth for potential clients. The best way to do this, as they found, is to have the existing/graduated clients spread out the word for them.

BEST PRACTICES

Deal flow is a prerequisite for success. Attracting and selecting clients is one of the first steps in a successful incubation program. The best practices that we identified include:

a. Organize a number of events to meet potential client startups and entrepreneurs

b. Engage with the prospective clients in conferences, events etc.

c. Carefully select who you want in your program

d. Build the reputation of the incubator through word of mouth publicity through existing and graduated startups

INCUBATEE SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE GENERAL TRENDS

There are three areas where incubators support and guide their clients – access to capital, access to market and competency development.

The incubator managers believe that the process starts right from the beginning. They need to understand what success means to the entrepreneurs and then it’s up to the incubators to guide them on the right path and give them all support needed.

In addition to the infrastructure, the incubators also provide their clients with access to their network as well as coaching and mentoring services among other.

Introducing their client startups to potential partners is another common practice. As per the managers, the strategic introductions outside the mentors’ network has also resulted in quite a few success stories.

BEST PRACTICES

Some of the best practices are:

a. Involve client startups in other ongoing projects

b. Ensure that incubators have a good understanding of what entrepreneurs are trying to solve

c. Keep in touch with the local stakeholders including investors

d. Build up an active network

5 Benchmarking social incubators Social Benchmark 2015

A social enterprise is an organization that

focuses on achieving social impact by applying

market-based solution to address public sector

and market failure in innovative ways

BENCHMARKING SOCIAL INCUBATORS

According to European Venture Philanthropy As-sociation*, a social enterprise is an organization that focuses on achieving social impact by applying market-based solutions to address market failure and public sectors in innovative ways. This state-ment gives a definition of a social enterprise that is very relevant to our times. They are the innovation centers working towards creating not only a social impact but also significant economic impact.

Unlike traditional companies, social startups focus on maximizing social or environment impact, rather than maximizing profit gains. Closely related to this assumption, a frequently asked question arises, how can an incubator that focuses on social startups grow successful businesses?

On a closer look, social startups operate like most other startups. In this regard, the goals that sustain their core strategy consist of aiming to be econom-ically feasible, facing the challenge of reaching a wider audience, acquiring skilled a skilled workforce and funding along with a relevant network..

Based on external research and this first benchmark of social incubators we have concluded that social startups fulfil two conditions.

Amanda CumberlandMarket Research Lead Cisco Corporate [email protected]

Dhruv BhatliCo-founder, Director of ResearchUBI [email protected]

First, they are economically feasible, i.e. financially stable and with a sustainable operation and second, they generate a high social or environmental impact for the community or ecosystem.

In conclusion, the more economically viable a social startup is, the more social impact it generates over time.

European Venture Philanthropy Association

WHY BENCHMARK SOCIAL INCUBATORS

Social incubator programs are gaining relevance not just because society is becoming more conscious about social and economic issues but also because the traditional way of charity or social contribution for both corporations and others is undergoing a transformation.

They support innovative social initiatives that would otherwise probably die because of less or no availa-ble support. These incubators not only provide these startups with funding options but also provide those services and skills that their client startups lack.

They also provide them with education through coaching and mentorship services to better manage their businesses.

Social incubators not only create economic impact but also create other social impact in sectors like health-

6 Benchmarking social incubators Social Benchmark 2015

We believe this framework will help social incubation

programs, their support organizations and governments to

understand the relevant performance indicators associated

with social incubators in a systematic manner

care, education and environment. As the number of social incubation programs increase their presence in the global incubation sector, there is a greater need to help programs improve and help others start.

Benchmarking them can help us understand the best practices across social incubators and in turn help make them better and create more jobs. However in this regard, there is a lack of an existing framework to measure the performance of social incubators.

Based on discussions with incubators managers and social impact experts it became clear that such a

HOW TO BENCHMARK SOCIAL INCUBATORS

In this context it seems relevant to introduce a new framework to address this gap. It is built on two dis-tinct performance categories, a) Economic and social impact and b) Value for client startups.

On one side it measures the social and economic impact of the social incubator and its client startups and on the other it assesses the value provided by the social incubator to its client startups.

What this translates to is that a top performing social incubator and its client startups would generate high social and economic impact, all while providing excellent services to its client startups in terms of skill development, access to funds and access to networks.

The quantitative metrics are supported by qualitative interviews focused on understanding the quality of im-pact and processes behind the performance of a given incubation program.

We believe this framework will help social incubation programs, their support organizations and gov-ernments to understand the relevant performance indicators associated with social incubators in a systematic manner.

framework that measures both social and economic performance would also help to track and monitor the clients of social incubators and measure their social and economic impact.

In this regard, UBI Global in collaboration with Cisco developed a new framework that evaluates the per-formance of incubation programs targeting social and environmental themes.

7 Table of Contents Social Benchmark 2015

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3BENCHMARKING SOCIAL INCUBATORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4 DEFINITIONS & METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10DEFINITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RANKING AND BENCHMARKING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

BENCHMARKING METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

BENCHMARKING CLASSIFICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

5 SAMPLE AND LANDSCAPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14OPERATIONAL BUDGET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

SECTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

YEAR OF FOUNDATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

SEED FUNDING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

6 BENCHMARK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15U.S. SCORE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

APPLICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

FUNDING STATUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

SURVIVAL RATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

BUDGET ALLOCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

SUPPORT FROM THE ECOSYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

MISSION STATEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

7 BENCHMARK ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18BENCHMARK SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

VALUE FOR CLIENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

KEY TAKEAWAYS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

8 Table of Contents Social Benchmark 2015

8 TOP INCUBATOR CASE STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

FEATURED CASES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

POPTECH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

SEED SPOT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

TUMML . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

8 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

9 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

10 DIRECTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4001 FEATURED INCUBATORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

02 FEATURED MANAGERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

03 PARTICIPANT DIRECTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

9 Introduction Social Benchmark 2015

3 INTRODUCTION

Incubation has never before played a greater role in business creation and innovation development. In this regard social incubators with their outstanding impact on the social fabric, local economies and entrepreneurs can be regarded as classrooms where social ventures come to life and where lessons of successful entrepreneurial behavior are shared. As more and more social incubators have emerged, the challenges of successful incubation have grown with them. In words of a fellow incubator manager, “social incubation is cumbersome and managing it properly requires a hands-on approach.”

