Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

SXSW 2014 Accelerator vs Incubator Presentation


Published on

Published in: Business
  • Have u ever tried external professional writing services like ⇒ ⇐ ? I did and I am more than satisfied.
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • The final result was amazing, and I highly recommend ⇒ ⇐ to anyone in the same mindset as me.
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • I have always found it hard to meet the requirements of being a student. Ever since my years of high school, I really have no idea what professors are looking for to give good grades. After some google searching, I found this service ⇒ ⇐ who helped me write my research paper.
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Yes you are right. There are many research paper writing services available now. But almost services are fake and illegal. Only a genuine service will treat their customer with quality research papers. ⇒ ⇐
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Writing a good research paper isn't easy and it's the fruit of hard work. For help you can check writing expert. Check out, please ⇒ ⇐ I think they are the best
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

SXSW 2014 Accelerator vs Incubator Presentation

  1. Avoid Stagnation: Acceleration Trumps Incubation Bill Aulet, Managing Director, Martin Trust Center for MIT Entrepreneurship March 8, 2014 @BillAulet
  2. Summer 2012 • Summer 2010 – Startup Central • Summer 2011 – Wicked Awesome Summer StartUp Program (a/k/a WASSUP) • Summer 2012 – FSA • Summer 2013 – GFSA
  3. Time Success
  4. • Complete the Ramp • Entrepreneurs Not Companies: Teaching our students how to fish rather than catching a fish • Fulfill MIT’s Mission Goals of FSA
  5. Validation MIT Entrepreneurship Ramp Inspiration, Idea, Technology Classroom Extra-Curricular The Grand Plan: “The Ramp”
  6. We needed something to support students! Validation MIT Entrepreneurship Ramp Inspiration, Idea, Technology Classroom Extra-Curricular Most Often Unable to Achieve Escape Velocity Plan vs. Reality: Before FSA
  7. Validation Completing the Ramp with FSA MIT Entrepreneurship Ramp Inspiration, Idea, Technology Classroom Extra-Curricular Accelerator
  8. • Peter Thiel • Fellows Program • $100k to dropout Challenge RESULTING CONCLUSION Photo of Peter Thiel by David Orban via Stay in school Be a Serious EntrepreneurORX
  9. Changing Face of Entrepreneurship Herbert B. Jones Foundation’s Milestone Achievement Awards University of Washington
  10. • Educational • Honest broker • Existing extensive entrepreneurship eco-chamber & value chain • Tremendous opportunity for a complementary program MIT’s Unique Role
  11. • Space • Stipend • Structure • Status How GFSA Works ˅ Global
  12. Community •Support - emotional, pride, culture •Learning •Peer motivation Space
  13. 1. Baseline: $1k/month per person –Creates full focus 2. Milestone Awards Stipend Area Mtg #1 Mtg #2 Mtg #3 Mtg #4 Total Customer $5K Product $5K Team $5K Financial $5K Cumulative $20K 3. Discretionary budget available
  14. 1. April 6 – 1st round of applications due 2. April – interviews 3. May 1 – decisions 4. 3.5 month program 5. Demo Day at t=0 Festival (mid-September) 6. Goal: student capabilities reach escape velocity Structure Student Team Mentor Network • EiRs • VMS • Catalyst Prototyping • Labs • IDC Committee • Holds team accountable • Customized for team • Members have BoD experience • 3 monthly meeting and 1 final meeting Tues & Thurs Luncheon Series • JIT Education & connections • Internal & external Informal Support • Staff
  15. General Rhythm Validate & invalidate idea based on Primary Market Research (PMR) & refine team 1st 30 Days Continue to refine team & focus on product definition & dev 2nd 30 Days Financials, product dev iterations & polish for graduation 3rd 30 Days
  16. 1. Acceptance with Social Norms 2. Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval/Status Status
  17. Reaction of Students & Application Process ALL APPLICATIONS 129 Teams, 376 Participants, 241 MIT Students (All Schools) FIRST SCREENING 26 Teams, 88 Participants, 61 MIT Students GFSA FINAL SELECTION 10 Teams, 35 Participants, 25 MIT Students Other Summer Accelerators: 40 Teams – MIT Beehive Coop 30 Teams – MassChallenge RockHealth, HealthBox, YC, etc.
  18. GFSA Educational Component TEAM • Founders Agreements & Equity Splits • Hiring and Firing Employees • Developing Company Culture CUSTOMER • Primary Market Research/ User Innovation • Developing a Persona • Securing your First Customer • Decision Making Unit/ Decision Making Process FINANCE • Legal Issues and Startups • Building Financial Statements • Entrepreneurship MicroEconomics: CoCA & LTV • Alternative Ways to Raise Capital PRODUCT • 24 Steps to Successful Product Launch • Protecting and Growing your Core • Iterating, Refining & Evolving Your Product • Building a Pricing Model
  19. GFSA Clinic Leaders MIT Management and Engineering Faculty Eric von Hippel Matt Marx Catherine Tucker Fiona Murray Sanjay Sarma
  20. GFSA Clinic Leaders Internal Trust Center Resources Bill Aulet Managing Director Christina Chase Entrepreneur in Residence & Student Evangelist Kyle Judah GFSA Program Director Elaine Chen Rethink Robotics Jim Dougherty Great Hill Partners Charlie Tillett 50-50-50 Consulting Brian Halligan HubSpot Entrepreneurs in Residence (EiRs)
