Master Business Administration, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), University of Amsterdam
A comparative study: Entrepreneurial
ecosystems in Amsterdam and Ljubljana
Student name: Anže Smerdelj
Student number: 11387114
Supervisor: dr. Tsvi Vinig
Institution: University of Amsterdam
Program: MSc. Business Administration
Track: Entrepreneurship and Innovation
2
Statement of Originality
This document is written by student Anže Smerdelj, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
3
Acknowledgements
I would like to sincerely thank dr. G.T. Vinig for being both my thesis supervisor as well as track coordinator. Through his lectures and given assignments during the year, I was convinced to write on an interesting topic of entrepreneurial ecosystems, focused both on my home country and Amsterdam. His suggestions, feedback and professional knowledge guided me through the whole process of writing my thesis.
4
Table of Content
1 Abstract ... 6
2 Introduction ... 7
3 Literature review ... 9
3.1 The origin of entrepreneurial ecosystem term and its applicability in entrepreneurship and innovation ... 9
3.2 Research agenda and shortcomings of entrepreneurial ecosystem approach . 10 3.3 Components of entrepreneurial ecosystem ... 12
3.4 Ranking parameters of the ecosystem ... 17
4 Conceptual framework ... 19
5 Research design ... 22
6 Results ... 25
6.1 Entrepreneurial ecosystems results ... 27
6.2 Framework conditions ... 27 6.2.1 Formal institutions ... 28 6.2.2 Culture ... 33 6.2.3 Physical infrastructure ... 36 6.2.4 Demand ... 38 6.2.5 Systemic conditions ... 39 6.2.6 Networks ... 40 6.2.7 Leadership ... 43
5 6.2.8 Finance... 46 6.2.9 Talent ... 50 6.2.10 Knowledge ... 54 6.2.11 Support services/Intermediaries ... 55 7 Discussion ... 62 8 Conclusion ... 68 8.1 Research contributions ... 70 8.2 Research limitations ... 70
8.3 Recommendations for Further Research ... 71
9 References ... 72
10 Attachments ... 85
List of Tables
Table 1: WEF's eight pillars of EE ... 13Table 2: Feld's nine attributes of EE ... 14
Table 3: Isenberg's six domains of EE ... 16
Table 4: Stam's conceptual model ... 20
Table 5: Amsterdam's entrepreneurial ecosystem ... 59
6
1 Abstract
This master thesis aims to compare two different entrepreneurial ecosystems, in Amsterdam, the Netherlands and Ljubljana, Slovenia. Two different countries, with different histories. The entrepreneurial ecosystem in Amsterdam is being increasingly recognized as one of the best entrepreneurial ecosystems both in Europe and the world. On the other side we have entrepreneurial ecosystem in Ljubljana, which has just started gaining momentum after some noticeable success stories. Unlike some others, where governments intentionally wanted to develop such ecosystem, it started growing and developing from the bottom up. The decision for comparative study was made, to see what policies were introduced and worked in Amsterdam and what things could be used in Ljubljana. Explorative qualitative research design was employed and used grounded theory together with case study methodology. For the purpose of this research two sets of data were used. Secondary data gathered from various international institutional reports as well as interviews and personal blogs from active entrepreneurs. Next set of data was gathered by conducting semi-structured interviews with entrepreneurs from both ecosystems. Next the analysis of both entrepreneurial ecosystem was conducted and served as the basis for comparison. The research is concluded by making recommendations for entrepreneurial ecosystem in Ljubljana based on what worked in Amsterdam.
Key Words: Entrepreneurial ecosystem, Entrepreneurship, Innovation, Startups, Building ecosystem, High-growth firms, Amsterdam, Ljubljana, Venture Capital, Blockchain
7
2 Introduction
Entrepreneurship has become one of the buzzwords in the 1990s, where media news were filled with success stories of individuals. Since then entrepreneurship has become recognized as one of the major factors that influence economic development, growth, employment and productivity (Ahmad et al., 2008). As more and more literature has been written on entrepreneurship and its effects and the emergence of various success stories, people started to wonder if entrepreneurship can be nurtured and aided. This was especially fuelled by enormous success of the Silicon Valley.
As Silicon Valley produced increasing amount of high-growth companies and consequently gained international recognition as the best place to start your business, governments started to think of ways to achieve this results in their own countries and regions. At first many of them applied exactly the same methods and practices to the ones used in Silicon Valley, but many of them to no avail. So people have started to wonder how is it possible to stimulate entrepreneurial activity and how can these clusters or ecosystems help boost entrepreneurship. Many of these stems from theories of geographical economy and cluster creation.
Most of the policy makers were first interested in promoting entrepreneurship in general and they thought that the more entrepreneurship there is, the more self-employed people there are, the more innovative their national economies will become. But as is the case in the Netherlands, more entrepreneurship does not necessarily translate into more high-growth firms and more innovative society (Stam, 2015). And this is where the theory of entrepreneurial ecosystems differentiates itself from other theories. Rather than promoting the
8
quantity of entrepreneurship, it is more focused on how to stimulate ambitious entrepreneurship and increase the quality of new ventures.
As a student of Entrepreneurship and Innovation track and a person attracted to start up world, I too have a vast interest in these ecosystems, how can they be created, why are some doing better than others etc. I have chosen this topic because I am from Slovenia, and even though our entrepreneurial ecosystem has been developing in the right direction in recent years, I do believe there is a lot more to be done. I have decided to compare it to the one in Amsterdam, mainly for two reasons. The first one is that I am doing my Masters degree here. And the second one is that Amsterdam's entrepreneurial ecosystem has drastically evolved the last years and has been recently ranked as the 19th best entrepreneurial ecosystem in the world (Schol, 2015). Also, the Netherlands is recognized as one of the most entrepreneurial countries in the Europe (Stam, 2014). The entrepreneurial ecosystem in Amsterdam will therefore serve as a benchmark point.
A lot of papers are assessing entrepreneurial ecosystem in Amsterdam. And while there is some literature on the ecosystem in Ljubljana, I believe more could be done there. That is why the goal of this thesis is to do a comparative study of both cities' entrepreneurial ecosystems. It is obvious that the one in Amsterdam is the more developed one. My goal is to see where both entrepreneurial ecosystems currently are and what, if any, policies and things were done in Amsterdam that could be applicable to the ecosystem in Ljubljana, to further develop it.
My research question is the following: What are the differences between entrepreneurial ecosystems in Amsterdam and Ljubljana, and what can the entrepreneurial ecosystem in Ljubljana learn from the one in Amsterdam.
