University Business Incubators - Viable funding and income strategies

University Business Incubators: Viable funding and income strategies and limitations Chapter 5 - Discussion 52

University Business Incubators: Viable funding and income strategies and limitations 5.1.1 Key Discussion Points The survey has confirmed that the main sources of funding and income for UBIs are university funding, public fund or economic development agencies and rental fees. The strong positive correlations between UBIs and university funding can be identified as an overreliance on this funding method. This was initially highlighted by Bone, Allen, & Haley (2017) and reaffirmed by the primary data. Whilst common for early stage UBIs, caution is needed for the growth and maturity stages of UBIs because of the overreliance and restrictions the funding imposes. From the report we can propose a set of suggested revenue streams to facilitate financial stability and success in the different stages of incubator development. These critically evaluated elements can then be translated into a functional road map, which includes key stakeholders, for incubators to follow. An operational schematic (fig. 23), a visual representation of how incubators operate, has drawn from the literature review and primary data collected. The schematic highlights how the various activities generate funding and income. This shows that there are a number of revenue streams and funding strategies for UBIs. This schematic indicates that there is a strong reliance on University, government and grants. Uncommon: - Royalties - Equity Agreements - Membership/rent fees - Event and social revenues Start-ups Accelerators Incubators Investors and Service Provider Universities - Public funds & Economic Local development agencies Enterprise - University funding Often weak links - Sponsorship Partnerships - Private Grants - Corporate relationships - Non-Governmental (LEP) Organisations - Donations Government Large NGOs Multinational Private Companies Donors Figure 23 - Operational schematic of university business incubators 53

University Business Incubators: Viable funding and income strategies and limitations Chapter 6 - Conclusions 54

University Business Incubators: Viable funding and income strategies and limitations 6.1.1 Conclusion This report has determined, from both the literature review and research conducted that the vast majority of the university business incubators rely on public funding, either through universities or from development agencies. The results of the survey have been enlightening. In the problem formulation stages, there was no evidence to suggest which of the widely available revenue streams would be most viable for UBIs. The survey results also confirm that the UBI examined have a desire to diversify UBIs funding and income streams but that many barriers make this a complex process. This report concludes that the following recommendations can be used to advise UBIs on possible revenue streams to ensure they remain financially stable and competitive within the sector. By analysing the stakeholders for UBI and for-profit incubators the report as been able to:  Identify of all viable funding and income streams available to incubators. These have then been ranked and assessed.  Much in the same way as a startup, incubators need to be adaptable and agile in the early stages. The impact of the survey on the findings of this report has been transformative. In the initial problem formulation there was uncertainty about the funding and income streams would be best placed but it is now possible to ascertain where they should be focused within a UBIs phase of development. This conclusion leads to a set of recommendations which can have a positive impact for UBI, UBI managers, universities and regional economies. 55

University Business Incubators: Viable funding and income strategies and limitations 6.1.2 Recommendations The report will conclude with a set of recommendations for incubator managers when seeking to diversify revenue streams. In order to diversify and ensure financial stability UBI should first assess the incubator and define a business model, value proposition and review global best practices. UBIs should clearly define the goals of the incubator, assessing if the objectives are focusing on growth or quality, as a differentiator, or if they have limited competition because of a narrow market segment or their geographical location. These elements may also be determined, in part, by the maturity stage of the UBI alongside the brand and reputation of the university. Early Stage Incubators 1) Develop a personalise business model canvas to give a bespoke model and allowing revenue streams to be clearly linked to the UBI. A value proposition canvas may be useful to add additional granularity to the model, and to give a better problem solution fit and focus of the revenue stream needs. 2) Early stage UBIs should seek to obtain university funding, where possible, to allow growth of reputation and achieve start-up outputs. The alternative to this is applying for public or economic development agencies funding. The impact of this is that it is time consuming and not guarantee. There is also a set of limitations which may impact the incubator at future development stages. - Key revenue streams to be considered: University funding and public funds & economic development agencies. - Stake holders to consider: Internal Stakeholder Focus. University and Startups 56

University Business Incubators: Viable funding and income strategies and limitations Growth Stage Incubators 3) During the growth stage there are more opportunities to develop a variety of revenue streams to promote financial stability. The viability of these revenue streams may depend on how the incubator develops strategically within the sector. 4) As the incubator’s reputation is established and growth is being considered, UBIs can be learn about diversifying income streams from for-profit incubator. Limiting the time a start-up can remain in the incubator would allow additional capacity. However, this could also reduce the consistency of a rental or membership income stream, which should be carefully considered at this stage. 5) Networking with other incubators and LEPs should be considered to maximize the chance of successfully attracting public funding. The incubator can also consider pivoting the incubators strategy if external changes have highlighted other opportunities, for example, specialism or untapped market segment. - Key revenue streams to be considered: Alumni donors, membership fees, consulting, training fees, services fees, private grants, donations and sponsorship. - Stake holders to consider: External Stakeholders Focus. VCs, Government, Business Angels Mature Incubators 6) Equity or royalty agreements from startups or investment from the university into startup can be considered. Although this can be off putting to some startups, a strong reputation and track record will give confidence to applicants. 7) Increased supported of technology transfer, Intellectual Property (IP) opportunities and spin-outs. This will also link in to university research and increase support from the university. 8) Reduced need for funding from the university to become a self-sustaining incubator. 9) As a reputable UBI, the ability to increase awareness and lobby government for additional funding opportunities is possible. 57

