StartupNorth

Tag: incubator

  • Meaningful metrics for incubators and accelerators

    Editor’s Note: This is cross posted from WhoYouCallingAJesse.com by Jesse Rodgers, who is a cofounder of TribeHR. He has been a key member of the Waterloo startup community hosting StartupCampWaterloo and other events to bring together and engage local entrepreneurs. Follow him on Twitter @jrodgers or WhoYouCallingAJesse.com.

    CC-BY-20 Some rights reserved by Nathan E Photography
    Attribution Some rights reserved by Nathan E Photography

    Incubators and accelerators are businesses just like the businesses they intend to help develop as they travel through the startup lifecycle. As with any business, there are indicators that they can measure to give them a better idea of how they are performing besides the big public relations buzz around a company being funded.

    You need to measure these numbers so that when a success happens you can hopefully gain some insights on how to help the other companies better. The problem is that even though the model of an incubator or accelerator is generally known, how to take 10 companies and have 10 successful growth companies come out the other side of the program is not.

    The issue of what metrics to use is an important but complicated problem to solve.

    Set the baseline at the application process (pre-program)

    There are far more applicants than slots offered in an incubator or accelerator program. However, it is at this point that a program is gathering it’s best intelligence. You need a baseline measurement at the start of the program that you can measure every team against. What you should be tracking:

    • Who applied to the program that you didn’taccept (this is your control sample)
      • Track their progress on Angellist, Crunchbase, and/or go back to their web site in 3, 6, 12 months.
      • Keep a ratio of who is still in business and what their status is.
    • Maintain, in a CRM system, information on the applicant founders and their team members.

    Measure the incubator/accelerator clients (in-program)

    At this point there are X number of startups with Y number of founders and maybe Z employees. What you want to measure are things that demonstrate they have improved (or not) and which are things you would expect to see improve as a result of the services provided by any incubator or accelerator:

    • Current customers and revenue per customer (for most that will be 0 at the start) that will work across revenue models: CAC, ARPU, churn rate.
    • Sales funnel – do they have leads? How many? Are they qualified leads? What are they worth?
    • Average user growth in the last month.
    • What mentors or advisors did they meet through the program? What role did they take with the company?

    Run these numbers at the start and at the end of the program. If you are a pure research focused incubator, ignore this section. You have a much longer time to see success – but few are truly research focused.

    Monitor the graduates: Alumni (post-program)

    This is a very important thing an incubator/accelerator can do — build and maintain its alumni connections. These folks not only help at every stage of running future programs but their success lifts the profile of the program, just like how alumni of prestigious business schools make the business schools prestigious.

    There should be reporting milestones at a set interval (probably financial quarter based) where you gain the following insights on the company:

    • Customer growth percentage: CAC, ARPU, and churn rate all expressed as percentage growth.
    • Sales funnel growth expressed as a percentage.
    • Average user growth in the last month.
    • What mentors or advisors are currently active with the company?

    Ideally you should have a position that is equivalent to a close advisor or board observer with the company once it graduates from the program.

    Defining success

    If an incubator or accelerator program is successful, the graphs should be heading up and to the right at a much faster pace than they would have been had startups not entered the program.

    The only baseline data I know of is from the Startup Genome. In their report they explain the stages and the average length of time it takes a company to go through them. For an incubator or accelerator to demonstrate that they work, I would expect a successful company to move through the stages faster than the average. I would also expect them to fail faster than the average.

    Tracking metrics puts a lot more overhead on an accelerator. It is likely more than they budgeted for to start. However, if you want to know if the program is successful it is worth the investment of an admin salary to track and crunch data. This is just a baseline, track more and figure out what the indicators of success are for you.

  • There are two types of startup incubators in the world: YCombinator or TechStars

    Note: This is a guest post by Jesse Rodgers who is a cofounder of TribeHR. Jesse specializes in product design, web application development and emerging web technologies in higher education. He has been a key member of the Waterloo startup community hosting StartupCampWaterloo and other events to bring together and engage local entrepreneurs. Follow him on Twitter @jrodgers or WhoYouCallingAJesse.com.