9
3 Literature review
3.1 The origin of entrepreneurial ecosystem term and its applicability in
entrepreneurship and innovation
The entrepreneurial ecosystem approach has been gaining momentum and popularity in recent years, though the notion itself is older. The term was first used by James Moore in his 1990s article for Harvard business review, putting forward a notion that new businesses are interacting with several other actors (suppliers, buyers, competitors, financiers etc.), rather than evolving in a vacuum (Mason and Brown, 2014). The term consists of two words, entrepreneurial and ecosystem. Entrepreneurial refers to entrepreneurship, which Stam (2008, p.6) defines as ˝the introduction of new economic activity by an individual that leads to change in the marketplace˝. Schumpeterian definition involves individuals exploiting opportunities for innovation (Schumpeter, 1934). It is important to note that entrepreneurial ecosystem approach mostly excludes more traditional forms of entrepreneurship, such as self-employment or small businesses and puts emphasis mainly on high growth startups (Mason and Brown, 2014, WEF, 2013). The focus is shifting to productive and ambitious entrepreneurship (Stam, 2014; Stam, 2015; Stam and Spigel, 2017).
Biological interpretation of the ecosystem, where living organism coexist in an environment, of course should not be taken literally. Scholars (Stam, 2014; Stam, 2015; Stam and Spigel, 2017) suggest that entrepreneurship and innovation do not happen in a vacuum, but within an environment with many interconnected stakeholders. Nappier and Hansen (2011) talk about the importance of critical mass of co-located actors in regional ecosystems, as a single actor on its own is not as valuable as she/he is when part of the system. The strength of the ecosystem lies in dense networks and collaboration between key actors.
10
Research suggests that performance of new ventures is strongly impacted not only by business itself, but also the surrounding ecosystem (Fuerlinger et al., 2015). So it is of vital importance to build an ecosystem that enables and nurtures entrepreneurship and innovation, rather than hinder them.
Entrepreneurial ecosystem approach stems from theories such as industrial districts, clusters, (national) innovation systems and they share a common focus on external environment. What also distinguishes entrepreneurial ecosystem theory from others is that it emphasises the interactions between framework conditions and local/regional geographical environments (Mason et al., 2014). The biggest difference is the idea where entrepreneur, rather than a firm, is put at the very centre of ecosystem and is both the central figure and the outcome, while the government becomes only a feeder of the ecosystem (Stam, 2015). Feld (2012), in his book, is talking about privatization of entrepreneurship policy, as the role of the government changes from being a leader to being a feeder to the ecosystem.
3.2 Research agenda and shortcomings of entrepreneurial ecosystem
approach
Though the term has received a massive attention in recent years, starting from policy makers, there are still several elements where rigorous academic assessment shows shortcomings in entrepreneurial ecosystem approach. With the rise of popularity also came an abundance of different definitions of components or elements of successful entrepreneurial ecosystems. Stam (2015) argues that while the entrepreneurial ecosystem concept is intriguing, it is also tautological: entrepreneurial ecosystems are fertile grounds for successful entrepreneurship, and where there is a lot of successful entrepreneurship, there is apparently a good entrepreneurial ecosystem. Critical review of the literature (Stam, 2014; Stam, 2015;
11
Stam and Spigel, 2017; Alvedalen and Boschma, 2017) shows that while there may be a consensus of what the key components of the ecosystem are, there is no framework that would explain cause-effect relationship of those elements. Lack of these kind of framework and knowledge of key mechanisms that govern the emergence of entrepreneurial ecosystems therefore provides little insight for policy makers.
Mason and Brown (2014) also point out the need for a comprehensive evolutionary approach that would explain how, when and under which circumstances do entrepreneurial ecosystem emerge and evolve. While empirical data shows vast differences between entrepreneurship levels across regions, it remains unclear how entrepreneurial ecosystem approach can explain those differences. Another point that this approach fails to properly address and answer is the level of analysis. As some scholars point out (Stam, 2014; Stam, 2015; Stam and Spigel, 2017; Alvedalen and Boschma, 2017), it could be within a city, a region or a country. It can also be analyzed on transnational level, as some successful entrepreneurs are connected to and active in various entrepreneurial ecosystems, and it can be defined as different sectors or corporations.
Entrepreneurial ecosystem approach indicates a different direction from traditional economic thinking of market failure and markets that strive to achieve perfect market equilibrium. It abandons the idea that markets can be perfect and focuses on people, networks and institutions and how they are organized within a certain context to maximize value production. Most noticeable was the shift in entrepreneurship policy itself, where the type of entrepreneurship became important: favour few high-growth, ambitious firms over small, non-innovative firms or self-employed with limited growth possibilities. Stam (2015) suggest that the next step will be the shift from entrepreneurship policy to entrepreneurial economy.
12
Instead of maximizing certain entrepreneurship indicator, creating a context or a system in which productive entrepreneurship can flourish, thus generating the most value for broader society, will become an ultimate goal.
3.3 Components of entrepreneurial ecosystem
Because the topic of entrepreneurial ecosystems has started gaining popularity only recently, there is still no widely accepted definition of it. Cohen (2006) coined the first definition of the entrepreneurial ecosystem concept and defined it as: “an interconnected group of actors in a local geographic community committed to sustainable development through the support and facilitation of new sustainable ventures.” (p. 3). Suresh et al. (2012) offer a definition of entrepreneurial ecosystem according to which, the ecosystem enables the individuals, enterprise and the society to combine effectively for the cause of generating economic wealth and prosperity.
Stam (2014; 2015) breaks the expression down. Entrepreneurial refers to entrepreneurship, which is a process by which opportunities to create novel goods and services are discovered, evaluated and exploited. And this process isn't going on alienated, but is rather placed in a community of interdependent actors. Theory on entrepreneurial ecosystems is mostly interested in how (social) context either allows or restricts entrepreneurship. Therefore Stam (2015) defines entrepreneurial ecosystem as "a set of interdependent actors and factors coordinated in such a way that they enable productive entrepreneurship" (p. 1765). Mason et al. (2014) provide a similar definition: "entrepreneurial ecosystem is a set of interconnected entrepreneurial actors (both potential and existing), entrepreneurial organizations (e.g. firms, venture capitalists, business angels, banks), institutions (universities, public sector agencies, financial bodies) and entrepreneurial
13
processes (e.g. the business birth date, numbers of high growth firms, levels of blockbuster entrepreneurship, number of serial entrepreneurs, degree of sell-out mentality within firms and levels of entrepreneurial ambition) which formally and informally coalesce to connect, mediate and govern the performance within the local entrepreneurial environment" (p. 5).
Several researchers offer their list of components that are integral parts of successful entrepreneurial ecosystems where entrepreneur plays a central role. In their research, World Economic Forum (WEF, 2013) recognized eight pillars on which healthy and conducive entrepreneurial ecosystem is built (Table 1.).
