AN ENTREPRENEUR’S MECCA?
THE DETERMINANTS OF SUCCESS OF AN ENTREPRENEURIAL ECOSYSTEM
What makes B. Amsterdam successful? A case study
This study aims to investigate the determinants that make entrepreneurial ecosystems successful, and applies them to the biggest entrepreneurial ecosystem in Europe. The inspiration for this thesis stemmed from the extensive work done by big players in this field; several theories were identified based on Isenberg, Feld and Stam. The objective of this research is two-fold. First, a so-called heat map has been developed through examining extant literature and shows the range of 13 determinants that play a role in the success of an entrepreneurial ecosystem. Second, processing this information through the qualitative case has led to multiple new insights. A ten-layered inverted heat triangle surfaced, which functions as the new overview of success factors for this case study. The standards created through extensive literature review are being challenged, generating new understandings in the process of determining what a successful entrepreneurial ecosystem is. There is a common theme that unites the group – the intangible factors energy, vibe and being able to work together. These newfound success factors have a strong focus on psychological and emotional elements and have an impact that should not be overstated. Moreover, this study suggests avenues for future research and offers a supplement, which is part of the Capita Selecta course.
UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM - FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS
VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM – FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
IKRAM ZAHRI 11090332 // 1936697
+31 6 840 55 320 IKRAMZAHRI@GMAIL.COM
I N D E X
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 5
INTRODUCTION 6
1.1 Research objective 7
1.2 Thesis scope and delimitation 8
1.3 Research framework 9
1.4 The case study: B. Amsterdam 9
1.5 Roadmap: from point A to B. 11
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 12
2.1 What is an entrepreneurial ecosystem? 12
2.2 The social context of an entrepreneurial ecosystem 13
2.3 Pitfalls and critique 13
2.4 Existing models to define success 15
2.4.1 Isenberg 15
2.4.1.1 The nine principles 16
2.4.1.2 The six distinctive domains 17
2.4.2 Feld 19
2.4.2.1 The boulder thesis 20
2.4.2.2 The framework 21
2.4.3 Stam 21
2.5. The Heat map 23
3. METHODOLOGY 25
3.1 Research method and strategy 25
3.2 Data collection 26
3.3 Data analysis 27
3.3.1 Magnitude coding 28
3.4 Quality of research 28
3.5 Emerged from the interviews: the three personas 30
4. RESULTS 33
4.1 Magnitude 34
4.2 The effect that is called B. 34
4.2.1 Association with B. Amsterdam is big business 35
5.2.2 B. dropping the ball 36
4.3 A revised view on the success determinants 37
4.3.1 The Energy and vibe 37
4.3.2 Open door policy 38
4.3.3 B. Amsterdam; where everybody knows your name 38
4.3.4 Support is more than service 40
4.3.5 Advisors and coaches: “the linkmaster” 41 4.3.6 Associating versus connecting to my peers 42
543.7 Platform becomes B. Platform 43
4.3.8 Long-term relationship 44
4.3.9 Innovation 45
4.3.10 Outside-in 47
4.3.11 The inverted heat triangle 47
5. DISCUSSION 50
5.1 Theoretical implications 50
5.3 Limitations and implications for further research 51
7. CONCLUSION 53
8. REFERENCES 55
9. APPENDICES 58
A1. The B-Flower 58
A2. The nine principles from Isenberg 58
A3. The six distinctive domains 59
A4. Key elements, outputs and outcomes of the entrepreneurial ecosystem 59 A5. Overview of the key models used for further research in this thesis 60
A6. Overview of determinants 61
A7. Data sources 61
A8. Detailed overview of participants 62
A9. Overview of magnitude coding 63
A10. Interview protocol 68
SUPPLEMENT A: TEAM ACADEMY – CAPITA SELECTA: THE INSIGHTS REPORT 72
S1. Road map 72
S2. Theoretic findings 73
S2.1 Education in entrepreneurship 74
S3. Team Academy and B. Amsterdam 76
S4. Methodology 76
S4.1 Data analysis 77
S5. Analysis 78
S5.1 What is a successful entrepreneurial ecosystem to students 78
S5.2 Positive towards B. 78
S5.3. Network and connecting people 83
S5.4 Effort 83
S6. Recommendations 85
A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S
In this section I would like to express my gratitude. To my advisor, Roel van der Voort, for posing the right questions, providing useful comments and his engagement throughout this whole process. I would also like to thank Roel for introducing me to Team Academy and B. Amsterdam, an environment that gave me the possibility to take a look behind the scenes of this sensational startup environment. Thanks to my supervisor at Team Academy, Peer Stoop, for providing me with updates and information throughout the process. Furthermore, many appreciation goes to Michel Arends and Joost van Rheenen for providing me with the necessary contacts and letting me use the facilities at Team Academy every day for the last few months. And it goes without saying to thank all entrepreneurs, B. Amsterdam managers and Team Academy students and employees for participating in this research.
I N T R O D U C T I O N
Gens a gages incertains1. It was with this phrase that Cantillon introduced us to the very concept
of an entrepreneur and entrepreneurship back in 1755 (Van Praag, 1999). Anno 2016 entrepreneurship is still a hot topic, and it is not without reason: economic studies worldwide link entrepreneurship with job creation, an increase in long-term productivity and GDP-growth (Isenberg, 2010). In compliance, there is a new trend developing: classic entrepreneurship as we know it is shifting towards entrepreneurial activity – the process of knowledge spillovers (Acs and Armington, 2004). This activity is characterized by entrepreneurial ecosystems: an environment consisting of an open context where synergies are created (Fernández Fernández, 2015). This particular setting is being fashioned by emerging literature and research on entrepreneurial ecosystems (Bosma and Holvoet, 2015).
Entrepreneurial ecosystems evolve on basis of a diverse set of interdependent actors within a certain (geographic) area. They have dominant characteristics, and therefore influence the formation and course of the group of actors involved (Cohen, 2006). The interaction of the interdependent components can generate new venture creation over time (Cohen, 2006). According to Stam (2014) an entrepreneurial ecosystem ensures the center stage for entrepreneurs: “An entrepreneurial ecosystem is an interdependent set of actors that is governed in such a way that it enables entrepreneurial action. (…) Entrepreneurs are not only key objects of study, they are also seen as the leaders of entrepreneurial ecosystem, while others, like governments and service providers are seen as feeders of the entrepreneurial ecosystem” (pp. 1). The multifarious combinations of individual elements such as leadership and culture are part of the operating factors of entrepreneurial ecosystems (Isenberg, 2010). In current literature, there is a strong focus on the role that is being fulfilled by the social context in enabling or constraining entrepreneurship in an ecosystem (Bosma and Holvoet, 2015).