University Business Incubators: Viable funding and income strategies and limitations - Key revenue streams to be considered: Equity and royalty agreements - Stakeholders to consider: Diversify Stakeholders: Additional; Multinational Corps, Lobby Government In order to consolidate the recommendations, a simplified roadmap has been created to highlight the key elements this report has identified as necessary of UBIs to diversify revenue and become financially viable. This report also recommends that a hybrid strategy, incorporating elements of the above, is considered by incubator managers to decrease risk and improve the funding and income opportunities of the UBI. In additional, incubator managers play a defining role in the success of the UBI and must have an entrepreneurial mind-set. Whilst it is clear that there is no silver bullet to obtaining viable funding and income streams for UBIs, there are global best practices and critical success factors which should be reviewed in the process of becoming financial stable. 58

University Business Incubators: Viable funding and income strategies and limitations 6.1.3 Incubator ‘Revenue Roadmap’ Framework 59

University Business Incubators: Viable funding and income strategies and limitations 6.1.4 Next Steps Whilst the data collected has shown trends in revenue streams by incubators and this data has been critically analysed, the report acknowledges that the survey has been unable to take into consideration all incubator managers’ views. An additional survey and in-depth follow up interview to help interpret the trends from the data would be an important next step in the development of this research. An in depth review of successful UBIs, such as SetSquared or Oxford Startup Incubator could also show how financial diversification differs from early stage incubators to mature incubators. Additionally, interviews with incubator managers would all be an important next step in allowing a deeper understanding of the complex issues faced by UBIs. By using this method, the framework roadmap proposed could also be peer reviewed and tested in ‘real world’ situations. The framework could then be refined and improved and a case study conducted. It is an exciting time for innovation and entrepreneurs in the United Kingdom. By building knowledge and research in this area it can be used to inform and shape the way we support startups. This will allow the UK to build business which can grow from micro-enterprises to unicorn startups. 60

University Business Incubators: Viable funding and income strategies and limitations References Bone, J. Allen, O & Haley, C (2017) [Government Report] ‘Business Incubators and Accelerators: The National Picture’. BEIS. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_ data/file/608409/business-incubators-accelerators-uk-report.pdf. (Accessed 01/12/2018). Centre of Entrepreneurs. (2017). ‘PUTTING THE UNI IN UNICORN The role of universities in supporting high-growth graduate startups’ p14; 21. [Report] Available at: https://centreforentrepreneurs.org/cfe-research/putting-uni-unicorn-role-universities- supporting-high-growth-graduate-startups/ (Accessed 08/05/2018). Clarysse, B. Wright, M. Lockett, A. Van de Velde, E. & Vohora, A. (2005). ‘Spinning out new ventures: A typology of incubation strategies from European research institutions’. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 183-216. Christiansen, J. D. (2009). “Copying Y Combinator - A framework for Developing Seed Accelerator Programmes” [Cambridge MBA Dissertation] Available at: https://businessmanagementphd.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/christiansen-2009-copying-y- combinator-university-of-cambridge-mba-thesis.pdf (Accessed 07/02/2019). Dempwolf, S. Auer, J. and D’Ippolito, M. (2014). ‘Innovation Accelerators: Defining Characteristics Among Startup Assistance Organizations’. Available at Research Gate 10.13140/RG.2.2.36244.09602 [Report - Office of Advocacy]. p 19-24. Duggins, R. (2018). ‘IMPACT Index Survey: Funding Trends for Entrepreneurship Centers’ [InBIA White Paper] Available at: https://inbia.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/03/impact_whitepaper2_2.pdf?x84587&utm_source=InBIA&utm_ca mpaign=17bbd6a504- ICBI32+IMPACT+Giveaway_NonM2&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_23a52023f9- 17bbd6a504-135866537 (Accessed 09/02/2019). Durkin, J & Kircher, A. (2010) “Spurring Innovation: Establishing a University Incubator”. The Advisory Board Company, Washington. Pp 4-5. 61