Table 1: WEF's eight pillars of EE
Pillar Components
Accessible markets Domestic markets: large/medium/small companies as customers and governments as customer
Foreign market: large/medium/small companies as customers and governments as customer
Human
capital/workforce
Management talent, technical talent, entrepreneurial company experience, outsourcing availability and access to immigrant workforce
Funding & finance Friends and family, angel investors, private equity, venture capital and access to debt
Support systems/mentors Mentors/advisors, professional services,
incubators/accelerators and networks of entrepreneurial peers
Government &
regulatory framework
Ease of starting a business, tax incentives, business-friendly legislation/policies, access to basic infrastructure, access to telecommunications/broadband and access to transport
14
Education & training Available workforce with pre-university education, available workforce with university education and those with
entrepreneurship specific training
Major universities as catalysts
Promoting a culture of respect for entrepreneurship, playing a key role in idea-formation for new companies and playing a key role in providing graduates to new companies
Cultural support Tolerance for risk and failure, preference for self-employment, success stories/role models, research culture, positive image of entrepreneurship and celebration of innovation
Source: WEF 2013, p.6-7
Feld (2012) listed his nine attributes that he came up while studying the entrepreneurial ecosystem in Boulder region (Table 2.). Though he came up with the attributes while studying only Boulder city/region, he claims that those are applicable to every entrepreneurial ecosystem in the world.
Table 2: Feld's nine attributes of EE
Attribute Description
Leadership Strong group of entrepreneurs who are visible, accessible and committed to the region being a great place to start and grow a company
Intermediaries Many well-respected mentors and advisors giving back across all stages, sectors, demographics and geographies as well as a solid presence of effective, visible, well-integrated accelerators and incubators
15
Network density Deep, well-connected community of startups and entrepreneurs along with engaged and visible investors, advisors, mentors and supporters. Optimally, these people and organizations cut across sectors,
demographics, and culture engagement. Everyone must be willing to give back to his community
Government Strong government support for and understanding of startups to economic growth. Additionally, supportive policies should be in place covering economic development, tax, and investment vehicles
Talent Broad, deep talent pool for all level of employees in all sectors and areas of expertise. Universities are an excellent resource for startup talent and should be well connected to community
Support services Professional services (legal, accounting, real estate, insurance, consulting) are integrated, accessible, effective, and appropriately priced
Engagement Large number of events for entrepreneurs and community to connect, with highly visible and authentic participants (e.g. meet-ups, pitch days, startup weekends, boot camps, hackatons, and competitions)
Companies Large companies that are the anchor of a city should create specific departments and programs to encourage cooperation with high-growth startups
Capital Strong, dense, and supportive community of VCs, angels, seed investors, and other forms of financing should be available, visible, and accessible across sectors, demographics, and geography
16
Isenberg (2011) recognized six different domains and twelve sub-domains that are shown below in Table 3. He claims that every entrepreneurial ecosystem contains various individual elements that interact and combine in complex and different ways, so governments shouldn’t focus on a single element, but rather strive to develop the ecosystem as a whole.
Table 3: Isenberg's six domains of EE
Source: Isenberg, 2011
To build an entrepreneurial ecosystem he proposes nine steps, taking into an account local conditions and using bottom-up approach. These are: 1. Stop emulating Silicon Valley, 2. Shape the ecosystem around local conditions, 3. Engage the private sector from the start, 4. Favor the high potentials, 5. Get a big win on the board, 6. Tackle cultural change head-on, 7. Stress the roots of new ventures, 8. Do not over engineer clusters; help them grow
17
organically, 9. Reform legal, bureaucratic, and regulatory frameworks. The role of the government is also to design policies that encourage positive innovation and punish negative ones, such as rent seeking or even organized crime (Romero-Martínez et. al, 2008). Though the Isenberg’s approach seems to be in line with recent academic research, the causal-effect relationships remain unclear (Stam, 2015).
Comparing the components from different scholars shows that they all recognized similar pillars and shifted the focus from government (which is now only one piece of the whole entrepreneurial ecosystem) to entrepreneur. There also exists an underlying notion that each component is tightly connected to others. However, as stated before these systems fail to properly explain the causal relationships between the components.
3.4 Ranking parameters of the ecosystem
As stated above there are numerous components of entrepreneurial ecosystems and each component has various parameters that can be measured and assessed. Conceptual model used for this research will be Stam’s (2015) framework for entrepreneurial ecosystem. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor measures entrepreneurial ecosystem on twelve different dimensions: Governmental Policies: Support and Relevance, Governmental Policies: Taxes and Bureaucracy, Government Entrepreneurship Programs, Entrepreneurial education at School Stage, Entrepreneurial Education at Post School Stage, R&D Transfer, Commercial and Legal Infrastructure, Internal Market dynamics, Internal Market Burdens or Entry Regulation, Physical Infrastructure, Cultural and Societal Norms, Entrepreneurial Finance (GEM, 2017). GEDI (Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index) measures fourteen pillars of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Those are: Human Capital, Internationalization, High
18
Growth, Product Innovation, Process Innovation, Risk capital, Competition, Networking, Tech Sector, Risk Acceptance, Startup skills, Opportunity Perception, Opportunity Startup and Cultural Support (GEDI, 2018)
GEM’s (2016) Governmental Policies: Support and Relevance, Governmental Policies: Taxes and Bureaucracy, Government Entrepreneurship Programs can be classified as formal institutions in Stam’s (2015) framework. Culture and Societal Norms can serve as parameters for culture/informal institutions. Physical infrastructure as physical structure, but part of this physical infrastructure is also availability of broadband internet connection and public transportation, airport connectivity etc. To measure this, European Digital City index will be used. The next dimension is demand for which internal market dynamics can be a parameter as well as the GDP and population of a country, which are indicators of the market size and the potential buying power. As parameters for networks go, networking pillar from GEI index will be used, since GEM report doesn’t use any parameters that would correlate to networks. Another indicator of network density can also be events for startups and involvement of corporate sector, which can contribute to collaboration, knowledge dissemination etc. Neither GEM report nor GEI index offer any parameters for leadership. In order to rank leadership dimension, most successful startups and biggest exits can be examined and serve as a parameter. GEM report’s entrepreneurial finance and GEI’s risk pillar can serve as parameters for finance dimension, as well as the number of business angels, investors, VC funds, crowdfunding platforms and successful projects there. Human capital and startup skills pillars from GEI index and entrepreneurial education in school and post school stage from GEM report will be taken as ranking parameters for talent dimension. Also parameters from Startup Genome’s Global Startup Ecosystem Report, such as experienced software engineer, experienced growth employees and visa success rate will be
19
used for Amsterdam’s entrepreneurial ecosystem only, because there is no data on Ljubljana from that report. For knowledge the parameters used will be rankings for universities, R&D transfer dimension from GEM report, as well as process and product innovation from GED index. Commercial and legal infrastructure dimension from GEM report will serve as a ranking parameter for support services.