    CC-BY-SA Some rights reserved by µµ
    AttributionShare Alike Some rights reserved by µµ

    Incubators and accelerators [Eds note: and cyclotrons] have but one purpose: move startups along in their life cycle at a faster pace than they would normally and increase the likelihood of a return by providing that service. If you are a startup looking at applying to an incubator you need to understand that the differences in how these programs differ go beyond the money they give you in exchange for equity.

    An oversimplification of the incubator/accelerator space is to classify them as either a Y-Combinator (YC) or a TechStars (TS). If you really look at the booming world of incubators for high tech startups you see a model that either based on education and peers that is driven by a strong personality (YC) or a model that is more institutional, follows a script, and feels less personal but is more in line with how VC’s work (TS) (I would place 500 Startups right in the middle between YC & TS which is arguably representative of a third type). There is plenty to be found about the differences but here is a bit of a deeper exploration into the differences.

    Startup lifecycle

    Startups have a number of key phases in development that is best outlined in Fred Destin’s presentation on startup lifecycle.

    1. Start
    2. Launch
    3. Build
    4. Chasm
    5. Scale

    With the 12-14 week cohort models, like YCombinator and TechStars, the focus should be on moving through starting and on to launch phase. There may be some that get into a build phase. The incubator or accelerator hopes that once they are done a 12-14 week program the startup will be in a much better position to move quickly through the build stage and at least take on the chasm phase.

    Where I see the key difference between YC and TS is that YC seems to be able to get companies to go through stage 1 to 3 and they accept companies mainly in the start phase. TS seems to not attract a cluster of companies in a particular phase or not care about what phase a company is in.

    The basics of an incubator/accelerator (whatever you want to call it)

    Within the execution of any incubator or accelerator program there are, in my mind, 4 core stages in a typical cycle:

    • Recruitment
    • Onboarding
    • In the program
    • After the program

    Within each of these of these stages there are a number of specific activities that all incubators do but in general they aren’t all that different.

    Recruitment

    YC currently leads the thought leadership with Hacker News, Paul Graham’s (PG) blog, and it’s success. Applicants fill out a form and once told they have an interview, travel to YC in Mountain View for an interview. They get just 15 min with a small panel and the panel does a bunch of tricks to the founders like carrying on side conversations – there are a lot of blog posts about that.

    TechStars has adopted a more consistent process over it’s many affiliated programs (it appears) but they lack YC’s Hacker News or thought leadership (although they would claim otherwise). With Techstars there appears to be an affiliation with the Kauffman Foundation and the role they are taking in promoting the incubator model in general they have made themselves an authority in the space. From people I know that have been in the program it is a fairly standard process similar to raising Angel capital.

    Onboarding

    I am not sure on TS on-boarding but YC has a very short interview to decision to start of program window. YC has a little book that is like a long Wikipedia article written by Paul Graham that offers insights and baseline knowledge. From what I have been told the YC machine is pretty much immediately available to you when they say “you are in” — startups decide when to tell others. What is really interesting is that YC doesn’t announce it. They generally let a company know they are YC funded on the interview day but they don’t make a big announcement or anything.
    Not having a big incubator announcement is a key difference here though. I will assume that with TS it is just like YC in that they have decided to fund you, they are now available to you. However, TechStars (it appears) doesn’t approach announcing the cohort in the same way as YC — they announce them ahead of the program.

    In the program: peer mentorship, startup culture

    Each program runs for roughly 3 months, 12-14 weeks, where mentorship, various events, and a demo day to close it off normally occur. Each week is important given that each team only has 3 months. Over three months there are phases you can generally identify:

    • Teams becoming familiar with each other, their mentors, and what they need to do (first 2 weeks).
    • The heads down getting stuff done phase (8-10 weeks).
    • Funding mode going into Demo Day (2 weeks).