Where some studies perceive entrepreneurial ecosystems as positive developments for entrepreneurs, this is not necessarily the case. Policy makers and governments are full of praise about these ecosystems, but there are some opposing voices to this notion (Isenberg, 2010). Bosma and Holvoet (2015) indicate that entrepreneurial ecosystems suffer from demarcation and lack of causal depth. Stam (2014) discusses that there are several shortcomings: he states that there is no clear ‘dependent’ variable on what a successful entrepreneurial ecosystem is and, therefore, if entrepreneurial ecosystems remain a fuzzy
concept it will have serious implications on policy and value creation. With all these different views on an entrepreneurial ecosystem there is a key question that occupies the mind of the researcher (Isenberg, 2010; Feld, 2012; Stam, 2014; 2015): Which aspects of an ecosystem contribute to its success? Are there any determinants that lift the concept of an ecosystem to a success? And perhaps more important: how are these determinants perceived by startups situated in such an environment? Do they actually contribute to the success of their company?
1.1 Research objective
This thesis consists of two parts. The main purpose and first part of this research is to study how certain determinants attribute to the success of entrepreneurial ecosystems. In the last couple of years, there has been a lot of information provided by research literature as well as by popular media about this subject. However, these success factors have not been collected and compared to find out what is most important to an existing ecosystem here in The Netherlands. The goal is to create a framework of success factors for an existing entrepreneurial ecosystem in Amsterdam. It is about linking the dynamics of success between the located companies and the ecosystem. This will help with establishing an appropriate strategy for the entrepreneurial ecosystem, based on input from people situated in one.
Along this line the second part2 of the thesis will be introduced. In this part the focus will be on
the students that are part of a higher education institution that is located in the same entrepreneurial ecosystem. Commissioned by a university of applied sciences, specific factors will be researched: in addition to the first part of the research, in supplement A you will find part two where the perception of students will be investigated. Does being situated in such an environment benefit students, and more importantly: did the environment play a role in choosing a study located in an entrepreneurial ecosystem? Furthermore, does being situated in an environment such as B. Amsterdam contribute to the social capital (hence, strong and weak ties) of the students?
Next to literature research, semi-structured interviews will be facilitated for both parts of this study to get a better understanding of the concept and the views of startups and students situated in an entrepreneurial ecosystem. Gathering information about entrepreneurial ecosystems automatically means that there is input required from startups situated in such an environment. According to Pitelis (2012) different organizations have distinctive capabilities in
terms of value-creation. Without their input, determining the success determinants can be tricky business. It can lead to making misinformed decisions; having ideas about the entrepreneurial ecosystem that are not close to reality (WEF, 2013).
1.2 Thesis scope and delimitation
What resources do entrepreneurial ecosystems offer to entrepreneurs to get the desired outcome? The variables that are up for examination are based on the key principles to build entrepreneurial ecosystems from Isenberg (2010; 2011), the nine attributes of a successful start-up community from Feld (2012), the report published by WEF (2013) and the extensive work of Stam (2014, 2015). These will act as a benchmark for determining success for entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Research question – What are the determinants that make an entrepreneurial ecosystem successful and to what extent are they applicable to the largest entrepreneurial ecosystem in Europe?
On the one hand, it is aimed to form an essential understanding of entrepreneurial ecosystems and the type of entrepreneurial ecosystem that is B. Amsterdam. On the other hand, the attributes that contribute to the success of these ecosystems are reviewed. In addition to main literature findings, an extensive case study description is of importance for this analysis, providing a thorough picture of entrepreneurial activity in its natural setting. The thesis is structured as followed:
1.3 Research framework
Figure 1: Research framework based on Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2010
1.4 The case study: B. Amsterdam
An important aspect of this thesis is the use of a case study. We will be looking at the largest entrepreneurial ecosystem in Europe, and more specifically, at the support that is provided in this ecosystem and their role in the context of success. Therefore, this section will provide you with more in-depth information on the day-to-day business and provides a glimpse into the current state of affairs of the business. The focus is put on a young entrepreneurial ecosystem in The Netherlands, namely B. Amsterdam.
For about three years now, B. Amsterdam is the largest entrepreneurial ecosystem in Europe based in the district Nieuw-West in a redeveloped 18,000-m2 former IBM office, and is expanding rapidly. Currently, management is working on B2 and even B3, while plans for a B. New York are also in an advanced stage. This rapid growth is a blessing and a curse, making management and employees work extra hard, and nearly impossible to have regular activities organized. However, many businesses (especially in the startup phase) rely on these regular activities (Cohen, 2006).
B. Amsterdam is very wary with hiring employees, because they want to foster their culture. “We are very critical, we only want the best”. The selection process is mainly based on a ‘feeling’: a
feeling that captures their interpretation of success. This translates back into having a certain mindset and mentality, something that fits the culture. As an employee of B. Amsterdam puts it: “We want to keep the culture of B. alive. We screen people on what we think: yes, they are B. or nope, they are not. That is our selection process and it is working so far”. They emphasize the role of ‘give-and-take’. “People tend to forget that we are a community. If you set up your business at B. it means that you are part of what we try to convey. That means that you expect something from us, and we expect something from you in return”.
B. Amsterdam has a few so-called high growth firms scattered around the building. These firms have important spillover effects that help other firms in their surroundings grow as well. According to Mason and Brown (2014) these firms help other companies with their competition and the promotion of innovation. Another aspect that plays a role is the partnerships, that is one of the reasons B. Amsterdam decided it wanted to form partnerships with corporate companies.
In total, there are 250 companies located at B. Amsterdam. About 180 of them are in the startup phase and around 30 per cent of the total companies are facilitators (translators, branding, software developers etc.). There is a skewed division between men and women: 70% of both employees of B. Amsterdam and people situated at B. are male. Therefore, hiring more female employees and attract more female entrepreneurs is high on the agenda.
Also, the case of funding and finance is one where B. Amsterdam would like to venture in an effort. For B. Amsterdam as an entrepreneurial ecosystem, it is important to be ambidextrous, meaning they need to pursue opportunities on basis of exploration and exploitation. This to help them balancing their short and long term needs (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2007). For B., they are more than a building, they are an environment; an entrepreneurial ecosystem. The goal is to be a worldwide brand linked to entrepreneurship and innovation. “Just like people all know Silicon Valley, that is exactly what B. should become. Not only locally, but worldwide.”