4 Conceptual framework
In order to analyze and compare both entrepreneurial ecosystems the theoretical model proposed by Stam (2015) will be used. He defines entrepreneurial ecosystem as: "a set of independent actors and factors coordinated in such a way that they enable productive entrepreneurship." (p.1765). Stam (2015) then elaborates that entrepreneurial activity can then be seen as the process by which individuals create opportunities for innovation. And this innovation creating opportunities eventually result in new value in and for society. And that consequently is, as he puts it, the "ultimate outcome" of entrepreneurial ecosystem.
The model proposed by Stam (2015) consists of three layers: entrepreneurial ecosystem elements, entrepreneurial activity and aggregate value creation. Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements are further divided into two segments, framework conditions and systemic conditions.
20
Table 4: Stam's conceptual model
Stam (2015) (p. 1765)
Framework conditions are formal institutions (government and regulatory framework), culture (considered as informal institution), these are considered as social conditions, physical infrastructure that helps human interaction, and demand for goods and services created by entrepreneurs in the ecosystem. However demand is more or less exogenous determined factor and is not related as much to internal conditions of the ecosystem as it is to its relative position (Stam, 2015).
Framework conditions give entrepreneurial ecosystem sort of a base on/within which to built systemic conditions, which are the core of it. Systemic conditions have the biggest impact on the success of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Well developed networks among entrepreneurs themselves and between entrepreneurs and other players of the ecosystem improve information dissemination and knowledge sharing. Leadership of successful entrepreneurs is important as they can, on one hand serve as role models for upcoming entrepreneurs and people in general, and on the other hand they can reinvest their knowledge, experience, connections and money back to the ecosystem. Stam (2015) defines it as a set of
21
visible entrepreneurial leaders who are committed to the region. Access to finance is another variable, especially important is critical mass of seed and start-up investors to provide finance and hands on support (Mason et al., 2014). Stam (2015) adds that these investors should possess entrepreneurial knowledge and experience. For him, the most important features of entrepreneurial ecosystems is a large pool of talented and knowledgeable workers, both from private and public sectors (proximity of universities and/or large companies in the region can therefore be an important factor). Supply of affordable support services can both improve time-to-market for innovations and lower entry barriers for new ventures (Stam, 2015).
This model will be used as a framework through which the entrepreneurial ecosystems in Amsterdam and Ljubljana will be analyzed and compared. Dimensions proposed by Stam (2015) will be measured and ranked using both secondary data obtained from desk research from various reports and primary data from in-depth interviews from various people involved in either entrepreneurial ecosystem.
22
5 Research design
The aim of this research is to study entrepreneurial ecosystems in Amsterdam and Ljubljana and compare different parameters of both entrepreneurial ecosystems. And based on this results provide some recommendations for improvements for the ecosystem in Ljubljana.
Research question: What are the differences between entrepreneurial ecosystems in Amsterdam and Ljubljana, and what can the entrepreneurial ecosystem in Ljubljana learn from the one in Amsterdam?
To answer the research question the adopted approach is a qualitative research methodology. Qualitative research is highly descriptive and it usually focuses on socially constructed nature of reality through the eyes of the members, it is also has literary and humanistic focus, rather than mathematical and statistical as quantitative approach does (Gephart and Rynes, 2004). Qualitative study is mostly used when a researcher studies social actors' meanings to understand the phenomena and studies the phenomena in environments in which it occurs (Gephart and Rynes, 2004). It is useful when the goal of a research is to dive deeper and get more detailed view of a phenomena in the real life, as is the phenomena of entrepreneurial ecosystem.
The object of this research is twofold. To rank and compare entrepreneurial ecosystems in Amsterdam and Ljubljana and to get insights into entrepreneurial ecosystem in Ljubljana on how to improve it. Case studies can include either single or multiple cases (Eisenhardt, 1989). Because of this the comparative case study approach using two case studies will be used to allow a better recognition of patterns and whether findings can be
23
applied to more than one case (Eisenhardt and Grabner, 2007). Research used deductive and descriptive approach, which means the study and working propositions are grounded on literature and are then either confirmed or rejected based on data collected (Yin, 2009).
The case study of entrepreneurial ecosystem in Ljubljana was selected because it is gaining momentum and is developing, but not a lot has been written on it and it is still quite unknown. Amsterdam as a comparative case was chosen, because it is one of the most developed entrepreneurial ecosystem in the world and quite a lot of studies have been done on it, so it serves as a good case to compare and analyze it with, and to see what policies were implemented here and could potentially, based on the cultural, legal and historical norms of Slovenia, be implemented in Ljubljana as well.
The data was collected using two methods, desk research and semi-structured interviews with people involved in either of the two entrepreneurial ecosystems, be it as a part of the start up in the respective entrepreneurial ecosystem or as a mentor or employee of a incubator, accelerator etc. Seven interviews were conducted, four in entrepreneurial ecosystem in Ljubljana and three in entrepreneurial ecosystem in Amsterdam, with people in various positions within the ecosystems in order to provide information from a different point of view and allow triangulation of data to improve on data validity (Eisenhardt 1989; Yin, 2009). Desk research was used to gain secondary data from reliable sources in order to rank and compare both entrepreneurial ecosystems. Secondary data with which the two entrepreneurial ecosystem were ranked and compare were gathered from various reports, such as GEDI 2017 global entrepreneurship index (GEI), Global entrepreneurship monitor (GEM), European digital city index (EDCI).
24
Interviews were conducted in two ways. With people involved in entrepreneurial ecosystem in Amsterdam, the interviews were conducted in person and in English, while the people from entrepreneurial ecosystem in Ljubljana were interviewed via Skype in their mother tongue, Slovenian. Interviews were recorded and transcribed and important insights translated to English. People were asked to talk about their previous and current engagement in the entrepreneurial ecosystem, what were the obstacles and benefits they faced as entrepreneurs, what are the advantages and weaknesses of the ecosystem and what are their recommendations for it. Pattern-matching and thematic-coding approach were used to increase internal validity and English was used for coding because of the difficulties of translating some concepts to Slovenian. External validity is controlled by doing a comparative case study and not using a single case and also by interviewing eight people involved in either of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Reliability is achieved by taking two different entrepreneurial ecosystems as case studies, with interviewees from both case studies and different positions in the ecosystem, meaning different viewpoint, which leads to more holistic dataset.