    Other incubator programs are fairly similar with any given week involving office hours (optional or required) and a speaker/dinner. The office hours are used to check in and place goals on the teams. Throughout the term there are demo nights, which are used by YC as a way to put peer pressure on other teams that might not be moving as fast as others.
    Where they differ here is in the education of the founder(s). From everyone I have talked to that has gone through YC it seems to me it is a very challenging but rewarding relationship for a certain type of founder. That would make sense as a certain personality type will work best with Paul Graham’s way of doing things and will excel. I am not entirely sure it is simply a hacker/coder persona as most assume. I think it is a personality and learning style that goes a bit deeper.
    TechStars has a co-working model with parts very similar to YC. The key difference is that TS doesn’t have the Paul Graham approach to educating founders so you will get very different details depending on who is running the program. TS also gives the startups a place to work where YC leaves them to find a house and work out of it.

    After the program: Alumni network

    The key value any incubator or accelerator provides after the program is the alumni network of companies that are now a few steps ahead (depending on the age of the incubator there could be alumni with very large companies) of the current cohort in the program. Over time these alumni are your best mentors and connectors.

    It is at this phase where the greatest value is for the startup, I believe. You now have access to what the old folks call a big rolodex (social graph) that will open many doors which essentially leaves it up to the entrepreneur whether their company will succeed or not. There are few to no barriers, generally speaking.

    Any alumni of YC or Techstars still have contact with the folks in their cohort and all cohorts along with Hacker News. Techstars Network is so big they have a conference just for alumni while YC taps its alumni for all kinds of things. Also, founders seems to find going through the program a second time is different but just as valuable. These massive networks of successful alumni with a flock of high profile admirers is very similar to that of Higher Education alumni networks, so much so it convinces me that this entire process is a form of higher education.

    Programs that work copy YCombinator, even TechStars did

    CC-BY-NC Some rights reserved by andi.vs.zf
    AttributionNo Derivative Works Some rights reserved by andi.vs.zf

    The current culture of education focused incubators started in my mind with YCombinator (started in 2005). I believe what we are seeing with the success of YC and TS is new take on graduate school. Both are different, both work, and people can have strong opinions either way. They feed a need that I don’t think people outside of incubators quite understand yet, learning to be a founder is really hard. Being a successful founder is even harder. The bet is that if you help young founders focus on what is important they will see success earlier or just simply see what success looks like.
    If you are looking at an incubator anywhere (there are lots of great programs out there) you need to understand that the money is secondary. You need to find a program that will fit with the way you learn and has companies that you want to work with. It is just like how you picked your University or College except this time it can cost you a lot more (in equity) if you are successful.

    Note: This is a guest post by Jesse Rodgers who is a cofounder of TribeHR. Jesse specializes in product design, web application development and emerging web technologies in higher education. He has been a key member of the Waterloo startup community hosting StartupCampWaterloo and other events to bring together and engage local entrepreneurs. Follow him on Twitter @jrodgers or WhoYouCallingAJesse.com.

  • Extreme Startups

    Extreme Startups

    Rob Lewis and TechVibes is reporting that ExtremeU (you can read our past coverage 2009, 2010, 2011) has launched a new Toronto based incubator that leverages their experience over the past 3 years. Mark Evans provides additional details that includes “$7-million in funding from Extreme Venture Partners, OMERS Ventures, Rho Canada Ventures, BlackBerry Partners Fund and BDC.”

    Extreme Startups includes a who’s who of  the Toronto startup scene as mentors:

    • David Ossip
    • Daniel Debow
    • Anand Agarwala
    • Michael McDermentt
    • Ameet Shah
    • Albert Lai
    • Leila Boujnane
    • Ali Asaria
    • Noah Godfrey
    • Ray Reddy
    • Rick Segal
    • Salim Teja
    • Derek Seto
    • Nick Koudas

    Congrats to Andy Yang, Sunil Sharma and Amar Varma in getting this thing launched. Plus how can this not be awesome with Andy Yang as Harold and Sunil Sharma as Kumar in Extreme Startupping.