Their strategy is based on a so-called ‘B. flower’ (see Appendix A1). They consist of the presence of regional government agencies, professional and support services, capital sources, human capital and large corporations. The B. flower consists of six domains that highlight their focus points. Together they lead to the main principle of B.: to be the embodiment of growth and innovation and be the number one in what they do. The companies and startups that are a part of B. are parties that they want to be associated with. “B. is nothing without the
Energy and Vibe! Based on: human capital/diverse and skilled workforce + culture
Open Door Policy! Based on: human capital/diverse and skilled workforce + culture B. Amsterdam, where everybody knows your name!Based on: inclusiveness + having regular activities + culture
Support is more than service!Based on: provision of support service The Linkmaster: Advisors and Coaches!Based on: leadership + intermediaries/mentors Associating vs Connecting to my Peers! Based on: evolving network of people + inclusiveness Platform! Based on: evolving network of people + funding/finance+ culture
Long-term relationship! Based on: long-term commitment Innovation! Based on: innovation Outside-in! Based on: accessible markets + Corporate entrepreneurship
people in it. Of course we can build an ecosystem and create rules so the ecosystem works. But if there is not some sort of shared effort, it will all go to waste.” They do not only want to facilitate startups, but also have their eyes on corporates and government. “We want to be the first thing that comes to mind when people think about successful entrepreneurship and innovation in a big city. We want to host that ecosystem that facilitates it all and we want to be successful.”
1.5 Roadmap: from point A to B.
This thesis provides a comprehensive look into entrepreneurial ecosystems. To keep an overview of what will be discussed, this roadmap is offered. As seen above, the first step contains the case study of the entrepreneurial ecosystem that is examined, namely B. Amsterdam. Step 2 will be about reviewing literature, and a few key players in particular. From this information, a heat map is developed. This heat map (that contains all variables necessary to determine success) will be the red thread throughout the rest of the thesis: it will provide a basis for the methodology and the corresponding interviews that were held. The answers of the entrepreneurs will be assessed according magnitude coding and give new insights into the importance of each element of the heat map in step 3. After that, in the chapter ‘results’ (step 4), the responses will be discussed and reformed towards a new (more applicable) model. These new insights will then be formed into what is called an inverted heat pyramid. This inverted heat pyramid shows a new way of analyzing the success of this particular entrepreneurial ecosystem and gives new perceptions on what is successful in The Netherlands and which factors interplay.
Figure 2: Road map with illustrations
STEP 1.
B. Amsterdam – Case study description
STEP 2.
Literature review – The Heat Map
STEP 3.
Methodology: here you will find the magnitude coding overview
STEP 4.
Results: The inverted heat pyramid
2. L I T E R A T U R E R E V I E W
In this chapter, the general outlines of what an entrepreneurial ecosystem actually is will be explained. Then, the social context and the drawbacks of this type of environment will be discussed. Thereafter, the work of three key players in the field of entrepreneurial ecosystems will be discussed, namely: Isenberg (2010; 2011), Feld (2012) and Stam (2014, 2015). On the basis of their theories, together with the report from the WEF (2013), a heat map is created. This heat map serves as a framework and consists of a list with red, orange and blue determinants, all indicators of what are important contributors to success, based on above mentioned researchers and their work.
2.1 What is an entrepreneurial ecosystem?
Back in the early nineties, James Moore was the first person to mention the term ecosystem in a business context (Mason and Brown, 2014). In an article written for the Harvard Business Review, he argued how firms are relationally embedded with others, such as suppliers, customers and financiers. He states that businesses do not evolve in a ‘vacuum’: they are part of these ecosystems that create dynamics and contribute to employment creation and better growth opportunities for firms (Mason and Brown, 2014). The entrepreneurial ecosystem concept consists of a set of resources and actors, which all fulfill roles in facilitating and supporting entrepreneurial action. A key notion is that an entrepreneurial ecosystem must be locally present, involving face-to-face contact or local mobility (Stam, 2014).
Entrepreneurial ecosystems demonstrate characteristics that show that the current economic approach is shifting from a traditional view of economic rationale to a novel outlook, namely thinking about people, networks and the formal and informal rules of the game (Stam, 2014). Fostering entrepreneurial activities as an economic development is part of the entrepreneurial ecosystem (Isenberg, 2011). However, with successful entrepreneurial ecosystems, entrepreneurship in itself is not seen as an end result of the system. It is also about the creation of the system and keeping the system healthy (Stam, 2015). One of the central points in this thesis is about the need for a model of an entrepreneurial ecosystem that holistically captures determinants that contribute towards successful entrepreneurship. Suresh and Ramraj (2012) discuss the fact that the determinants by themselves are obvious factors that contribute to the success or failure of an ecosystem, but studying them grouped together in a single framework enables a systematic understanding of the factors.
Since there is not one party that specifically represents an ecosystem, it is difficult to have one tailor made objective that motivates all the actors involved. The stimulus for fostering entrepreneurship is largely dependable on who the actor or stakeholder is. Fiscal health (job creation and tax revenues) is the primary determinant for public officials. For banks, a loan portfolio may be the profitable benefit. Universities may zoom in on knowledge generation and reputation. For corporations, it is innovation, product acquisition and talent retention. “Many stakeholders must benefit in order for an entrepreneurial ecosystem to be self-sustaining” (Isenberg, 2011; p. 1). Furthermore, entrepreneurial ecosystems are known as being ‘information rich’. They provide a setting where individuals can access information and knowledge. The entrepreneurs are in an environment of evolving technologies, and have the availability to marketing and service concepts. Hence, this makes it easier to identify gaps in products, services or suppliers to fill (Mason & Brown, 2014). Elaborating on this, entrepreneurship is not just an outcome of the ecosystem; there is recognition for entrepreneurs as key players. Entrepreneurs play an important role in generating and maintaining the ecosystem, thereby limiting the direct role of the government (Stam, 2014).
2.2 The social context of an entrepreneurial ecosystem
In the current literature, there has been put emphasis on how a community of interdependent actors functions in the concept of an entrepreneurial ecosystem. The information on this subject is very voluminous, but mainly with a high focus on the role of the social context and its ability to enable or constrain entrepreneurship (Stam, 2014). The entrepreneurial ecosystem approach has a lot in common with concepts such as clusters and industrial districts (Feld, 2012). However, there is a difference: the approaches of a cluster focuses mainly on the enterprise, and not on the entrepreneur. In contrast, an entrepreneurial ecosystem revolves around the entrepreneur; he or she is the focal point (Stam, 2015). The entrepreneurial ecosystem concept thus is reasoned from the lens of an entrepreneurial individual, rather than from the company or firm. Also, the role of the entrepreneurship context is emphasized. Geographic proximity and tacit knowledge sharing often go together (Mason & Brown, 2014). An example of this is knowledge is being shared through meetings that take place in such an environment.