There are of course limitations to this study, namely that interviewees were chosen more on a convenience basis, rather than being selected randomly out of a large data set. Also a larger number of cases should be selected in order to provide better insights, because although there are a lot of characteristics we can compare them on, each entrepreneurial ecosystem has unique characteristics and different background on which it was created.
25
6 Results
Upon collecting the needed data, an analysis has to be performed in order to be able to answer the research question of this thesis: What are the differences of entrepreneurial ecosystems in Amsterdam and Ljubljana, and what can the entrepreneurial ecosystem in Ljubljana learn from the one in Amsterdam.
Semi-structured interviews that were conducted for the purpose of this research were being recorded by a smartphone. The recorded interviews were then transcribed to facilitate the analysis of the data. Since half of the people interviewed were Slovenians, those interviews were conducted in Slovenian and also transcribed in Slovenian, due to the issue highlighted by Cortazzi et al. (2011) that translated interviews are usually longer than originals. What’s more is that translators tend to influence the data and analysis through their experience and personality. Hence the decision to keep transcripts in its original language. But quotes were translated in English.
A total of seven interviews were conducted for the research, four with entrepreneurs from Ljubljana and three with entrepreneurs from Amsterdam.
Codes are created in order to tackle the problem of data overload while conducting a qualitative analysis (Miles and Huberman, 1984). “They usually derive from research questions, hypotheses, key concepts, or important themes.” (Miles and Huberman, 1984, p. 56).
For the purpose of this research, codes were derived from a conceptual framework of entrepreneurial ecosystem conditions, devised by Stam (2015). The codes are as followed:
26
Table 5: Codes derived from the interviews
Code Abbreviation Definition
Formal institutions FM Government and governmental institutions
Culture CUL Positive image of entrepreneurship,
acceptance of risk and failure, success stories and role models
Physical infrastructure PI Startup villages, co-working spaces, internet connectivity, energy
Network NW Deep, well-connected community of startups
and entrepreneurs with active investors, mentors willing to “give back” to the ecosystem
Leadership LS Successful serial entrepreneurs that serve
both as role models and mentors
Finance FIN Strong, dense and supportive community of
VC’s, angels, seed investors and other forms of financing
Talent TAL Pool of talented people willing to work in
startup world
Knowledge KN Universities educating students and
preparing them for practical work
Support
services/intermediaries
SS Professional services (legal, accounting, incubators, accelerators)
Demand DMN Balance, size and demand of the market
27
6.1 Entrepreneurial ecosystems results
Slovenia, that became independent in 1991 after separating from Yugoslavia, is one of the smallest countries in European Union. Being part of the socialist economy has definitely left certain imprints on both Slovenian economy and culture. This is probably why 83% of adult population in Slovenia believes in equality of outcome and that everyone should have more or less the same level of standard of living (Rebernik et al., 2017). That is the highest percentage of any European country, and also third highest in the world. On the other hand we have the Netherlands with a strong history of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosystem in Amsterdam exploded in the recent years and is a common name when it comes to the best ecosystems in the world.
On a national level, GEDI ranks the Netherlands as 11th best in the world with an overall score of 68.1%, while Slovenia was ranked 25th with an overall score of 53.8% (GEDI, 2017). On a city level, Amsterdam’s entrepreneurial ecosystems ranks as 3rd best in Europe, falling behind just London and Stockholm while Ljubljana’s entrepreneurial ecosystem ranks 47th (EDCI, 2016). Comparing both ecosystem with both national and city rankings clearly confirms the presumptions made, that entrepreneurial ecosystem in Amsterdam is more developed in comparison to the one in Ljubljana.
6.2 Framework conditions
Framework conditions are the base or the soil from which stem the systemic conditions of entrepreneurial ecosystem. And they consist of four elements: formal institutions, culture, physical infrastructure and demand (Stam, 2015).
28 6.2.1 Formal institutions
Formal institutions include legal framework, government, and all its departments, ministries, agencies, initiatives etc. that in any way contribute and affect entrepreneurial ecosystem. Formal institutions can both help and contribute towards better entrepreneurial ecosystem or hinder it. Slovenia has several initiatives and programs that are targeted at startups, to help them achieve their growth goals. One of the more serious commitments from the government was the opening of Slovenian entrepreneurship fund (SEF) in 2006. The goal of SEF is to provide startups the access to micro financial resources. They offer various incentives in three phases: product development, market launch and fast global growth. The problem they face is disloyal competition, because the public money being invested and distributed doesn’t always go to those who truly deserve it (Kupec, 2015).
GEM report breaks down the role of formal institutions into three categories; 1) Governmental Policies: Support and Relevance, 2) Governmental Policies: Taxes and Bureaucracy, and 3) Government Entrepreneurship Programs. Rebernik et al. (2017) rates this pillar as one of the three most problematic ones in Ljubljana and Slovenia alongside with entrepreneurial education and culture. GEM report (2017) ranks Governmental Policies: Support and Relevance for Slovenia with 2.55 on a 5-point scale, with 2.59 being the GEM average. Governmental Policies: Taxes and Bureaucracy scored 1.84, the GEM average is 2.38. Slovenian Government Entrepreneurship Programs scored 2.66, just slightly above GEM average of 2.63. GEM report (2017) ranked the Dutch formal institutions the following. Governmental Policies: Support and Relevance scored of 3.26 out of 5, Governmental Policies: Taxes and Bureaucracy were ranked with 3.42 and Government Entrepreneurship programs were ranked with 3.63.
29
While the things at least started moving into the right direction in Slovenia, Špetič (2017) recognizes some major issues that need to be addressed. He broke them down into three categories: 1) administrative process problems, 2) tax problems, and 3) business problems. While the government is bragging about its e-solutions, these are often user-unfriendly, for example, all investors have to be physically present to make an investment. If one of the owners or investors is inactive, the company claims that share. But in Slovenia that’s impossible if the company is making a loss, which is often the case, especially in early stage startups. Also small funds and syndicates are illegal in Slovenia, because the government didn’t know how to stop abuses in the past of some of the corrupt entrepreneurs, they decided to tackle this problem by disabling all other entrepreneurs and forcing them to open businesses in other countries.
Though the general taxation in Slovenia is not among the highest in the world, there are no incentives for entrepreneurs to reinvest their profits in Slovenia. There are also no tax breaks for startups or young companies. Stock options are also prohibitively expensive (Silicon Gardens, 2017; Špetič, 2017).
Main business problems include in many cases complex, unstable and unclear laws. For foreign investors it is almost impossible to find out all the rules and regulations that apply to them. To employ foreign worker is nearly impossible and the governmental employees are not required to speak English. There are long waiting lines for tax ID and other permissions and government is doing nothing to attract foreign entrepreneurs. There are countless safety regulations, health requirements etc. that are a waste of time for small businesses with limited resources (Silicon Gardens, 2018; Špetič, 2017).