  21. GFSA Clinic Leaders External Resources Başak Özer Nokia Jack VanWoerkom Home Depot Staples Christopher O'Donnell HubSpot Kevin Rustagi Founder, Ministry of Supply Kit Hickey Founder, Ministry of Supply Paul English Founder, Prahar Shah Founder, Mobee Aaron White Founder, Boundless Learning Joe Greenstein Founder, Flixster Dharmesh Shah HubSpot Jim Baum CEO, Netezza Chuck Kane Founder One Laptop Per Child
  22. • Extremely Important “Forcing Function” & Closure Event • Three Goals for Three Audiences – Students – GFSA/Beehive – Integration of External Players • Positive effects already seen – 3x increase in student participation in t=0 events from last year – Fills pipeline to make next year’s GFSA much stronger – Dozens of teams proactively asking to move into the Beehive • Videos of Demo Day presentations can be seen at: Demo Day “Graduation Event”
  23. 0 1 2 3 4 Customer Product Team Financials/Other Overall Participant Data Validates Assumptions Ability to Articulate Theory
  24. 0 1 2 3 4 Customer Product Team Financials/Other Overall Participant Data Validates Assumptions Ability to Execute
  25. Participant Data Validates Assumptions Net Promoter Score of +73 “This was one of the most valuable experiences I’ve had while at MIT.” “We learn a lot of theory in class, but now we know how to execute.” “The program fills the chasm that often limits ideas/projects from becoming real businesses.” “This experience helped us to quickly develop the product that addressed real market needs, and with a high market potential.” “This real world experience really helps clear up a lot of misconceptions about the struggle as well as the pay off in the end.” “I have already advised professors at other universities about the program and suggested that this is the real way to honor your students.”
  26. OVERALL •Huge success in allowing teams to make progress beyond best case scenario •Three months is about the right time – less time would not be enough maybe a month longer would be even better •There were conflicts with academic work at times but was manageable (WiCare & SmartScheduling) •10 was a good size for year 1 & could grow next year but need to be careful on scaling too fast Lessons Learned
  27. Lessons Learned SELECTION •Team should be the #1 criteria far & away - the best teams far outperformed the teams with more compelling projects at the beginning •Developing culture in the GFSA cohort is a tricky but very important thing. Keeping a collaborative and positive spirit in the program is important to optimizing its success. •Have mixed skilled teams makes a difference – this is a very good criteria •Once teams get funding, they should probably not be in GFSA
  28. Lessons Learned IMPLEMENTATION •Key element was giving the teams the chance to revisit strategy/direction without a loss of urgency (there was only three months) •Teams still reconfigured – founders issues took a lot of time; Forcing a founders agreement milestones halfway through was very productive •Board meetings and milestone payments were extremely implortant in complementing the mentoring Demo Day as a forcing function worked extremely well and was a huge amount of work to pull off •There is a limit to the value of mentorship and at some points it can get to be too much. Teams have to do things and get answers themselves rather than continually listening to more people.
  29. • Acceleration works • General Incubation does not work as well • Avoid Stagnation: Acceleration Trumps Incubation Conclusion
  30. More info • The book • • Progress Dashboard 29
  31. Coming March 18: New Online course • Google “edX Entrepreneurship 101” •
  32. Top 10 Teams All 129 teams that applied Number Percentage Number Percentage MIT Undergrads 1 4.0% 45 19.7% MIT Master's 18 72.0% 113 49.5% MIT Doctorate 5 20.0% 62 27.3% MIT Postdoc 1 4.0% 8 3.5% All MIT Students (Including 2012 graduates) 25 100% 228 100% 0 0 MIT Students (from above) 25 71.4% 228 66.7% MIT Alumni 4 11.4% 27 7.9% Harvard Students 2 5.7% 18.5 5.4% Harvard Alumni 0 0.0% 7.5 2.2% Other 4 11.4% 61 17.8% All participants 35 100% 342 100% 0 0 SAP (4, 11, MAS) 4 16.0% 25 11.0% Eng (1, 2, 3, 6, 10, 16, 20, 22, ESD) 10.5 42.0% 98.5 43.2% HASS (14, 17, 21, 24, CMS, STS) 0 0.0% 2.5 1.1% Sloan (15 including certain joint programs with ESD) 8.5 34.0% 74.5 32.7% Sci (5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 18) 0 0.0% 13 5.7% Whitaker (HST) 0 0.0% 4.5 2.0% Other (postdoc; Operations Research Center) 2 8.0% 10 4.4% All MIT Students 25 100% 228 100% Preliminary Results I: Input
  33. Pre FSA Topic Knowledge (articulate) Capability (apply) Scale 1 - 4 Scale 1 - 4 CUSTOMER average (across the group) 2.4 2.1 PRODUCT average (across the group) 2.5 2.2 TEAM average (across the group) 2.4 2.0 FINANCIALS/OTHER average (across the group) 2.6 2.1 Post FSA Topic Knowledge (articulate) Capability (apply) Scale 1 - 4 Scale 1 - 4 CUSTOMER average (across the group) 3.5 3.3 PRODUCT average (across the group) 3.5 3.3 TEAM average (across the group) 3.5 3.3 FINANCIALS/OTHER average (across the group) 3.7 3.4 Preliminary Results: Skill Building
  34. Thank you! Any questions?