2.3 Pitfalls and critique
The existing literature on entrepreneurial ecosystems has a narrow view on what it actually entails: there is a strong focus on the high-growth entrepreneurial firms or tech-startups, mainly because they are perceived as important sources of innovation (WEF, 2013). However,
there should be a clear distinction between statistical indicators of entrepreneurship and the actual process of entrepreneurship (Henrekson & Sanandaji, 2014). Even though entrepreneurial ecosystems are usually perceived as a positive development, there are some opposing sounds. One of them is that an entrepreneurial ecosystem approach is lacking a dynamic view: there are not enough insights into what keeps them vital and what triggers their failure (Stam, 2014). There is an absence of fundamental depth and definition. Another downside is the uncertainty about if an entrepreneurial ecosystem offers enough focus for the entrepreneurs. Stam (2014) states that the question remains whether a corporate environment is still needed to provide focus, or whether other organizational arrangements (e.g. the groups of self-employed together) can provide this within the ecosystem. The entrepreneurial ecosystem is well known for having a lot of in-house knowledge, it provides access to current and new knowledge and offers surroundings of new technology that contribute to novel combinations (Stam, 2014). Isenberg (2010) argues that an entrepreneurial ecosystem gives the idea of high levels of entrepreneurship to be present, but this is not necessarily the case. Hence, entrepreneurial ecosystems are tautological. He states that they consist of a ‘laundry list’ of relevant factors, without a well-defined examination of what actually contributes to their success (Isenberg, 2010). The embeddedness in such ecosystems can have a flipside. Where Uzzi (1997) talks about the benefits of this system, Pitelis (2012) comes with the notion that being too embedded as an entrepreneur can eventually lead to a disadvantage. Finally, Feld (2012) discusses that there is a key principle that ecosystems should uphold. Historically, there is a trend where newcomers have to earn their way into the hierarchy. This is exactly the opposite of what is desired: there should be a welcoming attitude in such ecosystems. For an entrepreneurial ecosystem to be effective, the so-called white elephant effect should be considered: if an entrepreneurial ecosystem is poorly conceived and mismanaged, it has a huge impact on the entrepreneurial activities within the ecosystem. It will therefore become a possession that cannot be getting rid of, and where the cost of maintenance is out of proportion to its usefulness (Isenberg, 2010).
Entrepreneurial ecosystems should not just be seen as local ‘containers’, with only a focus on internal interactions. Global and national connections can play a significant role as well, especially for the entrepreneurs (Stam, 2014). As previously stated, there are several key factors that help form an entrepreneurial ecosystem. These key factors are vital for entrepreneurs (think about visibility and interconnectedness) (Stam, 2014), and next to these obvious key points, there are different authors that highlight different important attributes to what a successful entrepreneurial ecosystem entails. In the following paragraphs, the work of the
most important players in this domain will be analyzed and explicated to get to the core of what is perceived as successful in the literature.
2.4 Existing models to define success
According to Stam (2014) one of the most important determinants for a blooming entrepreneurial ecosystem is part of the composition, namely: the presence of a diverse and skilled workforce. A significant source for this success can be derived from the availability of new knowledge. Another source is the provision of support services: there are different kinds of intermediaries present in an entrepreneurial ecosystem, and these intermediaries may contribute to lowering the entry barriers for new entrepreneurial projects, and possibly speed up certain innovation processes (Stam, 2014). The WEF study (2013) concludes that it is difficult to determine what the crucial and contingent conditions are for successful entrepreneurial ecosystems. Determinants such as funding/finance, accessible markets and human capital/workforce are most relevant to generate growth for entrepreneurial firms. However, these determinants are what Stam (2014) calls ‘proximate causes’, meaning that they are not fundamental causes of entrepreneurial ecosystem success per se.
In this section, the leading theory about entrepreneurial ecosystems will be discussed and analyzed to find out what currently is perceived as successful determinants. The entrepreneurial ecosystem approach is constructed on the basis of various origins (Mason & Brown, 2014). According to the WEF research (2013), there are three areas in an entrepreneurial ecosystem that contribute to the growth of early-stage companies, and therefore to their success. These areas are: accessible markets, human capital/workforce and funding and finance. In this section, researchers who contributed to this area of expertise in extensive lengths will be discussed. First, the most important player in this field and his theories will be discussed, namely: Daniel Isenberg, a Professor of Entrepreneurship Practice and an entrepreneur for over 16 years. Subsequently, the model of Ben Feld will be explicated. He created the Boulder Thesis and a framework where he discusses nine attributes of a successful start-up community. At last, Eric Stam will be discussed: a Professor at the University of Utrecht with a strong focus on the Dutch entrepreneurial culture and ecosystems.
2.4.1 Isenberg
One of the red threads that mark Isenberg’s research is the quest to find the epitome of a good entrepreneurial ecosystem. It is argued that Silicon Valley is the pinnacle of an entrepreneurial ecosystem, however, Isenberg provides an opposing voice to this idea. In his
article ‘how to start an entrepreneurial revolution’ (Isenberg, 2010) he argues that the success of Silicon Valley is a combination of factors that are hard to imitate, even if Silicon Valley itself tried it today. He discusses eight other principles that contribute to building an entrepreneurial ecosystem, all of which highlight the role of the local setting and bottom-up methods (see appendix A2), where, principle 1 to 5 are seen through the lens of local conditions, principle 6 and 7 are about striving ambitious entrepreneurship and principle 8 and 9 put emphasis on institutions.
2.4.1.1 The nine principles
The first statement that is made by Isenberg and discussed previously, is the fact that entrepreneurial ecosystems around the globe should stop trying to emulate the “gold standard”, namely Silicon Valley. It is very tempting to want to try and imitate an existing success story, but according to Isenberg (2010) there are three reasons why this is a poor idea: (1) even Silicon Valley could not become itself today if it tried, because it developed under a unique set of circumstances (such as the Californian culture, a liberal immigration policy toward doctoral students, and mostly just pure luck). (2) there is a surplus of technology and technical expertise in Silicon Valley. Governments aspire to have a ‘knowledge-based industry’, but there is more to it than meets the eye. It requires a generation long investment in different areas such as education. (3) Silicon Valley is a place that serves as an attraction spot for ready-made entrepreneurs. They form their own subcultures, based on the places they came from.