30
Dutch government started different programs and incentives years ago, focused on ambitious entrepreneurship and increasing the level and quality of innovations. Dutch government is focused on helping ambitious startups and entrepreneurs to quickly achieve high growth. For this they have initiated Ambitious Entrepreneurship Action Plan. They recognized the need of this sector for better access to capital, networks, knowledge, innovation and global market. The government assigned a budget of €75 million to Ambitious Entrepreneurship Action Plan. The plan aims to achieve the following things:
• provide early-stage finance so entrepreneurs can test their ideas or products on the market
• strengthen international position of start ups and invite foreign entrepreneurs to the Netherlands
• provide temporary residence permits for non-EU entrepreneurs, making it easier for them to start a venture in the Netherlands
• create NLevator initiative - platform developed with help from entrepreneurs to help them grow their ventures faster
• fund Eurostars projects - innovative technology development projects involving business and knowledge partners from at least two different European countries
• provide funding under Horizon 2020 - the European Commision programme to stimulate European R&D (Ministerie van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie, 2017)
Aside from this plan the Dutch government offers startups and new business WBSO, which is R&D tax credit to incentivize startups and business to invest in R&D as this lowers their wage costs, and costs connected with prototype and research equipment (RVO, 2017).
31
Dutch government have recognized the negative side of having heavy regulatory burdens, as this leaves startups and entrepreneurs with less time and resources to focus on their core business. So, they set as one of their goals to make dealing with the government and regulations easier for business owners. They will offer business faster digital services such as:
• eRecognition. A single username and password enables businesses to communicate with government bodies easily online.
• The Berichtenbox (a message box) offers quick and secure way to communicate with the government via email.
• The Company Dossier, in which business can enter their details for all their permits in one go. The company dossier can be viewed by supervisory and licensing authorities. • Standard Business Reporting (SBR), which makes it easy for business to reuse
business data for their annual reports, tax returns, etc.
• Digital invoices or e-invoices. Government can process and pay digital invoices more quickly.
• Online questionnaires enabling businesses to find out what rules and regulations apply to them and how they affect them.
All this steps will not only save time for businesses, but Dutch government estimates that entrepreneurs and startups could save €2,5 billion in 2017 compared to 2012 (Ministerie van Economische Zaken, 2016).
If we compare the GEM scores for Governmental Policies: Support and Relevance, Governmental Policies: Taxes and Bureaucracy and Government Entrepreneurship Programs, we can see that not only do the Dutch formal institutions score above their Slovenian counterparts, formal institution dimensions in Slovenia are lagging behind (except for
32
Government Entrepreneurship Programs) even the GEM global average. The most critical dimension in Slovenia are governmental policies concerning taxes and bureaucracy. Both countries have set up a public-private partnership to help entrepreneurs create an ecosystem that nurtures their needs. Both countries invited successful entrepreneurs to collaborate in this initiative. While both countries offer startups financial incentives, Dutch government does more to help entrepreneurs in terms of policies that target tax breaks, less tight regulations, easier bureaucratic burden and faster dealing with the affairs.
Quotes on formal institutions in Ljubljana’s entrepreneurial ecosystem:
• “One of the main problems is that high-tech and growth-oriented entrepreneurship is not recognized as a separate industry. Apart from SEF, there aren’t any systemic policies and laws that would target this kind of entrepreneurship.”
• “I think they should do less. Write legislation with as little bureaucracy as possible, offer some tax breaks that would replace complicated public tenders.”
• “Government cleans its name through SEF, but reality is that the environment is a death trap.”
• “If you want to formally close your company it takes six months, which is unacceptable for serial entrepreneurs.”
Quotes on formal institutions in Amsterdam’s entrepreneurial ecosystem:
• “Hiring a person from EU is quite easy, outside of EU it is hell.”
• “Sometimes the communication of government is still in Dutch, also to our international employees who can’t speak Dutch.”
33
• “The developers are really expensive, but with the subsidy for innovation we can hire them and keep our costs down”
• “Not a lot of financial incentives, but at least in fin-tech industry rules are changing, which will allow a lot more flexibility and possibilities for startups.”
6.2.2 Culture
Culturally, Dutch people generally have a preferable attitude towards entrepreneurship, which may be rooted in their genes from the golden age on where they were successful international businessmen and even established the first multinational company in the world (GEM, 2017). GEM (2017) measures attitude towards entrepreneurship with three categories; 1) entrepreneurship as desirable career choice, 2) entrepreneurship is given high status, and 3) media attention for entrepreneurship. 79% of Dutch people view entrepreneurship as a desirable career choice. Even though the percentage slightly dropped since the 2007-2010 period when it was around 85%, that still puts them way over OECD or EU average of 54% and 56%, respectively.
The level of respect or high status that Dutch people give to entrepreneurs is one percentage point under the EU average of 65%, and it appears to be stable over time. However, the media attention entrepreneurs get, decreased by six percentage points between 2011 and 2014, but bounced back two percentage points in 2015, to 58%. This is still above OECD and EU average of 55% and 54%, respectively. The overall score for cultural and societal norms about entrepreneurship in GEM report (2017) is 4.01 on a 5-point scale, with 2.91 being the average.
34
The mindset and cultural norms of Slovenians were heavily influenced by 50 years of living under socialism in Yugoslavia, where entrepreneurship wasn’t a praised virtue (Dimovski and Znidarsic, 2011). And that influence wasn’t a positive one. That is why GEM report (Rebernik et al., 2017) ranks Slovenian culture and norms towards entrepreneurship as the second worst in Europe. Slovenia got an overall score for culture of just 2.3 on a 5-point scale (GEM, 2017).
Rebernik et al. (2017) found that Slovenian national culture doesn’t promote creativity and innovativeness, and that it is risk averse, which can be closely linked to the fact that failure is still stigmatized. Slovenia scored the lowest in EU at how national culture emphasizes individual responsibility for managing your own life. This can be closely linked with socialism mentality and how people think there is some sort of collective responsibility for their own life.
But nevertheless things are changing into the right directions and effort is made to tackle this problem. But changing the national culture and mindset is a difficult and long lasting process. With the rapid development of Slovenian entrepreneurship ecosystem came also first success stories and increasing interest of public. Promoting success stories in public is important as many Slovenians equal entrepreneurship as something bad, due to the past experience with some shady business owners. There are several media focused only on promoting entrepreneurship and startups in Slovenia (Attachment 1).