With this in mind, the UBI Global team has traversed the U.S. and spoken with top incubator managers, who gratefully shared with us their “hands-on approach” and best practices. Thus, this report provides you with exclusive insights regarding the management of top incubation programs. Among the questions answered in this report, you’ll find: How top incubators achieve a sustainable business model?, How top incubators ensure an excellent value proposition for their startups? and How top incubators screen and select clients?

The UBI Global team is grateful to all of the partners and collaborators who have participated in making this benchmark a valuable collection of practical insights for incubation managers, governments and investors.

We hope that you are as excited as we are about these findings and that this report will make a genuine contribution to the betterment of social incubation programs.

Dhruv Bhatli Co-founder, Director of Research, UBI Global

Amanda Cumberland Market Research Lead, Cisco Corporate Affairs

10 Definitions & Methodology Social Benchmark 2015

4 DEFINITIONS & METHODOLOGY

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

Developing a framework and methodology that measures the performance of university business incubators allows both for ranking and benchmarking. At UBI Global we have numerous types of benchmarking classifications depending on the type of incubator and the type of relationship between the incubator and the university.

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

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

At UBI Global we follow a two pronged approach to benchmark social incubators. First, a reference line of top incubators is constructed, second a benchmark process stacks participating incubators against that reference line to identify the strengths, weaknesses and best practices associated with improving the performance of benchmarked incubators.

RANKING BENCHMARKING

01 DEFINITIONS THREE TYPES OF BUSINESS INCUBATORS

MANAGED BY, AFFILIATED WITH OR ASSOCIATED TO UNIVERSITY (-IES)

BUSINESS INNOVATION CENTER

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

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

BUSINESS ACCELERATOR

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

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

BUSINESS INCUBATOR

• The primary objective is to facilitate entrepreneurship and support early stage (new) ventures through a systematic (mid-long term) and extensive incubation process that includes services and infrastructure

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


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

40ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPACT

VALUE FOR CLIENTS

Economic Impact

Social Impact

Competence Development

Access to Funds

Access to Network

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

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

3. DATA ANALYSIS & BENCHMARK – To ensure reliable data analysis, fair comparisons and non-biased benchmarking

DESK RESEARCH

INCUBATION EXPERTS

03 BENCHMARKING METHODOLOGY BENCHMARKING PROCESS: 3 KEY STEPS

BENCHMARKING FRAMEWORK

1. RESEARCH DESIGN

The benchmark of social incubators in the U.S. is built using the Bhatli & Cumberland framework*, a comprehensive structure, which is made up by clusters of indicators that form the basis of a standardized framework for comparison.

The same has been perfected through in-depth desk research and extensive consultations with numerous incubation experts around the world. It measures each participating incubator on two broad categories. These categories are further divided into five sub-categories and constitute of over forty key performance indicators.

RELIABLE AND HOLISTIC METHODOLOGY


3. DATA ANALYSIS & BENCHMARK

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

Select incubator managers and thought leaders were consulted to ascertain the weights of the KPIs, and a second validation came from the UBI Global research advisory board. Then, the research team moved on to cumulate the performance scores and correlations of KPIs to attribute points to each participant incubator. The results are weighted sums and attribute performance scores to each participant incubator. The attributed scores permits us to identify social incubators in the U.S. that perform well.

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

2. DATA COLLECTION AND TREATMENT

A benchmark of social incubators in the U.S. should ensure a proper representation of incubators. In this regard, the final participants for the study were selected amongst 40 incubators after a rigorous pre-assessment process.

Out of the initial sample, 24 incubators from 16 U.S. states were selected as suitable for the benchmarking process.

They were provided with a detailed online survey based on the above-stated framework. The survey was made up by 72 questions, where each incubator had a period of two weeks to complete it and during this time a help desk was set in place to make sure that all queries were answered. The help desk was reachable during the week by a dedicated telephone line and by e-mail, to which the survey team responded within 24 hours.

The gathered data was screened for pattern data entry, outliers, anomalies, mistakes and inconsistencies. Secondly, coarse data was eliminated to ensure better representativeness of the study.

Next, based on the identified anomalies, the reported data was classified into two groups :

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

2. incubators that do not require additional verification

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

(e.g. reducing weights for commercialization stage incubators). All these measures resulted in making the final performance indicators highly comparable and with minimum bias.


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

BENCHMARKING ADJUSTMENTS

Incubator’s budget ($)

Incubator’s

employees (#)Incubator’s

client startups (#)

BY AGE

0-3 years

Young

4-6 years Mid-aged

6+ years Mature

BY SIZE

BY INCUBATOR TYPE

Business Incubator & & Business Innovation Centre

Business Accelerator

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

UNIVERSITY RELATION INCUBATOR TYPE

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

UNIVERSITY MANAGEDMajorly operated by the university

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

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

MANAGED

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

14 Sample and Landscape Social Benchmark 2015

5 SAMPLE AND LANDSCAPE

02 SECTORS SECTOR SPREAD AT SOCIAL INCUBATORS

Economic empowerment

Education

Others

Environment

Critical Human Needs

Human Rights

21% 18%

17%

16%

13%11% 5%

03 YEAR OF FOUNDATION NUMBER OF INCUBATORS PER YEAR 04 SEED FUNDING

SOCIAL INCUBATORS THAT HAVE A SEED FUND

01 OPERATIONAL BUDGET ANNUAL OPERATIONAL BUDGET

4%$800K - $1.2M

17%$400K - $800K

17%UP TO $50K

INCUBATORSAPPLIED40 24 INCUBATORS

BENCHMARKED

21%$1.2M - $2M

25%$50K - $200K

17%$200K - $400K

Healthcare

62%38%HAVE SEED

FUNDDO NOT HAVE A

SEED FUND

Incu

bato

rs F

ound

ed

Year of foundation

01234567

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

15 Benchmark Social Benchmark 2015

ANALYSIS - The average percentage of clients who have received seed funding for top U.S. incubators is 53% higher than the average incubator

ANALYSIS - The graduated clients at top U.S. incubators have 50% higher survival rate than the graduated clients at an average social incubator in the U.S.