    Andy Yang and Sunil Sharma go EXTREME STARTUPPING

     

  • Incubators, Accelerators, and Cyclotrons

    Black is Beautiful Some rights reserved by leg0fenris
    AttributionNoncommercialNo Derivative Works Some rights reserved by leg0fenris

    They are lining up like storm troopers.

    It looks like a new crop of accelerators, incubators or, as I prefer, cyclotrons have started opening in Toronto. We’ve been talking on and off about Incubators, Accelerators and Ignition since early in 2009.

    Here is my list of incubators/accelerators/cyclotrons:

    And this is on top of the existing coworking, shared real estate, available to entrepreneurs in Toronto.
    There are lots of opportunity for entrepreneurs to find a mix of real estate, services, and cash for equity in their businesses. My advice is make sure you aren getting more than real estate with benefits. Maybe next we need to provide entrepreneurs a framework for making critical decisions about startup things including incubators 😉
    Who did I miss?

  • Hacker House in Waterloo

    HackerHouse.caLooks like Waterloo is about to get an addition to the already existing hacker houses and VeloCity residence that are happening around campus.

    Does anyone remember Plurk? Plurk was the site that MSN China copied over 80% of the user experience and code for Juku (see the official Microsoft statement).  Plurk is a place where people lurk. It has been compared to Twitter. It generates most of its traffic from Taiwan.

    And now it looks like they are opening a more “mercenary/hustler driven” approach to a student dorm. Hopefully, this is the compensation they received from a Microsoft settlement, maybe it is a recruiting tactic – hiring developer talent is a challenge and finding entrepreneurial hackers for the cost of a mortgage payment + utilities is actually a really cheap acquisition tactic. With none of the overhead of the coop program and you’ve already skirted any labour laws by making them work for their own companies. Nice.

    The program aims to bring in 3-5 students and run them through the gauntlet.  Here is one of the welcome letters:

    I’m Kan [looks like Kan Kan (LinkedIn)], and I’m one of the founders of Plurk. We’re a Twitter type service and the largest microblogging service in many parts of Asia and one of Canada’s most innovative startups (heck, even Microsoft copied us in China!).  Me and two other very successful under-30Southern Ontario area entrepreneurs just recently (earlier this month) announced the launch of our Hacker House (www.hackerhouse.ca) program, inspired by the very cool Grotto (www.sfgrotto.org) and Y Combinator programs in San Francisco.

    Basically, we plan to find 3-5 of the best and brightest entrepreneurially minded, technology focused students from the Universities of Laurier and Waterloo, bring them together in a collaborative environment, and then let the magic with the support of a team of guys (us) who have fostered and executed on some of the most successful startups on the web.

    While we’re not affiliated with the university in any way, we offer a couple of BIG benefits over Velocity:

    1. If you’re accepted, we provide your living accommodations  absolutely free in a sweet pad just steps from the university for the term/year.

    2. We take more of a cooperative mercenary/hustler driven approach, providing access to server space, mentorship, capital (in exchange for the option to buy equity into your venture) and other resources necessary to launch either (a) your own venture, (b) collaborate and percolate on ideas with other participants in the program during the term or (c) get hands on experience working on cutting edge projects (particularly in the social, mobile, geo-local, gaming, data mining & search spaces) in various stages of development.

    3. While we may not have the visibility of Velocity, I can unequivocally say that the upside and quality of the experience would be far superior for those who want to execute and iterate on ideas at breakneck speed in a constantly changing market and shoot for the moon.

    Our first cycle commences at the start of the Fall ’11 school term (September 2011) and we plan to take in 3-5 students and finalize our selection process by the middle of August.  If you haven’t already finalized your living accommodations for the Fall term and like what you hear so far, I’d encourage you to check us out on www.hackerhouse.ca for more details or get in touch with me directly.