The biggest media outlets in Slovenia are also putting increasing focus on success stories, new ideas, scientific breakthroughs etc. So the average Slovenian resident gets to hear a lot more about successful entrepreneurs and startups. One of the things to increase awareness among Slovenian public is also the award for the best Slovenian startup of the year.
35
The award is organized by Start:Up Initiative Slovenia, ABC accelerator, SEF and Ministry of Economic Development and Technology (Start:Up Slovenia, 2017).
Culture is an important aspect of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Research shows that culture with favourable image of entrepreneurship and innovation can translate into higher acceptance of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship and can encourage other people to engage in entrepreneurial behaviour (Thornton et al., 2011). If we take into account the GEM scores for cultural and societal norms, we can see that Slovenia clearly lags behind the Netherlands. The Netherlands tops the EU list of countries with cultural and societal norms that emphasize independence, autonomy and personal initiative as well as encourage creativity and innovativeness. Both countries have media supporting entrepreneurs and push success stories to the general public. Slovenia even ranked fourth in the EU by the media support for startups, while the Netherlands ranked 12th. While it is important to cover success stories, Slovenia still has a long way to change the mindset of its population. A bit less than 60% of Slovenians think that entrepreneurship is a desirable career option, while almost 80% of Dutch people do (Rebernik et al., 2017). This is also the consequence of having a different history of entrepreneurship. While the Netherlands is known throughout history as one of the most entrepreneurial countries, Slovenia suffered through socialism under Yugoslavia, and that influenced the cultural and societal norms and values.
Both ecosystems offer most promising startups and entrepreneurs awards and thus contributing to both awareness among the public and praising the entrepreneurship process and letting people know of it.
36
Quotes on culture in Ljubljana’s entrepreneurial ecosystem:
• “Majority of Slovenia still lives in different times and thinks startups are only playing and messing around. But there is also another Slovenia that understands what is possible and can be done and is active in this area.”
• “Younger generations understand what working for startups mean, they get it and they like it.”
• “Start ups are getting a lot more attention than before, but the comprehension of general public and the government of what needs to be done is still not there.”
• “Problem is that also bullshit stories are pushed being forward. Something is reality, and something else is what is hyped in the media.”
Quotes on culture in Amsterdam’s entrepreneurial ecosystem:
• “Even though the system really encourages entrepreneurship, still not a lot of people will do it.”
• “It is cool to be an entrepreneur and more and more young people want to do it.” • “People don’t want to work for corporations as much as they used to.”
• “People are interested in new ideas and entrepreneurship.”
6.2.3 Physical infrastructure
GEM report (2017) rates physical infrastructure as the best pillar of entrepreneurial ecosystem in the Netherlands, with the score of 4,61 out of 5. The GEM average is at 3,84. According to EDC index (2016), Amsterdam ranked 13th on both physical and digital infrastructure. It offers one of the best internet broadband coverages as well as highly
37
developed public transportation and one of the largest, busiest and most connected airports in Europe.
Ljubljana offers a good coverage with broadband internet connections and increasing number of people get access to optic fibers and cable modem connections. When it comes to enterprises with access to internet, 99% of Slovenian enterprises have internet access. Compared to the EU-28 average of 97%, When it comes to internet infrastructure for businesses, Slovenia is among the top European countries. Proof that Slovenia is doing well in developing physical infrastructure for entrepreneurial ecosystem is also its ranking for it in GEM report (2017), where Slovenia scored 3.93. That puts Slovenia above the GEM average of 3.84, and is also the highest ranked condition for its entrepreneurial ecosystem. On the other hand, EDC index ranked Ljubljana’s non-digital infrastructure as the worst among the analyzed 60 cities (EDCi, 2016).
Quite a lot has been done to provide the necessary infrastructure to entrepreneurial ecosystem in Ljubljana in the last years. Investments were made to create new co-working spaces and working/office spaces, to offer startups a financially viable option to work and connect them into a vibrant and creative community where new ideas are born. These spaces are modern, spread across various locations in Ljubljana and offer excellent internet connectivity (Attachment 2).
In terms of physical infrastructure, both entrepreneurial ecosystem are ranked above the EU average, but nevertheless the ecosystem in Amsterdam has a better ranked infrastructure for startups. Amsterdam offers more co-working spaces and open office spaces where startups can work, which can contribute to better knowledge dissemination, exchange of the ideas, broader networks etc.
38
The problem that Amsterdam faces is the shortage on housing market, which drives the prices up and consequently increases both the costs for startups as they have to pay for renting an office space as well as their employees (Lennartz et Vrieslaar, 2017).
Quotes on physical infrastructure in Ljubljana’s entrepreneurial ecosystem:
• “A lot has been invested in physical infrastructure by building technology parks, incubators, working spaces etc.”
Quotes on physical infrastructure in Amsterdam’s entrepreneurial ecosystem:
• “There is plenty of physical infrastructure for startups and entrepreneurs in Amsterdam”
• “You can find a lot of spaces at universities that are free, or you can rent a room for a formal meeting for a couple of hours or a day”
• “...and housing, more houses. So that young people who want to work in startups can also live in the city.”
6.2.4 Demand
Demand is, as Stam (2015) puts it, more or less exogenous determined factor and is not related as much to internal conditions of the ecosystem as it is to its relative position. Slovenia is, as mentioned before, one of the smallest European countries, with just over 2 million inhabitants living there. So the size of the national market is definitely not a strong point, especially compared to the biggest European countries. But still, GEM report (2017) ranks internal market conditions with a score of 3.15, which puts Slovenia just above the GEM’s average score of 3.04. Based on the data from OECD (2018) Slovenia had one of the highest real GDP growths in 2017 with 5.00%, while the GDP forecast is 4.95% for 2018 and
39
3.94% for 2019. The Netherlands had slightly lower GDP growth in 2017 with 3.29% and the forecasted GDP is 3.30% in 2018 and 2.95% in 2019. Internal market dynamics in the Netherlands scored 3.28 out of 5 (GEM, 2017).
Though the size of the domestic market is not a strength of Ljubljana’s entrepreneurial ecosystem, it does force Slovenian startups to think about internationalization from the first day on, because that is the only way to really grow. So though it is not directly related to internal conditions, it can have an effect on the mindset of the startups.
Compared to demand in Slovenia, the entrepreneurial ecosystem in Amsterdam generally has an upper hand. Though the Netherlands is not one of the biggest European countries, it still has the more than 17 million people living there. And while the population of Amsterdam within its city limits is over 800,000 people, there are 1,6 million people living in its greater metropolitan area.