6 BENCHMARK

01 U.S. SCORE* AVERAGE SCORE OF PARTICIPATING INCUBATORS 02 APPLICATIONS

DEALFLOW AT PARTICIPATING INCUBATORS

03 FUNDING STATUS CLIENTS WHO HAVE RECEIVED SEED FUNDING

04 SURVIVAL RATE GRADUATED CLIENTS THAT ARE SURVIVING

372

15437

U.S. TOP AVG: 72*

U.S. AVG

U.S. AVG

U.S. AVG

U.S. TOP AVG

U.S. TOP AVG

69%

46%

31%

45%

2.4 x

50%

U.S. TOP AVG

53%

* U.S. TOP AVG - THE 10% BEST PERFORMING INCUBATORS

* ON A SCALE OF 100


05 BUDGET ALLOCATION PERCENTAGE BREAKDOWN OF BUDGET ALLOCATION

06 PERCEIVED SUPPORT FROM THE ECOSYSTEM SUPPORT INCUBATOR MANAGERS PRECEIVE TO RECEIVE FROM THEIR ECOSYSTEM

U.S. TOP AVG

U.S. AVG

80%

54%

60%

38%

60%

54%

40%8%

20%

29%

Local business development and recruitment network

Local organizations, NGOs

Government

Universities

Local investor community

Salaries & HR costs

Marketing & communicationsEvents

Equity fund Other

Infrastructure maintenance

Space mortgage & rental

ANALYSIS - More managers at top social incubators in the U.S. perceive to receive enough support from from key actors in their ecosystem than the managers at an average social incubator. This gap is most exaggerated in case of support from government where only 8% of the managers at an average social incubator perceive to receive enough support as against 40% among the managers at the top social incubators

U.S. AVG

U.S. TOP AVG

44%

39%

18%

15%

11%

16%

9%

6%

6%

6%

6%

7%

6%

11%


FOR PROFIT NON PROFIT

UNIVERSITY AFFILIATED

UNIVERSITY ASSOCIATED

UNIVERSITY MANAGED

BY UNIVERSITY RELATION

BY TYPE OF INCUBATOR

FOR TOP U.S. INCUBATORS

07 MISSION STATEMENTS KEY WORDS FROM MISSION STATEMENTS AT REGIONAL UNIVERSITY BUSINESS INCUBATORS

ASSOCIATEDMANAGED AFFILIATED

18 Benchmark Analysis Social Benchmark 2015

BENCHMARK SUMMARY

There are obvious reasons why every incubator should aim to become a top performing incubator. UBI GLobal’s benchmark process further corroborates this statement.

The client startups at top incubators outperform those at an average incubator on many fronts, especially related to social impact and also the access to government subsidies. On an average, 72% of the jobs created by the startups at top incubators are created for underprivileged whereas this average is only 10% for the whole sample. Furthermore, the amount of government subsidies that the top incubators get is more than 3 times the amount that and average incubator gets per year.

In addition to this, top incubators also have larger number of contacts with seed capital firms and large corporations. They have almost thrice the number of contacts with seed capital firms than an average incubator has and this number is even more than three times in case of the contacts with large corporations.

KEY TAKEAWAYS TOP INCUBATORS VS. AVERAGE INCUBATORS

7 BENCHMARK ANALYSIS

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPACT

VALUE FOR CLIENTS

2.3x

7.2x

2.6x

TOTAL FUNDING ATTRACTED BY CLIENT STARTUPS PER YEAR

PERCENTAGE JOBS CREATED FOR THE UNDERPRIVILEGED

GOVERNMENT/PRIVATE SUBSIDIES PER YEAR

2.8x

3.4x

3.8x

NUMBER OF CONTACTS SEED CAPITAL FIRMS

NUMBER OF CONTACTS WITH LARGE CORPORATIONS

NUMBER OF COACHES


CATEGORY OVERVIEW

This category includes two subcategories – Economic Impact and Social Impact.

Top incubators act as talent hubs that drive positive economic and social value for their regions.

The clients at top incubator create 236 jobs on an average per year which is significantly higher than the corresponding number for an average incubator, which stands at 128. What is even more contrasting is the percentage of jobs that these startups at top incubators create for underprivileged. This percentage is 72% for top incubators and 10% for an average incubator.

A top incubator on an average attracts around $6 Million in funding per year, which is more than twice the funding attracted (~ $2,5 Million) by an average one. The total sales by the client startup for an average incubator is around $6 Million which is almost half of the amount ~$11 Million that a top incubator generates on an average.

Another measure of an incubators social impact is the number of beneficiaries. Top incubators outperform in this category too. A top incubator on an average has more than 100,000 beneficiaries which is more than twice the number (~45000) that an average incubator has. The number of volunteers also tells us if the community believes that the incubator is creating social impact. The average number of volunteers for a top incubator per year is 70 which is almost twice the number for an average incubator which is around 38.

All these facts not only tell us that the top incubators have better access to funding but they also highlight that even the client startups at the top incubators are performing better than their counterparts working with the average ones.

01 ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPACT INCUBATORS ABILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ECONOMY AND THE SOCIAL FABRIC

KPI KPI SUMMARY• Total sales revenue of client startups per year• Total funding attracted by client startups per year• Government and private subsidies per year• Number of jobs created per year• Number of beneficiaries per year