The second principle is ‘Shape the ecosystem around local’s conditions’ and is about how the government should create a customized ecosystem that is aligned with the local entrepreneurial proportions, style and ambiance. Considering the role of the government more as feeders rather than decision makers, this principle does not have a high relevance. The third principle is also directed at the government, stating that the private sector should be engaged from the start. This is based on the fact that governments cannot do it alone; the private sector has the ability to drive profit-driven markets (Isenberg, 2010). There are two sub-principles to this: (1) start with a candid question. To get success out of this collaboration, it is important for a government to reach out to the right representatives early. This because it contributes to candid advises in how to formulate entrepreneur-friendly programs. The other sub-principle is about designing in self-liquidation, which means that the entrepreneurial ecosystem eventually should be self-sustaining, without the help of the government.
The fourth principle is about favoring high potentials. This is a method that approaches funding from a different angle. Instead of resourcing the bottom of the pyramid ventures, the focus should be on the high-potential firms. This may go against the norm and seem a little unfair, but if resources are limited, it is important to support enterprises that address large potential markets. The fifth principle is about a psychological factor of the entrepreneurs situated in an entrepreneurial ecosystem: it is about celebrating success. Isenberg (2010) states “even one success can have a surprisingly stimulating effect on an entrepreneurship ecosystem – by igniting the imagination of the public and inspiring imitators. I call this effect the law of small numbers” (p. 45). An additional aspect to this is to over-celebrate success. However, this is very dependent on the culture you are in. In The Netherlands for example, they are well known for their saying ‘to act normal is already crazy enough’3. This is a big cultural difference with other western nations such as the United States.
The seventh principle is to refrain high potential entrepreneurs from giving them easy money. This may seem in contradiction to the fourth principle, but this is about the fact that more money is not necessarily better. Isenberg (2010): “New ventures must be exposed early to the rigors of the market. Just as grape growers withhold water from their vines to extend their root systems and make their grapes produce more concentrated flavor, governments should stress the roots of new ventures by meting out money care – fully to ensure that entrepreneurs develop toughness and resourcefulness. Such measurements also help weed out opportunists (p. 47). Resource-scarce environments often help entrepreneurs to think outside the box.
The eighth principle is about helping ecosystems to grow organically. According to Isenberg (2010) there is only anecdotal evidence that the government successfully developed such an ecosystem. The mutual vision of a group of stakeholders that is committed to the advancement of entrepreneurship is what makes sure that an ecosystem gets to exist (Suresh & Ramraj, 2012). The ninth and final principle is about the legal, bureaucratic, and regulatory frameworks that are critical to such an ecosystem, which help smoothen operations from an ecosystem. These nine principles provide a framework that can serve as a base for the following paragraph.
2.4.1.2 The six distinctive domains
Next to the nine principles that contribute to an entrepreneurial ecosystem, Isenberg (2011) continues his view on what creates a successful entrepreneurial ecosystem by listing six
distinctive domains that should be present. There are hundreds of specific features to the domains Isenberg (2011) offers. In this paragraph, the key domains will be discussed. It is important to state that each entrepreneurial ecosystem consists of unique properties. Although using the same six domains can outline the general idea of an entrepreneurial ecosystem, it is still a result of hundreds of specific elements that interact in a highly complicated and distinctive way (Isenberg, 2011). The changes that occur in such an ecosystem are what statisticians call “high order interactions” (Isenberg, 2011). This simply means that there are different variables working together to get a certain outcome. The entrepreneurial ecosystem approach offers insights and a unique outlook on the clustering of economic activity (Mason & Brown, 2014). They state that Isenberg puts emphasis on local environments and the associated conditions required to create and upkeep ambitious entrepreneurship (Mason & Brown, 2014). Another vital aspect to this is the celebration of success. As Isenberg (2010) discussed this before, it is important to identify and celebrate one or two random successes that are part of the ecosystem. This law of small numbers influences perception and leads to success. Only a handful of entrepreneurial triumph is needed to create spillover effects such as role models, serial entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, board members, angel investors, and mentors (Mason & Brown, 2014). As Isenberg (2011) puts it: success breeds success. And because of this success, entrepreneurial ecosystems can become self-sustaining. This means that help from outside – such as from a public institution – can be reduced. Once the domains are stable, they will be mutually reinforcing. It is critical that an entrepreneurial ecosystem should be self-liquidating: this will help them on building a sustainable long-term strategy.
The principles are as follows (see appendix A3 for a graphic overview): it is about enabling policy and leadership, the availability of appropriate finance, and a conductive culture. The range of institutional and infrastructural support that exists of leadership and government, and quality human capital, which can be looked at from the perspective of labor and educational institutions. Lastly, venture friendly markets for products are an item, consisting from networks and early customers. This model holistically develops elements of an entrepreneurial ecosystem (Isenberg, 2011). It shows that the domains are interconnected. Mason and Brown (2014) state that this model is used as a prerequisite for the successful organization of an ecosystem. It is emphasized that entrepreneurial ecosystems are developed under a unique set of conditions. They can be applied to industry specific ecosystems, or can be geographically bounded. These domains are not dependent on the size of the city in which they are located (Mason & Brown, 2014). The World Economic Form (WEF) uses very similar
components to conceive a successful entrepreneurial ecosystem (WEF, 2013; Stam, 2014). The components of the WEF also focus on the presence-resources as key factors, such as human capital, finance and services. They have distinguished the formal and informal institutions (such as government and regulatory as formal and cultural support as informal) to show how entrepreneurship can be enabled. These components of the WEF (2013) for a successful ecosystem show similarities with the mentioned domains of Isenberg (2011).
Finally, it is discussed that access to customers in domestic and foreign markets play a role (Stam, 2014). Isenberg (2011) states that if the principles and domains are followed, there can be new venture creation, a creation of an ecosystem and a vibrant business sector. Stam (2014) challenges these statements: he states that it is unclear how the mechanisms of these principles work to realize these statements as results. In a later article (Stam, 2015) it is argued: “The common denominator appears to be the fact that entrepreneurs create new value, organized by a wide variety of governance modes, enabled and confined within a specific institutional context” (p. 1764).
2.4.2 Feld
Feld refers to entrepreneurial ecosystems as start-up communities (Feld, 2012). He argues that the best startup communities are not strictly organized, and entail a broad and evolving network of people. This network can exist, because there are no specific roles present. “By having inclusive philosophies, it’s very easy for new leaders to emerge organically (…). Since the leaders are entrepreneurs, they are used to ambiguity as well as rapid and continuous evolution of the community” (Feld, 2012; p. 71). In the Boulder Thesis, which is one of the reports Feld published about such ecosystems or communities, he discusses the involvement of a big group of experienced entrepreneurs that put all their efforts into supporting the ecosystem. According to Feld, having entrepreneurs that contribute time, energy and knowledge, it will lead to business angels, mentors and established organizations to support this ecosystem.