    It is a very different approach to residence during the school year. Their focus seems to be very much competitive to UW VeloCity (full disclosure: I am the EiR at UW VeloCity and will be helping the students at UW get access, build products, etc.), but it is a very different approach. The UW VeloCity program houses 70 students, provides access to University and community resources, and for all intensive purposes is opt-in. Many students get into the residence looking for a place to live and learn about entrepreneurship and high tech startups as a career path. The goal is to provide a familiarization to hands-on entrepreneurship.

    Hacker House

    It is great to see others dedicated to continuing to build the community in Waterloo.

  • ExtremeU 2011

    Extreme Venture Partners

    Our friends over at Extreme Venture Partners have announced the recruitment for the Summer 2011 Cohort of the Extreme University. We written about the past programs:

    The program has historically taken entrepreneurs that need to develop and grow. It has provided them with funding, space, education, access to some of the best entrepreneurs, marketers, business developers and engineers around. While the timeline for success has been different, the companies like Visibli, Uken Games, and Locationary have grown into 3 very strong, very hot Toronto based startups.

    The 2011 Program has been updated based on the learnings from the past 2 years. Accepted entrepreneurs get:

    • Seed capital
    • Mentorship
    • Collaborative office space and shared resources
    • Shared Expertise
    • Network and Connections

    We can argue about if this is fair market value or not, when compared to other seed programs. The Extreme Ventures team is revamping the details of the program. The changes take one of the best programs available and make it even more compelling for eager, resourceful entrepreneurs. It will really redefine incubator programs.

    Why do I say that? Well I spent the first 3 months of development at Influitive living in the XtremeLabs space with the 2009 & 2010 cohorts. I chose to bring my startup and cofounders into this environment because it is the best in Toronto. There is an energy, a vibe of entrepreneurship, community, support and shared pain. There are world-class people like Fred Wilson that visit at the invitation of your office mates (thank you William). XtremeLabs and Extreme VP are launching world-class efforts like Hatch Labs with IAC will continue to bring the best in the world through the space. It is a great environment with the best people I have worked with anywhere – looking at you Farhan Thawar (@fnthawar) and Rick Segal (@ricksegal). All entrepreneurs can benefit from just being in the environment.

    Who are they looking for?

    We fund technology-oriented companies, with a focus on web or mobile-based software, but we are open minded to different ideas. We are looking for smart and fast-moving teams to participate. Typically all members of the two-four person teams will have strong technical abilities. We are looking for founders who have a unique understanding of a real customer problem and an innovative idea for solving that problem.

    If you’re a startup looking for my personal favorite shared space and program you should consider applying to ExtremeU.

     

  • Mantella Venture Partners Launches

    Mantella VP & Basecamp Labs

    Mantella Venture Partners launched today. It’s a $20MM early stage technology fund based in Toronto.

    “Unlike most venture funds that are supported by institutional investors, this one is backed by Mantella Corporation, a family owned commercial and residential real estate developer who has been entrenched in the GTA market since 1946. The fund is also focused on the concept of ‘hands-on capital’, ensuring that early-stage entrepreneurs get the hands-on support they need at every stage of a company’s creation and growth to help facilitate”

    The main investment partners are Robin Axon and Duncan Hill. Robin is ex-Ventures West and Ducan was an EiR at Ventures West and previously had founded Think Dynamics (acquired by IBM back in 2003). They also run Basecamp Partners/Labs where they have been incubating PushLife, Chango and a couple of other startups.

    It’s interesting to see an emerging breed of Canadian incubators and small funds like Mantella VP, Extreme VP/Xtreme Labs, Bootup Labs, Flow Ventures, Montreal Startup, Wesley Clover, LeadtoWin, and others. All of these have very different models and motivations. But they exhibit the need many startups have in both getting to Product/Market Fit and then the business development and go-to-market efforts. Both of these efforts require capital, and it’s great to see VCs that traditionally don’t get their hands dirty with operational details down in the weeds.