ECONOMIC IMPACT

Measures the economic impact generated through the incubator

SOCIAL IMPACT

Measures the social impact generated through the incubator

SUB CATEGORIES


KPI GOVERNMENT/PRIVATE SUBSIDIES PER YEAR

KPI TOTAL SALES REVENUE OF CLIENT STARTUPS PER YEAR

KPI TOTAL FUNDING ATTRACTED BY CLIENT STARTUPS PER YEAR

CATEGORY INDICATORS

U.S. AVERAGE

U.S. TOP AVERAGE80%

$ 6m

$ 10.9m

U.S. AVERAGE

U.S. TOP AVERAGE2.3X

$2.4m

$ 5.7m

U.S. AVERAGE


$ 165K

$ 431K


KPI NUMBER OF BENEFICIARIES PER YEAR

KPI NUMBER OF JOBS CREATED PER YEAR

KPI JOBS CREATED FOR THE UNDERPRIVILEGED

U.S. AVERAGE

U.S. TOP AVERAGE80%

128

236

U.S. AVERAGE


10%

72%

U.S. AVERAGE

U.S. TOP AVERAGE2.3x

45K

107K


KPI NUMBER OF VOLUNTEERS PER YEAR

KPI FINANCIAL LITERACY

KPI PERCENTAGE NON-LOCAL BENEFICIARIES

64%

39%

U.S. TOP AVERAGE

U.S. AVERAGE

60%

70

39

U.S. TOP AVERAGE

U.S. AVERAGE

80%

100%

67%

U.S. TOP AVERAGE

U.S. AVERAGE

10.9x


ACCESS TO FUNDS

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

COMPETENCE DEVELOPMENT

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

ACCESS TO NETWORK

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

02 VALUE FOR CLIENTS INCUBATORS ABILITY TO PROVIDE QUALITY SERVICES TO ITS CLIENT STARTUPS

SUB CATEGORIES

KPI KPI SUMMARY• Number of investors in incubation programs network• Number of contacts with seed capital firms• Number of coaches and mentors• Number of events organized• Number of contacts with large corporations

CATEGORY OVERVIEW

This category has three sub categories – Competence Development, Access to Funds and Access to Network.

Top incubators put a lot of stress on providing the guidance to their startups to run and grow their business. This focus on competence development is substantiated by the number of coaches and mentors that have to serve their clients. The number of coaches for a top incubator is 19 which is almost four times the number for average incubators, 5, and for mentors the numbers are 54 and 18 respectively. In a similar vein, the top incubators spend 20 hours every month on coaching their startups which is 40% higher than the 14 hours that the average incubators spend. For mentoring, the hours for top incubators are twice those spent by average ones with the numbers standing at 28 and 14 respectively.

On access to fund indicators, the top incubators again outperform the average ones. The top incubators have 37 investors as against the average of 19 for the average incubators. Even more importantly, this number is 34 to 14 for the investors that actually invest in an incubators client startups indicating that the top incubators manage

to get more than twice the number of investors to invest in their startups than an average incubator does. The average contacts with seed capital firms for a top incubator is 57 which is almost three times the number, 20, for an average incubator.

Top incubators again perform much better on access to network indicators. On an average they have 334 contacts with large corporations, which is more than three times the number of contacts (99) for an average incubator. For contacts in government and other support organizations, these numbers stand at 90 and 53 respectively.

Top incubators are also more pro-active in engaging their ecosystem that results in a better network overall. On average they organize 22 events per year whereas the average incubators only run 13.


U.S. TOP AVERAGE

U.S. AVERAGE

37

19

90%

CATEGORY INDICATORS

KPI NUMBER OF INVESTORS WHO ACTUALLY INVEST ON CLIENT STARTUPS

KPI NUMBER OF INVESTORS IN THE PROGRAM’S NETWORK

KPI NUMBER OF CONTACTS WITH SEED CAPITAL FIRMS

U.S. AVERAGE


20

57

U.S. AVERAGE


14

34


KPI HOURS SPENT ON MENTORING

KPI HOURS SPENT ON COACHING

KPI NUMBER OF ACTIVE COACHES

KPI NUMBER OF ACTIVE MENTORS

U.S. AVERAGE


5

19

U.S. AVERAGE


18

54

U.S. AVERAGE


14

28

U.S. AVERAGE

U.S. TOP AVERAGE40%

14

20


U.S. TOP AVERAGE

U.S. AVERAGE

22

13

70%

KPI CONTACTS WITHIN GOVERNMENT AND SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS

KPI EVENTS ORGANIZED/CO-ORGANIZED PER YEAR

KPI CONTACTS WITHIN LARGE CORPORATIONS

U.S. AVERAGE


99

334

U.S. AVERAGE

U.S. TOP AVERAGE70%

53

90


03 KEY TAKEAWAYS

The benchmark presented above describes how top incubators outperform average incubators and explains why every incubator should aim to replicate. Some of the takeaways from the benchmark are highlighted below:

Economic and Social Impact

• Top incubators generally generate significantly more economic and social impact than their peers in the U.S.

• Top incubators do outstandingly well on the job creation indicators and even better on the percentage of jobs that they create for the underprivileged.

• The top incubators not only manage to attract more average funding for its clients but also receive significantly more government and private subsidies when compared to their average peers.

Value for Clients

• Top incubators put much more stress on helping their startups grow by providing them the relevant resources like coaches and mentors and also a broader network of investors.

• They not only provide more coaches and mentors but also spend more time on coaching and mentoring their startups and guide them in the right direction.

• Top incubators realize the importance of a big network and to achieve this organize more events than the average ones. This complements their already larger base of contacts in governments and large organizations.

HELP US IMPROVE! Got some ideas for improvement? Get in touch with us - [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

28 Case studies Social Benchmark 2015

OVERVIEW

The benchmark presented above has clearly established the value of being a top incubator. With this in mind, every incubator may aim to achieve such success. However, as incubators are inherently diverse, what is the best method to achieve that? And, what kind of practical know-how should an incubator acquire in order to do so?

This section would answer some of these queries using case studies of top incubators. In these features, managers of top incubator programs reveal their best practices and strate-gies. Some of the insights you’ll find in the featured case studies include:

• Best practices to ensure excellent value for incubator client startups• Best practices to ensure a successful business model for an incubator• Best practices to optimize an incubator’s operational budget • Best practices to attract deal flow and talent to an incubator

8 TOP INCUBATOR CASE STUDIES

FEATURED CASES

TUMML

POPTECH

SEED SPOT


SUMMARY

PopTech is an 18-year old non-profit that catalyzes social impact through renowned Fellows programs, incubated initiatives, thought-provoking salons and an annual conference in Camden, Maine. PopTech brings together a global community of innovators from many fields to share insights and work together to create lasting change. Their Fellows programs for social innovators and scientists identify and train some of the world’s most promising talent. Our Labs bring together curated and diverse experts to work together on areas of critical significance. Its initiatives incubate high-impact, collaborative and new approaches to some of the world’s toughest problems. Its annual conferences and events are among the highest rated in the United States.