Entrepreneurs that are part of an ecosystem or community, recognize that it is a time consuming task to build a sustainable and vibrant entrepreneurial environment. Another point that is critical in this context is the quality of the leadership. Such communities should be inclusive and be open-minded about other members in the community who want to be involved. Feld indicates, “leadership also needs to be based on meritocracy not patriarchy” (p. 111). Furthermore, in his work there is a dismissive attitude towards a possible role the government plays in entrepreneurial ecosystems. He argues that because of the electoral cycles, politicians
have an agenda; they do not necessarily have the best interest at heart for an entrepreneurial ecosystem (Mason & Brown, 2014).
2.4.2.1 The Boulder thesis
The Boulder is a framework consisting of the following four key components: 1. Entrepreneurs must lead the startup community
Needless to say, this does not apply to all entrepreneurs located in such an ecosystem, but this is true for a critical mass of entrepreneurs (around a dozen). In contrary to other groups such as universities, governments, and investors, it is these entrepreneurs that should provide leadership.
2. The leaders must have long-term commitment
If you aspire to partake in a leading role in the ecosystem you are in, Feld states that there should be a commitment to be available and present for at least 20 years. He substantiates this by saying that it takes real motivation to be a leader and to have a lasting impact. This is displayed by showing commitment towards the entrepreneurial ecosystem.
3. The startup community must be inclusive of anyone who wants to participate in it An entrepreneurial ecosystem should welcome new people with open arms. Feld (2012) states: “Anyone who wants to engage should be able to, whether they are changing careers, moving to your city, graduating from college, or just want to do something different. This applies to entrepreneurs, people who want to work for startups, people who want to work with startups, or people who are simply intellectually interested in startups” (p. 67). This philosophy is applicable to all levels of the startup community. Entrepreneurs should see other entrepreneurs as something positive, having a growing ecosystem. It should not be perceived as a zero-sum game, where there is a lot of competition. “If everyone engages, they and the entire community can all be winners” (p. 67).
4. The startup community must have continual activities
Entrepreneurial ecosystems have to organize regular activities to create bonding among the different parties engaged in the concept. Also, the community should have something that Feld calls cheerleaders. This can be done by blogging, writing and talking about what is happening in the ecosystem. “Regardless, be proud of what you are doing in your community, and make noise about it to the world” (p. 93).
2.4.2.2 The Framework
Feld (2012) created an overview of nine attributes that are considered success factors if an entrepreneurial community possesses them. In this framework, he also elaborates on the key concepts of the Boulder Thesis and the nine attributes. These nine attributes together are, seen through the lens of Feld, contributors to the success of an entrepreneurial community. They consist of:
1. Leadership: having a committed group in the ecosystem, 2. Intermediaries: mentors that give back to the community, 3. Network density: being connected to the people in the ecosystem, 4. Government: having supportive policies,
5. Talent: meaning that talented people should be available throughout different sectors in the ecosystem,
6. Support services: the accessibility of professional services,
7. Engagement: connecting to the ecosystem through different activities, 8. Companies: Large companies should have divisions in the ecosystem, 9. Capital: different forms of funding and finance should be available.
2.4.3 Stam
The research of Stam is highly quoted in this thesis, mainly because of his references and overview on the determinants that play a role in every entrepreneurial ecosystem. The main question he addresses is about how an entrepreneurial ecosystem contributes to productive entrepreneurship, and not only to an increase in the rate of overall start-ups and self-employment. The bottom line according to Stam (2015) is that visible and connected entrepreneurs are perceived as the heart of a successful ecosystem.
Stam (2014) puts prominence on the increase in innovation. In The Netherlands, there is currently an increase in the number of startups and self-employment. However, this does not translate into an increase in innovation. On the contrary, in The Netherlands the growth in the number of startups and self-employment has not led to a significant increase in innovation (Stam, 2014).
An entrepreneurial ecosystem is seen as a broad and complete set of resources and actors: all of which play an important part in facilitating and/or enabling entrepreneurial action. This mainly takes place locally, entailing face-to-face contact. Stam (2014) states: “The overall message is that innovation by entrepreneurs necessitates experiments in production, distribution and
consumption. For this we need deep expertise and the interactions between sets of expertise at an optimal cognitive distance. Innovation by independent entrepreneurs is most strongly affected by community entrepreneurial ecosystems, while entrepreneurial action by employees is strongly conditioned by corporate entrepreneurial ecosystems” (p. 7). The main focus in an entrepreneurial ecosystem is put on the presence of a skilled and diverse workforce; this element is most important for a thriving ecosystem. New knowledge is a vital source of entrepreneurial opportunities. Also, an ecosystem that facilitates support services by different kinds of intermediaries may contribute to new entrepreneurial projects (Stam, 2014).
“Entrepreneurial action refers to the process by which individuals pursue opportunities for innovation. Innovation involves new value creation in society, which is the ultimate outcome of an entrepreneurial ecosystem” (p. 5). Stam (2014) developed a model (see appendix A4) that distinguishes framework and systematic conditions, outputs and outcomes. These key elements summarize the variables permitted to have a successful entrepreneurial ecosystem. The used description is about innovation: the model refers to the process by which entrepreneurs pursue innovative opportunities. An entrepreneurial ecosystem can be broken down into different conditions, namely: formal/informal conditions, physical conditions that allow or limit human and entrepreneurial interaction, and systematic conditions. With systematic conditions it is meant that conditions such as networks, finance, new knowledge, leadership, and intermediaries have the possibility to interact with each other, and if they are allowed or limited by the conditions of the framework. Networks facilitate division of labor, and enable information and capital to flow within the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Role models and guidance are also a prerequisite of an entrepreneurial ecosystem according to Stam (2014) and are offered by the availability of leadership. This leadership plays a crucial role in building up and sustaining a healthy ecosystem. Just like Feld (2012) discussed, there should be visible entrepreneurial leaders present that show their commitment to the ecosystem. Finally, access to finance is another key player in this concept. It is crucial for investments in uncertain entrepreneurial projects.
The upward connection shows how the fundamental causes of new value creation are arbitrated by entrepreneurial activity, while the downward connection shows how outcomes and outputs are also refluxing back into the system conditions.
2.5 The Heat map
In this section, the previous discussed theory will be presented in one quick graphic overview. Appendix A5 shows a complete outline of the key models discussed above and their determinants. This outline has led to a scheme that is depicted as a heat map. This heat map contains all determinants selected on the basis of the relevance of the author, and the corresponding determinants are categorized in terms of importance. This model is applicable, because it makes researching B. Amsterdam more tangible. At the moment, there are no clear-cut frameworks that give insights into what exactly works (or does not for that matter) for an ecosystem. All researchers have their own perception, but there are some overarching determinants. These are all gathered and put together in this so-called heat map, ranked according to significance. This significance is determined by the emphasis put on these determinants by the different researchers.