    Full press release below.

    TORONTO—March 2, 2010—Mantella Venture Partners announced today the formation and launch of a $20M investment fund to support early stage technology ventures in Ontario. Mantella Venture Partners is a collaboration between Basecamp Labs, a private early stage technology accelerator, and Mantella Corporation, an established family-owned commercial and residential real estate developer in the Greater Toronto Area.

    Mantella Venture Partners will invest in entrepreneurs who are building early stage mobile and Internet software companies, helping them to get their ideas from conception to market. Through the Basecamp Labs accelerator, Mantella Venture Partners will provide hands-on support at every stage of a company’s creation and growth – from business development and marketing to financing and team development – to help facilitate early market traction.

    Mantella Venture Partners is managed by Robin Axon and Duncan Hill, the founding partners of Basecamp Labs, experienced venture investors and company creators who have been involved in multiple successful venture exits to companies like IBM, Intel, Microsoft and Siemens.

    “For the past few years, we’ve seen a steady decline in Canadian venture capital deal flow, the number of VC-backed firms, and the average investment size,” says Axon.  “In fact, according to a recent CVCA report on the industry, investment levels in 2009 were the lowest they’ve been in 13 years.”

    “But innovation is still thriving,” says Hill. “With the venture market in such a state of flux, the timing could not be better for the launch of a new fund that is focused on both early-stage investing and providing the hands-on support entrepreneurs need to ensure market success.”

    The existing Basecamp Labs portfolio includes two companies: Chango, an ad buying platform for direct response advertisers; and Pushlife, a mobile entertainment platform for mobile operators.

    “The value of combining capital with guidance and support from a team with extensive experience building companies, can be seen in the progress of our first portfolio companies,” says Robert Mantella, president and CEO of Mantella Corporation. “Robin and Duncan are experienced investors and entrepreneurs who are passionate about technology and know what it takes for a start-up to succeed. Together we can breathe new life into a changing venture industry.”

    Duncan Hill was the Founder and Chief Technology Officer of Think Dynamics, a developer of data centre automation software that was acquired by IBM in May 2003. He spent two years at IBM driving strategy for early enterprise cloud computing. Most recently, Hill served as Entrepreneur in Residence at Ventures West; was an independent director for RapidMind (acq. by Intel August ’09); and was executive advisor to Opalis (acq. by Microsoft December ’09). He currently serves on the Chango board of directors and on executive advisory boards at Pushlife, ServiceMesh, Cirba, Embotics, and the Velocity program at the University of Waterloo.

    Prior to founding Basecamp Labs with Duncan Hill, Robin Axon was a partner at Ventures West on the IT and communications team. Before that, Axon was at MD Robotics (formerly Spar Aerospace) and the Canadian Space Agency, where he helped to prepare the Canadarm2 for installation onto the International Space Station. Axon has served on the boards of a number of technology companies including: QuickPlay Media, RapidMind (acq. by Intel August ’09), AudienceView, Fortiva (acq. by Proofpoint ‘08), Chantry Networks (acq. by Seimens ‘03), Belair Networks and Instrumar.

    About Mantella Venture Partners
    Mantella Venture Partners is a $20M early stage investment fund with a hands-on approach to building technology companies in high growth markets.  The fund invests in founders focused on creating market-altering mobile and Internet software businesses, and surrounds them with an ecosystem of passionate, experienced operators that drive early market engagement into sustainable business success. Mantella Venture Partners will invest up to $500k at inception with the ability to support subsequent rounds as required. It is managed by Robin Axon and Duncan Hill, experienced venture investors and company creators who’ve been involved in multiple successful venture exits to companies like IBM, Intel, Microsoft and Siemens. Additional information is available at http://mantellavp.com/.