POPTECH

• LOCATION: Camden, Maine • FOUNDED: 2007• UNIVERSITY AFFILIATION:

Works closely with multiple universities• PRESIDENT: Leetha Filderman

• MISSION: PopTech’s mission is to accelerate the positive impact of world changing people, projects and ideas.

• WEBSITE: http://www .poptech .org

INCUBATOR BRIEF

University Associated

Operational budget

Program duration

Business Incubator

Full time employees

Dealflow

mo=months, k=thousand, m=million

Non-profit

Companies enrolled

Volunteers

$1.2-2m 10 ~5

24mo 350 240

PROFILE


An exclusive interview with Leetha Filderman, President of PopTech

What is PopTech´s business model? What are the 3 best practices to ensure a sustainable business and revenue model?

We are a non-profit organization in the U.S. We have three primary revenue streams and are in the process of developing a fourth one in order to get closer to sustainability. These revenue streams are conferences, sponsorship, foundations and consultancy.

All these funds go into supporting the organization. Of these Consultancy is a new developing revenue stream. It revolves around tapping into the core competencies that we have – convening, documentary film making and training/mentoring. In addition to this, we also have a huge pool of diverse expertise through our projects and incubators. Consultancy taps into these areas of expertise. This is the first year we started it as an experiment to check the interest. Microsoft – We just completed a multi-video series with Microsoft that we worked on for 8 months.

We have started working on a really interesting project with a new global health institute that looks at what a global health institute of 21st century would look like. We are also working

on with a major US toy manufacturer on how they develop they develop and address very early childhood cognitivity. We are doing it as a three or four day exploratory lab where we bring together thought leaders from our network to help them think through their next 20 years. There is one more very interesting project we are working on which involves looking at what does it mean to have an integrated America. This goes into race inequality issues. They have challenged the country since the country began but is kind of peaking at the moment. This is not a phenomenon that is a U.S. phenomenon but it impacts a lot of Europe. How do people identify themselves particularly immigrant populations and why is this is a challenge for to treat people equally regardless of their culture and racial background. We are doing that in collaboration with a group called The Paul and Daisy Soros Fellowship For New Americans.

What are the key challenges that Poptech faces ? What are the three best practices to overcome those challenges?

One of the most important key challenges that we face is reaching financial sustainability. I would say it’s a challenge just for us but many of these innovation incubators as well.

The three best practices that I can say are being Very focused on consistent fund raising, developing new revenue streams and being mindful of how much you spend.

How do you attract deal flow? What are the three best practices to select high quality client startups?

Our dealflow is really through our fellows program. It’s a major feeder for the new organizations that we work with.

The first best practice that I can suggest is to be sure you attract high quality nominations. Choose the candidates carefully. Seeing the longevity of the organizations we have been involved with, a lot of this has to do with the good choices we have made in the beginning. The second thing to have is a having a good reputation. The best nominators are the ones who have benefited from the program and they are the ones that enhance the reputation the most. There is a need to be well known to attract quality candidates. Lastly, it’s also about how we provide resources like training, mentoring, long term support and recognition that we provide to our clients to help increase their impact and visibility. It also helps attract quality deal flow.

Leetha Filderman

BEST PRACTICES AND INSIGHTS


How do you ensure that your clients generate maximum economic impact? What are the 3 best practices to promote it?

The first one is that we help them prepare to scale their organization. The scaling is by and large focused on the impact. We also spend a lot of time on that both through direct engagement within the learning program and then long term mentoring

Then is our ability to stay engaged for the long haul. For this we have touch points.

Lastly is two way thing where we provide the expertise periodically and then also involve them in the other projects we are working on. They also keep coming back to us and support overtime.

PopTech’s experience with UBI Global“The process has been extremely rewarding and informative and has provided us a direction in terms of where we focus our energies over the next several months-truly invaluable.”

Ushahidi

www.ushahidi.com

Ushahidi, Inc. is a non-profit software company that develops free and open-source software (LGPL) for information collection, visualization, and interactive mapping. Ushahidi (Swahili for “testimony” or “witness”) created a website in the aftermath of Kenya’s disputed 2007 presidential election that collected eyewitness reports of violence reported by email and text message and placed them on a Google Maps map.

Medic Mobile

www.medicmobile.org

Medic Mobile is a nonprofit technology company specializing in mHealth. Health workers use Medic Mobile to register every pregnancy, track disease outbreaks faster, keep stock of essential medicines and communicate about emergencies. Medic Mobile is used in over 20 countries with 39 partners. Over 9,000 health workers currently use Medic Mobile.

SUSTAIN ABLE BUSINESS MODEL• In addition to existing revenue streams, develop new

competencies to get closer to a sustainability .

OPTIMIZE OPERATIONAL BUDGET• Be very careful about where you are spending your

operational budget in order to get close to financial stability .

ATTRACTING TALENT• Need to choose the candidate very carefully . To have

better candidates, it is important to spread the word in the network through your existing and graduated client startups .

ASSIST STARTUPS TO ACCESS MARKETPLACE AND CAPITAL• Periodic support to the startups, exposure to the

network and involving them in the existing projects to assist them in growing .

KEY TAKEAWAYS

SUCCESS STORIES


Companies enrolled

11

SUMMARY

SEED SPOT believes in the power of social entrepreneurs to tackle major human, environmental, and social problems. Good ideas become strong ventures when supported by an awesome community. At SEED SPOT, they have built a community that is passionate about finding, advancing, and funding the ideas of entrepreneurs that have developed a product, service, or technology to improve the human condition.

SEED SPOT

• LOCATION: Phoenix, Arizona • FOUNDED: 2012• UNIVERSITY AFFILIATION: Not available• PRESIDENT: Courtney Klein

• MISSION: To educate, accelerate, and invest in entrepreneurs who are creating solutions to social problems.