The heat map consists of 13 determinants. These determinants are distilled from the discussed literature, and show the order in which they are contributors to a successful ecosystem; these determinants are a global overview of what is deemed important to have in a successful entrepreneurial ecosystem. The red determinants are perceived as most important. This means that all (or almost all) researchers agreed that these were the most crucial for an ecosystem to be successful. You could state that human capital/diverse and skilled workforce, provision of support service, and funding and finance are all three key factors for an ecosystem and contribute highly to its success. The orange determinants are also important, but not to the same degree as the red ones. It can be stated that in the discussed literature, the orange variables were marked as medium important, making them a little less likely to contribute immensely to the success of an ecosystem. Nevertheless, they are still worth to keep an eye on. Finally, the blue determinants are deemed as least important by literature. This means that according to current research, these determinants have the least influential and significant role in making an entrepreneurial ecosystem successful. In summary:
1. Red stands for high significance: these are determinants that are discussed in extensive lengths by most or all of the researchers. They play a pivotal role in having an entrepreneurial ecosystem emerge towards a successful concept.
2. The determinants that are in the orange colored boxes are determinants of medium significance: they are not discussed as much as the determinants in red and are therefore important, but not essential.
3. Lastly, the blue boxes stand for determinants that are of low significance: there was little to no discussion about these elements in the concerning literature.
In appendix A6 you will find the overview with specifics of the authors and their rated importance on each variable. Also, next to Isenberg, Feld and Stam, the World Economic Forum (WEF) is taken into account in this overview. The WEF serves as a benchmark to the work of the researchers, because the report is composed out of different case studies: This will function as a practical example.
3. M E T H O D O L O G Y
In this chapter, there will be a focus on how research is directed throughout this study. The purpose of this study is to gain an in-depth understanding of a phenomenon from multiple angles. The most suitable method that would allow reaching that depth is through a case study. As Yin (2009) puts it: “A case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon (as opposed to entirely historical) in depth and within its real-life context” (p. 2). The paragraphs in this chapter are based on an excerpt from Yin’s (2003) research design. In the section research method and strategy it is shown which steps were taken to get the appropriate results. In the section data collection you will find an overview of the sources of data and background information on the respondents. Furthermore, in the section data analysis you will find the background on the coding methods used. Also, the results of magnitude coding will be elaborated, including a scheme with quotes and key words. This magnitude overview shows how the respondents value the different determinants of the heat map. In the section quality of research the different validities will be discussed. Also, the biases on certain elements will be touched upon. Finally, three different personas will be introduced in the final section. These personas are created post-interviews and are an added perspective on the different dimensions that are part of an ecosystem.
3.1 Research method and strategy
As Suresh and Ramraj (2012) have indicated, “It is not enough to ask what successful people are like but one must also understand their environment” (pp. 95). To get insights into this environment, and more importantly, to get a grasp on what makes such an environment successful, it is important to shed light on environment as well. Cohen (2006) touches upon this subject by stating that there is a lack of appreciation for the entrepreneurial ecosystem; a lack that is created by researchers and their undivided focus on individual entrepreneurs. Thus, this study is an assessment of the determinants of success of an entrepreneurial ecosystem: it investigates the phenomenon by making use of fundamental literature and evaluates this through a different lens, as these determinants have never been grouped together and researched in this particular context before.
The in-depth knowledge and underlying means of individuals situated in such ecosystems need to be analyzed; this will be done through magnitude coding (see next section). An essential step in the analysis procedure was to create transcripts and analyze interviews
individually and the intersection among them. For this, the method of using codes with the Atlas.ti program seemed most convenient due to the number of interviews.
To obtain information, a qualitative method of research will have the most beneficial outcome to the understanding of the topic (Eisenhardt, 1989). The case study will mainly be used for descriptive and testing purposes (Suresh & Ramraj, 2012). In-depth interviews are used to gather information and collect data. A two-step approach was undertaken to get to the core: the first step consists of a systematic search of certain key words in the voluminous collection of literature about entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial environments and business ecosystems. Then, the articles and books found were filtered to get the most extensive and rigor definitions of success in an entrepreneurial ecosystem context: these determinants are primary to the research.
The research in current literature conducted specifically in this context is of paucity results thus far. Therefore, a single case study will provide a higher level of understanding and detail (Yin, 2003). A relatively new ecosystem for startups was identified as the case for this study. According to Edmonson and McManus (2007) it is of importance to have qualitative research when examining nascent theory. To gain a thorough understanding of complex developments and processes, extensive data collection methods have been used (Eisenhardt, 1989a). The following section touches upon this more in-depth.
3.2 Data collection
For the data, different sources are tapped. The data for this research is based upon (1) archival data, (2) semi-structured interviews, (3) explorative meetings and conversations with entrepreneurs, employees of B. Amsterdam and startup employees, (4) the websites of the companies, and (5) the website of B. Amsterdam (see appendix A7 for a schematic overview). In qualitative research, selecting the cases and collecting the data is an important process (Suresh & Ramraj, 2012).
Ten face-to-face in-depth interviews were conducted, each session varying between 30 and 60 minutes. During the interviews, different preset determinants based on literature findings were discussed. The interview template (including the motivation) can be found in appendix A10 and were structured based on the research by Isenberg (2010; 2011), Feld (2012) and Stam (2014; 2015). For each determinant of the heat map specifically, questions were developed. The heat map therefore functioned as a framework through which the analysis of potential success
factors was structured. Each session started with information about the participant and their business. The next step was to get their vision on what a successful business environment means to them. Thus, before providing them with questions based on current literature, it was important to get their unbiased and uninfluenced perception on the topic. For analyzing purposes, the interviews were audio recorded and notes were taken. Respondents were guided throughout the interviews and questioned to cover all relevant topics. Also, the so-called snowball effect was used to get more participants in this research.
In total, four founders, three co-founders, two startup employees and one corporate employee were interviewed (see appendix A8 for a schematic overview). These interviews took place at B. Amsterdam, not only because that is the subject of the research, but also to get a grasp on the vibrant atmosphere and get a good understanding of the phenomenon of an ecosystem and how different factors interplay. After ten interviews, a red thread throughout the answers could be detected, meaning a sign of data saturation.
3.3 Data analysis
Since current literature is being tested in an actual case, the decision is made to use an amalgam of open coding, in Vivo coding, and evaluation coding (Saldana, 2009). With evaluation coding, the focus will be on magnitude coding.