Demand is, as Stam (2015) puts it, more or less exogenously driven pillar of entrepreneurial ecosystem. Demand wise, Slovenia is in disadvantage compared to the Netherlands. The size of the domestic market of the Netherlands is almost nine times bigger than the one of Slovenia. And taken into account that many of international corporations have their European headquarters in Amsterdam, the entrepreneurial ecosystem there is in advantageous position.
6.2.5 Systemic conditions
Systemic conditions are the true heart of entrepreneurial ecosystem. They are built and developed on the framework conditions.
40 6.2.6 Networks
Networks are all about connectivity between different actors in entrepreneurial ecosystem. Entrepreneurial ecosystem in Amsterdam is very well connected. There are numerous formal and informal events for entrepreneurs and other actors of entrepreneurial ecosystem. Amsterdam also hosted The Next Web Conference in 2017. This event links top technology executives, top-tier investors and start ups. Over 12,500 people a day visited the event and more than 3,500 companies were present (The Next Web, 2017). StartupFest Europe is another important event organized in Amsterdam by StartupDelta, governmental organization. The main purpose of the event is to arrange one-on-one meetings between startups-investors and startups-corporates. I Amsterdam (2017) has all the events that are created for entrepreneurs, start ups and others, such as tech talks, masterclasses, workshops and networking. Events are also organized by co-working spaces where they have informal drinks at the end of the week for their startups, events are also organized by venture funds and corporations to get to know the start ups and connect with them. Report by Startup Genome (2017) says that 59% of Dutch startups confirmed positive involvement of corporates, higher than founders in London, Berlin or Tel Aviv. Same report suggests that one of the main reasons why Amsterdam as entrepreneurial destination is appealing is connectedness of various stakeholders and their proximity. GEDI (2017) gave Amsterdam’s networking pillar a score of 0.8 out of 1.
Entrepreneurial community in Ljubljana started developing after the crisis in 2008, when a lot of people lost their jobs and were forced to start thinking differently. As more and more people decided to go their own way either as entrepreneurs or just freelancers, there was a growing need to connect like-minded, creative and ambitious people (Jumpstart, 2016). According to GEDI (2017) report, Slovenia scores a low score of only 0.33 out of 1 on a
41
networking pillar. There are however, now numerous events organized by both private and public entities to educate startups and general public about recent trends and developments in technology and also to expand one’s network and strengthen the community as a whole. One of the most important events in Slovenia is PODIM conference, which is the biggest entrepreneurship event in Alpe-Adria region and CEE (PODIM, 2017). It is a two day event with the goal bringing over 800 people in the field of startup entrepreneurship together to share their knowledge, learn, socialize and expand their networks.
While it was mentioned that one of the downsides of Slovenia is the size of the population and market, but that also has some advantages. Because of the small size, people are more closely connected and easily accessible. One of the drawbacks in entrepreneurial ecosystem in Slovenia is relatively uninterested corporate sector in startups and their technologies. In 2012 some of Slovenian successful entrepreneurs came together with Telekom Slovenia and created a corporate accelerator. Two years later, when new governance took the company over, they completely shut down the accelerator (Kupec, 2015).
According to Feld (2012) network density is important for strong and healthy entrepreneurial ecosystem. Stam (2015) says that networks are vital for information flow and labour and knowledge circulation. Looking at networks, we can see that the entrepreneurial ecosystem in Amsterdam is more developed in comparison to the one in Ljubljana. The number of formal and informal events is greater, also due to the size of the city. Crucial for the strength of the startup community is that all players are present. In Amsterdam that is seen by events organized by venture capitalists, corporations, government, co-working spaces, various formal and informal workshops for entrepreneurs to expand their knowledge. In comparison, entrepreneurs in Ljubljana are a closely knit community, but it lacks stronger
42
presence from other actors of the ecosystem, especially corporates and venture capitalists, while government and support services are present there.
Quotes on networks in Ljubljana’s entrepreneurial ecosystem:
• “Startups and entrepreneurs are very well connected through various events, but corporates live in another world, unless there’s a good PR story behind it.”
• “If you are self-active, you can easily meet everyone, because they are open and eager to help newcomers.”
Quotes on networks in Amsterdam’s entrepreneurial ecosystem:
• “We are invited to quite a few events hosted by investors and they just want to get to know you and what you do.”
• “Connection between the startups is really good, there are also events through which you can get in touch with the corporate world.”
• “One of the advantages of Amsterdam’s ecosystem is connectedness with corporations and collaboration between startups.”
• “Very well connected, especially in fin-tech, because corporations feel threatened by startups and are therefore interested in them and want to learn from them.”
• “There are speed dating events organized by investors, conferences organized by corporates and talks from successful are common.”
43 6.2.7 Leadership
The ecosystem in Amsterdam has produced some great companies and leaders that can nowadays serve as examples and role models as well as contribute with their extensive knowledge and experience.
TomTom TomTom was one of the first and most successful Dutch start ups. It was founded in 1991. Today it employs over 4,700 people and in 2016 the company generated €987 million. They started as software developers for B2B apps and personal digital assistants for consumers. After that they recognized an opportunity in navigation sector and they have successfully entered that. Over the years they established themselves as an innovative company and diversified into digital sportswear, telematics for automotive industry, cameras etc. (TomTom, 2017)
Booking Booking was founded in 1996 and grew from a small Dutch startups into one of the biggest online companies in the travel industry. With over 15,000 employees and 187 in 70 countries around the world it is one of the prime examples of startups developing into successful companies. Company has more than 1,200,000 room nights bookings each day. Booking was bought in 2005 by The Priceline Group for $135 million. The same company acquired ActiveHotels.com and merged it as a subsidiary to Booking.com. (Booking, 2017; O’Neill, 2012)
Adyen Adyen is one of the most promising fin-tech startups in the Netherlands right now. The company offers a multi channel payment solution for businesses. It was founded in Amsterdam in 2006, and currently employs more than 500 people. Their first big client, Groupon, signed with them in 2009, and by 2015, more than $50 billion were processed through Adyen platform. Adyen received over $266 million in venture funding in three rounds. In 2011 they received $16 million, in 2014 $250 million and in 2015 they received an undisclosed amount, but they were evaluated at $2.3 billion (Adyen, 2017; Crunchbase, 2017; Lunden, 2015)
Catawiki Catawiki, founded in 2008, is an auctioneering platform for special objects. The platform offers over 300 auctions every week for items like comic books, coins, stamps, model trains, wines and other collectible items. They sell over 35,000 items every week and have more than 14 million visitors each month So far the company raised over $94.83 million in four rounds. In 2010 they received an undisclosed amount of seed capital, in 2014 and 2015 they got $10 million and $82 million, respectively. The last funding round was in 2016, when they received an undisclosed amount.
(Crunchbase, 2017; Catawiki, 2017)