• WEBSITE: www .seedspot .org

INCUBATOR BRIEF

PROFILE


Operational budget

Program duration

Business Incubator

Full time employees

Dealflow

mo=months, k=thousand,

Non-profit

Volunteers

400k-800k 5

4mo 130 120


An exclusive interview with Courtney Klein, CEO of SEED SPOT

What are the key challenges that SEED SPOT faces? What are the three best practices to overcome those challenges?

There are a few challenges we face today. First, social entrepreneurship is still in its infancy and many individuals don’t completely understand the meaning. Another challenge is creating a sustainable funding model of our incubator to continue to impact more entrepreneurs. Lastly, building an impact investor network that believes in the power of social entrepreneurs.

How do you ensure that your clients generate maximum social and economic impact? What are the 3 best practices to promote it?

There are a few things that we follow to make sure that our entrepreneurs generate the maximum social and economic impact. We have developed the SEED SPOT Impact Canvas that focuses on the crucial aspects of a social enterprise - impact is at the core of our canvas. We believe that it is very important to focus on identifying the problem that the entrepreneur is trying to solve. Problem identification and understanding the root cause is very critical to generate impact.

We also focus on understanding the customer that has that problem. We go for the holistic view and try to understand their experiences as they go through their day to get a better understanding of the solution a venture can offer to their customer. Another aspect we focus on is that it’s really important to follow up and provide ongoing support to their customers. Throughout our programs, we believe that entrepreneurship is a journey and SEED SPOT wants to support them throughout it.

What is SEED SPOT´s business model? What are the 3 best practices to ensure a sustainable business and revenue model?

We are a non-profit organization that is primarily philanthropically funded. We have a dedicated group of sponsors and partners that support the work we do. We are always looking for great sponsors that align with our core beliefs and have a passion for supporting social entrepreneurs. We are still iterating on our business model to ensure we are sustainable long-term. We do charge a fee of $3,500 initially from our ventures, but this does not cover our expenses. Our fee is to make sure that the entrepreneur is serious about dedicating time, effort, and capital to solving the problem that is trying to be solved.


We generate deal flow a number of ways. We host a lot of events that highlight our collaborative space and in partnership with other entrepreneurial organizations. The idea is to get the word out and gain recognition.

We also promote ourselves through various media relationships that we have. We have a set of recruitment partners that recommend entrepreneurs and make introductions to SEED SPOT throughout the year. These partners help expose the concept of social entrepreneurship and SEED SPOT far and wide. Our alumni are our greatest advocates and partners. They generate significant word of mouth buzz about our programs.

How do you contribute to the success of your client startups? What are the 3 best practices to provide them with quality access to customers/marketplace?

First of all, we provide them access to all the support they, e.g. office space, top tier mentors, access to experts, and an intense business curriculum that covers everything from problem identification to market sizing to customer validation.

Outside our mentor network, we also make strategic introductions to individuals in the local and global community. We have seen our companies succeed from these introductions through partnerships, investments, and early adopters.

Most importantly, we believe that understanding the motivation and what success looks like for our entrepreneurs ultimately leads to a more impactful venture. Knowing their goals helps us customize our help according to what

Courtney Klein



success means to them. We see SEED SPOT as a safe place for entrepreneurs to explore their dreams. We know that without the inspiring entrepreneurs that have come through our programs, we would not have had the success we have.

How do you ensure that your clients generate maximum economic impact? What are the 3 best practices to promote it?

The first one is that we help our ventures prepare to scale their organizations. The scaling is by and large focused on the impact they have. We also spend a lot of time on impact through direct engagement within the learning program and then long term mentoring.

Over the long haul, we stay engaged through periodic touch points to make sure they are achieving their goals. Lastly, we provide expert engagement session. Overtime, the ventures continue to come back to us for support.

SEED SPOT’s experience with UBI Global.“We found the report card and the questions asked during the report very helpful. We truly love understanding the best practices and how SEED SPOT is doing in comparison to other incubators. Sharing best practices is crucial to making more robust entrepreneurial ecosystems. Also, being connected with other incubators is great so that we can support each other!

Lotus Wei

www.lotuswei.com

LOTUS WEI provides bio-energetic flower remedies that work through the acupuncture meridians of the body to shift state of mind within minutes and greatly enhance quality of life within days. Lotus Wei believes that one of the most powerful ways to cultivate inner peace is through plant-based remedies to shift your mood and physiology.

Proctorio

www.proctorio.com

Proctorio is automated proctorless software that provides a scalable, cost effective solution to validating a student’s identity and activity during an online exam. The system is non-invasive, secure, and does not require any additional software for the student to install. It is a cloud based application that uses algorithms to monitor over twenty suspicious behaviors using intelligent facial tracking.

SUSTAIN ABLE BUSINESS MODEL• Primarily through sponsorships and partnerships but

working towards sustainability .

ATTRACTING TALENT• Host a number of events and also get recognition

through word of mouth by the graduated clients .

ASSIST STARTUPS TO ACCESS MARKETPLACE AND CAPITAL• Office space and other infrastructure• Introduction within the mentor network as well as

strategic introductions outside it . • Understand entrepreneurs and their motivation in a

better way to guide them where they want to be .

KEY TAKEAWAYS

SUCCESS STORIES


SUMMARY

Tumml is an urban ventures accelerator with a mission to empower entrepreneurs to solve urban problems. With a hands-on approach, Tumml provides entrepreneurs with the tools to help scale their impact and enhance quality of life in cities everywhere.

TUMML

• LOCATION: San Francisco, California • FOUNDED: 2013• UNIVERSITY AFFILIATION: Not available• PRESIDENT: Clara Brenner & Julie Lein

• MISSION: To empower entrepreneurs to solve urban problems.

• WEBSITE: www .tumml .org

INCUBATOR BRIEF

PROFILE


Operational budget

Program duration

Business Accelerator

Full time employees

Dealflow

mo=months, k=thousand,

Non-profit

Volunteers

n/a 4

4mo 350 80

Companies enrolled

33


An exclusive interview with Clara Brenner & Julie Lein, CEOs of Tumml

How do you ensure that your startup clients generate maximum social and economic impact? What are the 3 best practices to promote it?