The first step in this process is open coding. This technique is used as a distilling method to form the first codes. This is an iterative process where the interviews are reviewed multiple times by the researcher to increase reliability and account for biases. In certain cases, the use of in Vivo coding was executed, mainly because this was a more fitting label. Next, the process of magnitude coding was implemented. Magnitude codes can be applied to evaluation codes to show the evaluative content of the data (Miles & Huberman, 1994). According to Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998) it is intended as a way to make qualitative research more quantitative and visa versa. In this research, nominal indicators based on Saldana (2009, p. 58-61) will be used to enhance description of the labels.
Evaluation coding receives some backlashes: mainly because this method is very difficult to be analyzed in an objective manner. Specifically, for magnitude coding there is objection. However, this notion is changing (Saldana, 2009). Magnitude coding is an addition on codes and can add texture; it is a corroborate factor for qualitative data (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). Also, being structured in your data and analysis make it a trustworthy concept (Saldana, 2009):
for this reason, the procession of the data is done in a cautious and meticulous manner. As he puts it: “the act of coding requires that you wear your researcher’s analytic lens. But how you perceive and interpret what is happening in the data depends on what type of filter covers that lens’ (pp. 6) (Hedlund-de Witt, 2013).
3.3.1 Magnitude coding
In the following section, an overview of all the determinants discussed will be displayed, including a score. The determinants in this research got labeled according to the evaluation process of Saldana (2009). After each interview, the answers were assessed and were awarded a score. The questions of the interview were, as previously discussed, based on the heat map. As can be recalled, the heat map consists of red, orange and blue determinants (which can be viewed as a spectrum where red is most important and blue least important). After the interviews, the responses were measured and a score was allocated. This step is done to get insights into the perception of entrepreneurs that are situated at B. Amsterdam. The researchers discussed in the literature review might have a certain view on what is important, but it is unclear if this is applicable to an entrepreneurial ecosystem in The Netherlands. Therefore, as a tool for further analysis in the next chapter, the given value of the determinants can be found in the appendix (A9).
It is important to keep in mind that data within this framework “cannot always be precisely and discretely bounded; they are within ‘fuzzy’ boundaries.” (Tesch, 1990; pp. 135). To assist the magnitude coding per label, quotes derived from the interviews will be used: this to support the provided value. These quotes are then pooled into groups and together form a certain level (least importance, medium importance or great importance, or: 0/1, 2, 3) about a particular determinant. Together they form an idea of the importance of each determinant. Furthermore, keywords are created. These are words that are the red thread throughout the interviews, grouped according to each determinant in alphabetical order.
3.4 Quality of research
First and foremost, the highest priority is to have the quality of the research ensured. The interview questions were designed based on the heat map discussed in chapter 2. This is done to get insights into how different groups based at B. Amsterdam perceive different factors marked as part of a successful ecosystem by current literature. To get these insights, a so-called double-loop reflection is used. The respondents will reflect upon the general validity of the heat map. At the same time, the value of the work of the researchers will be tested, as this
model is tested (indirect) during this case. The purpose of this approach is to look at the determinants and identify where this is divergent from the information provided by the respondents. “The importance of the interacting of interdependent components in the entrepreneurial ecosystem cannot be overlooked” (Cohen, 2006; pp. 91).
To improve credibility, respondents were asked to verify the data gathered to prevent any mistakes from the side of the researcher. For the reliability, the test-retest method was applied. This consists of labeling once and re-coding this material again at a later stadium to ensure agreement between the first and second time coding (Gorden, 1992). To guard against possible biases in observation, a time lapse between the first and second round of coding was maintained. Furthermore, reliability was improved by making certain that during the interviews both parties were on the same page with regard to the purpose of the interview. Construct validity as mentioned by Yin (2009) is essential within explorative research. Formulating the questions in a right manner and having the interviewees understand and grasp the idea of success factors was a challenging task. To ensure construct validity, the questionnaire was divided into four topics. First, the general information and idea about ecosystems was discussed. Then, the determinants distilled from literature were mentioned, grouped in the color of the heat map. For this reason, the interviews were kicked off with neutral questions about their own companies, the ecosystem and their unbiased opinion on what success means to them in the context of an entrepreneurial ecosystem.
The generalizability of this research seems limited. The findings will be tailor-made for this specific case study, namely B. Amsterdam. Therefore, the external validity may seem minimal. However, as B. Amsterdam is one of the multiple ecosystems rooted in the Netherlands, it may be applicable to other Dutch or even European ecosystems as well, assuming they are not culturally different.
Furthermore, having three female and seven male interviewees could indicate a gender bias. However, as can be read in the context of the case study (see introduction) this distribution reflects the population at B. Amsterdam and thus can be generalized. Also, the age of the interviewees ranged from 19 to the age of 57, meaning an approach to include the different age groups was attempted.
3.5 Emerged from the interviews: the three different personas
A more detailed look into the data (post-interviews) made it apparent that there were three main categories the respondents could be grouped by. These groups, named personas in this thesis, have each their own characteristics and serve to understand the analysis of the data better from different perspectives.
A quick overview that was encountered:
1. First of all, not all entrepreneurs situated in B. Amsterdam are the same; every type of person situated at B. has his or her own function. There are the big decision makers with leading innovative products, the small business owners and their flexdesk, or the employees who are part of a bigger framework.
2. There is a big difference in opinions on certain things and the sector the entrepreneur operates in. People from a technical background value other things than people from a creative background.
3. Third point is that the function or occupation of people matters. (Serial) entrepreneurs have a complete different outlook on work and life balance than employees of a startup or freelancers. These differences play a role in how they approach the determinants towards success.
Based on the points discussed above, roughly three different persona types surfaced. In this section, they will be introduced. They will form a red thread throughout the analyses and will create more perspective and in-depth perception into how the determinants are being evaluated.
3.5.1 Persona 1: The (serial) entrepreneur
This can be a seasoned entrepreneur or just starting in the business, but (usually a he) is someone that knows what he wants and is not afraid to show it. The process seems less intimidating to them than to others in the ecosystem, to whom it can seem very mysterious and baffling. He typically has a background in engineering or IT. He gives shorter answers in comparison to the other interviewed entrepreneurs/startup employees and really wants to have a specialized branch within B. based on the background of his company. Also, they are the group that believes a long-term commitment can be a good choice, if there is a mutual beneficial relationship with the ecosystem. This persona is usually not so enthusiastic about sharing everything with everyone and they believe that they are the main drivers of the ecosystem. “You have the entrepreneurs and the employees. The entrepreneurial spirit comes from the