Tumml looks to support entrepreneurs generating significant urban impact in a scalable way. To do this, we use a a numerical rubric to compare program applicants -- where we evaluate any potential challenges a particular startup may face when trying to operate and scale in cities (this is a plus, as we want to find startups where we can be most helpful), as well as more traditional operations metrics (such as potential for high-growth and quality of the team).

What is TUMML´s business model? What are the 3 best practices to ensure a sustainable business and revenue model?

Tumml is structured as a 501(c)3 nonprofit. We rely on the generous support of philanthropic donors to operate. In the long run, we hope to supplement this philanthropic support with potential returns from the urban impact startups we have supported through our program.

What are the key challenges that TUMML faces? What are the 3 best practices to overcome those challenges?

As a relatively young organization based in one city, Tumml has to work especially hard to find effective ways to reach and recruit entrepreneurs across the country (see below for more on this). Additionally, the funding space for urban-focused startups is relatively new and undeveloped. As such, Tumml spends a lot of time researching and engaging with funders (and potential funders) in order to help educate them and connect them with Tumml program participants.


Tumml relies heavily on its Mentorship Board (experts in some facet of urban impact entrepreneurship) to raise Tumml’s profile and attract high-quality applicants. Additionally, Tumml’s founders spend a good deal of time speaking and engaging with entrepreneurs and potential entrepreneurs at universities, conferences, etc.

How do you contribute to the success of your client startups? What are the 3 best practices to provide them with quality access to customers/marketplace?

Tumml invites promising young companies to spend four months working with us in our offices. During that time, we provide them with a customized and structured education curriculum, legal services, access to top-flight mentors and support staff, and opportunities to connect with potential funders, issue-area experts, and civic leaders. Cohort companies work closely with Tumml’s internal staff and volunteer Mentorship Board through one-on-one office hours and group lectures. The Mentorship Board is comprised of a national network of leaders from municipal government, urban innovation, and finance. Additionally, Tumml offers all program participants and alums access to a list of “preferred vendors” and business-related discounts that it has negotiated on behalf of the group.

Julie Lein & Clara Brenner



Tumml’s experience with UBI Global.“The presentation definitely helps us to do our internal review. It’s always good to know how we are comparing against other accelerators and it’s also about recognizing where our strengths are. And I’m really happy with the results. It’s exciting and we are looking forward to continuing to work with UBI Global in the future.”

Kid Admit

www.kidadmit.com

KidAdmit is quickly advancing preschools by connecting them to today’s tech savvy parents and vice versa. The company is creating a better experience for parents and preschools so both can effectively communicate throughout the entire admissions process.

KidAdmit receives the names of preschools and daycares from the California State Child Licensing Department. Preschools and daycares listed within KidAdmit are licensed through the State of California. Information listed on the preschool and daycare’s profile pages is gathered directly from the preschool or daycare through their admissions office and/or website.

HandUp

www.handup.com

HandUps charitable giving platform provides donors with a new, simple and direct way to impact the lives of their homeless neighbors and other low-income locals. HandUp connects these populations to case workers at some of the most well-respected social service organizations in the nation for further assistance. With resources and words of support, our community of donors also strengthen safety nets that our members can call upon in times of need.

The idea for HandUp started as a simple side project in early 2013 in an effort to do something about homelessness that’s so visible on the streets of San Francisco. With the support and encouragement of Tumml, Project Homeless Connect, and so many others this small side-project was converted into a full-fledged company. Over the next year, HandUp attracted funding from some of Silicon Valley’s most experienced investors.

SUSTAIN ABLE BUSINESS MODEL• Financial sustainability is important . Look for

complementing the philanthropic support with the returns from the clients .

ATTRACTING TALENT• Attract new talent through the mentorship board• Talk and engage with future clients at universities,

conferences etc .

ASSIST STARTUPS TO ACCESS MARKETPLACE AND CAPITAL• Provide opportunities to connect with potential funders,

issue area experts and civic leaders . • Access to a list of “preferred vendors” and business-

related discounts .

KEY TAKEAWAYS

SUCCESS STORIES

38 Conclusion Social Benchmark 2015

It might be argued that there is no such thing as a single recipe for success when it comes to managing an incubator. Incubators are inherently complex and operate in diverse environments. However, despite local distinctions, the commonalities among incubators are far more numerous. At the helm would be the desire to produce successful client startups. We think it’s important to focus on that singular commonality if an incubator wants to be a top performer. During the benchmark we came across some of the best practices that would help incubators of all sizes, types and environmental contexts to add value for their client startups.

In this regard, top incubators are different from their global counterparts in a number of ways. They place additional emphasis on the client first attitude, whereby providing exceptional value to their clients is of primary concern. They understand the basic needs that new ventures seek to address: access to know-how, access to capital and access to the marketplace. Furthermore, they strive to fulfill those needs and adapt the incubator offer to fit individual client startups.

This unique focus on the incubator’s client startups is what makes an exceptional incubator. With this in mind, we hope you will continue your hard work and strive to provide exceptional value for your client startups.

We would like you to use this report as a practical guide to design a recipe for the success of your incubation program.

Sincerely,

UBI Global Research TeamCisco Corporate Affairs Research Team

9 CONCLUSION

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Business model• Financial sustainability is important. Build

competencies and use various revenue streams to attain it.

• Even for non-profit incubators sustainability is the goal. The plan is to supplement the philanthropic funding with returns from their client startups.

Operational budget

• Carefully monitor your spending. It’s even more critical for the incubators that are totally philanthropically driven.

Access to network

• Put the client startups in touch with the network of investors

• Through events and conferences get more investors interested and build your network.

• Make strategic introductions for the startups by putting them in touch with various players in the ecosystem inside and outside of their network.

39 Acknowledgements Social Benchmark 2015

10 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Amanda CumberlandMarket Research Lead, Cisco Corporate [email protected]

Amanda is a research specialist with the strategy and portfolio team at Cisco corporate affairs and spearheads their social innovation benchmark project in the U.S.

Dhruv BhatliCo-founder, UBI [email protected]

Dhruv Bhatli is an entrepreneur seeking to transform and democratize the incubation ecosystems around the world. He has co-founded UBI Global, a thought leader in performance assessments of incubation programs which annually benchmarks over 400 incubators in more than 70 countries

Contributors:

• Malin Eckel

• Ajay Singh

• Mihaela Marin

Our sincere thanks to:

Paolo BorellaHead of Program, co-founder, Vertical Accelerator

Jonathan BradfordManaging Director, Techstars, London, United Kingdom

Oriol Pascual Director, IQS Tech Factory, Barcelona, Spain

40 Directory Social Benchmark 2015

TUMML

POPTECH

SEED SPOT

PopTech is an 18-year old non-profit that catalyzes social impact through renowned Fellows programs, incubated initiatives, thought-provoking salons and an annual conference in Camden, Maine. PopTech brings together a global community of innovators from many fields to share insights and work together to create lasting change. Its Initiatives incubate high-impact, collaborative and new approaches to some of the world’s toughest problems. Its annual conferences and events are among the highest rated in the United States. http://www.poptech.org/

SEED SPOT believes in the power of social entrepreneurs to tackle major human, environmental, and social problems. Good ideas become strong ventures when supported by an awesome community. At SEED SPOT, we have built a community that is passionate about finding, advancing, and funding the ideas of entrepreneurs that have developed a product, service, or technology to improve the human condition. http://www.seedspot.org/

Tumml is an urban ventures accelerator with a mission to empower entrepreneurs to solve urban problems. With a hands-on approach, Tumml provides entrepreneurs with the tools to help scale their impact and enhance quality of life in cities everywhere. http://www.tumml.org/

SEEDSPOT

TUMML

POPTECH

11 DIRECTORY

01 FEATURED INCUBATORS CASE DIRECTORY OF FEATURED INCUBATION PROGRAMS

This report features 3 top performing university incubators from around the world. Below is the directory of the incubators and their managers who have been featured in the report.

http://digitalmediazone.ryerson.ca/



41 Directory Social Benchmark 2015

LEETHA FILDERMAN CEO - POPTECH Leetha Filderman serves as PopTech’s President/COO and is a principal architect of PopTech’s initiatives, which support cross-sector collaborative projects and train promising innovators and scientists through the Social Innovation and Science Fellows programs. In the 1980s and 90s she developed a number of initiatives that opened access to state-of-the art care for the urban poor suffering from HIV/AIDS, serving as the Administrative Director of the Yale-New Haven Hospital AIDS Program and Research Liaison for the Boston City Hospital AIDS Research Program. Leetha has a deep and diverse background in innovative program design, and she has advised and served on the boards of numerous organizations and agencies.

COURTNEY KLEIN CEO - SEED SPOT Courtney Klein is Co-Founder and CEO of SEED SPOT, a nonprofit incubator based in Phoenix that works to increase the odds of success for passionate social entrepreneurs who are committed to solving important societal issues. Previously, Klein served as the Co-Founder & CEO of New Global Citizens, a nonprofit that empowers young people to create social change. The organization now holds a $1 million endowment at the Arizona Community Foundation, and has a presence in 30 countries and 14 states.

Klein is an Arizona native and graduate of Arizona State University’s Barrett Honors College, where she received her undergraduate and master’s degrees in nonprofit management. She resides in Phoenix, and completed her first Ironman Triathlon in November 2013.

CLARA BRENNER CEO - TUMML Clara serves as CEO of Tumml, building the organization’s national presence. Prior to founding Tumml, she worked in real estate development – at real estate tech startup Fundrise, as well as at AECOM, GVA Advantis, and Monument Realty. Clara earned her MBA from MIT Sloan and her BA from NYU. She is a member of the MIT Sloan Alumni Board. In January 2014, Forbes listed her as one of its “30 Under 30” for Social Entrepreneurship.

Camden, Maine

@leethafilderman

Phoenix, Arizona

@courtkleinaz

San Francisco, California

@clara_brenner

02 FEATURED MANAGERS BACKGROUND OF INCUBATOR MANAGERS OF FEATURED CASES

42 Participant directory Social Benchmark 2015

INCUBATOR UNIVERSITY CITY STATE

SEED SPOT - Phoenix Arizona

Global Social Benefit Institute (GSBI)

Santa Clara University Santa Clara California

SENSA Labs Stanford University Stanford California

Tumml - San Francisco California

Social Venture Partners Denver University Denver Colorado

Points of Light Civic Accelerator Emory University Atlanta Georgia

PopTech Institute - Global locations Maine

MassChallenge Boston University, Northeastern, WPI Boston, London Massachusetts

MIT D-Lab Scale-Ups Fellowships

MIT Cambridge Massachusetts

Innovation Incubator, University Outreach, University of Michigan-Flint

University of Michigan-Flint Flint Michigan

The Mission Center L3C Washington University in St. Louis St. Louis Missouri

Antioch Sustainable Business Initiative

Antioch University New England Keene New Hampshire

Princeton Social Innovation Princeton University Princeton New Jersey

Center for Transformative Action Cornell University Ithaca New York

Centre for Social InnovationParsons|The New School, New York University Reynolds, Ryerson University, OCAD University

New York City and Toronto, Ontario

New York

12 PARTICIPANT DIRECTORY

43 Participant directory Social Benchmark 2015

Cherokee-McDonough ChallengeDuke University, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NCSU

Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill

North Carolina

CUBE (Creating University Born Entrepreneurs)

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill North Carolina

Social Entrepreneurship and Education Consortium

- Virtual North Carolina

Impact Entrepreneurs Social Innovation Incubator

Portland State University Portland Oregon

GroundFloor - Dallas Texas

Tech RanchTexas State University, St. Edwards University, the University of Texas

Austin Texas

Post-Graduate Certificate in Social Innovation Management

United Nations University for Peace; George Mason University

Nairobi, Sao Paulo

Virginia

Fledge, the conscious company accelerator

Pinchot University Seattle Washington

Upaya Social VenturesPartner with the University of Chicago Booth School of Business

Seattle, Bangalore

Washington

AUTHORS - Cisco · SOCIAL BENCHMARK 2015 TOP SOCIAL INCUBATORS IN THE U.S. ... d. Build up an...

Documents

Transcript of AUTHORS - Cisco · SOCIAL BENCHMARK 2015 TOP SOCIAL INCUBATORS IN THE U.S. ... d. Build up an...