University Business Incubators: Viable funding and income strategies and limitations Field, A (2014). ‘A Startup Accelerator for Social Entrepreneurs With A 'Stakeholder Mindset'. [Website Article] Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/annefield/2014/09/14/this- social-enterprise-accelerator-has-a-stakeholder-mindset/#34f1c8942c5e (Accessed 09/02/2019). Ganzevoort, W (2014). “Business Incubator Sustainability”. [Article] Available at: http://collectivevaluecreation.co.za/business-incubator-sustainability/ (Accessed 10/03/2019) Gassmann, O. And Becker, B. (2006). ‘Towards a Resource-based View on Corporate Incubators’. [Journal] International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim). 10. 19-45. 10.1142/S1363919606001387. Gozali et al, (2015) “A Framework of Successful E-business Incubator for Indonesian Public Universities”[Working Paper] The Asian Journal of Technology Management, Vol.8 No.2 (2015): P120-314 Hanadi, M. A., & Busler, M. (2010). ‘Business incubators models of the USA and UK: A SWOT analysis’. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 6 (4), P335-354. Hassan, K. (2013). ‘How many business incubators are there in the world?’ [website] https://www.quora.com/How-many-business-incubators-are-there-in-the-world (Accessed 09/02/2019). HESA (2018). ‘Intellectual property: Spin-off activities by HE provider 2016/17’. [Statistic Data] Available at: https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/providers/business-community (Accessed 09/02/2019). Lair, B. (2012). ‘Weighing the costs and benefits of equity and royalty agreements’. [Journal] NBIA Review, Volume 28, No. 4, August/September 2012. Pp 1-5. Lalkaka, R and Shaffer, D (1999). “Nurturing Entrepreneurs, Creating Enterprises: Technology Business Incubation in Brazil”. Available at: http://www.bdsknowledge.org/dyn/bds/docs/143/incuba.pdf (Accessed 10/03/2019). P3 62

University Business Incubators: Viable funding and income strategies and limitations Lerner, J. Leamon, A & Hardymon, F (2012). “Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship”. [VitalSource]. Retrieved from: https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781118326992/ (Accessed 09/03/2019). P298. infoDev (2010)“Financing an Incubator – Training Manuel” [online module]. Available at: http://www.infodev.org/sites/default/files/m5_traineemanual_part1_20101029.pdf. (Accessed 10/03/2019). P67. Lavelle, J. (2014). ‘Business Incubator Sustainability’. [website] available at: https://collectivevaluecreation.co.za/business-incubator-sustainability/ (Accessed 09/03/2019). Markman, G., Phan, P., Balkin, D., & Gianiodis, P. (2005). ‘Entrepreneurship and university- based technology transfer’. Journal of Business Venturing., 20(2), p241. Miller, P and Bound, K. (2011). ‘The Startup Factories: The rise of accelerator programmes to support new technology ventures’ Nesta. P 9-12 Naylor, L (2016). “Oxford Startup Incubator - guidelines” [Website] Available at: https://innovation.ox.ac.uk/startupincubator/incubator-services/ (Accessed 09/03/2019). P11 Oxford Startup Incubator (2018). “Oxford Startup Incubator – Annual Report 2018” Available at: http://annualreview.innovation.ox.ac.uk/wp- content/uploads/2018/10/OUI_Annual_review_2018_web.pdf. (Accessed 09/03/2019). P11 Oxford Startup Incubator (n.d.). “How to Set Up a Successful University Start Up Incubator” [PDF]. Available at: https://innovation.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/HOW-TO-SET- UP-A-SUCCESSFUL-UNIVERSITY-START-UP-INCUBATOR-RK2.pdf (Accessed 02/03/2019). Renault, C. (2017). ‘Innovation Accelerators: Metrics for Entrepreneurship Centers: A Guide for Practitioners’. International Business Innovation Association, Orlando, Florida USA. Pp 7 - 12. Research England (2019). “University Enterprise Zones: RED Fund call for University Enterprise Zones (UEZ)” [website]. Available at: https://re.ukri.org/knowledge-exchange/university- enterprise-zones/ (Accessed 02/03/2019). 63

University Business Incubators: Viable funding and income strategies and limitations Rose, D. (2016). ‘The startup checklist : 25 steps to a scalable, high-growth business’. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. ProQuest Ebook Central, Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kingston/detail.action?docID=4517561.P12 (Accessed 09/02/2019). Santander. (2019). ‘Santander Universities – Special Projects’ [website] Available at: https://www.santander.co.uk/uk/santander-universities/special-projects. (Accessed 24/05/2019). Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2007). ‘Research Methods for Business Students’. 4th Edition, Financial Times Prentice Hall, Edinburgh Gate, Harlow. Tavoletti, E. (2013). ‘Business Incubators: Effective Infrastructures or Waste of Public Money? Looking for a Theoretical Framework, Guidelines and Criteria’. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 4 (4), 423-443. Torun, M (2016). “Business Incubators vs Accelerators: A Review of Literature” [Blog] Available at: https://medium.com/@mustafatorun_32874/business-incubators-vs- accelerators-a-review-of-literature-fa2198baafb (Accessed 09/03/2019). Vanderstraeten, J. Matthyssens, P. & Van Witteloostuijn, A. (2012). “Measuring the performance of business incubators”. IDEAS Working Paper Series from RePEc. Vanderstraeten, Van Witteloostuijn, Matthyssens, & Andreassi. (2016). ‘Being flexible through customization − The impact of incubator focus and customization strategies on incubatee survival and growth’. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 41, 45- 64. Verman, S. (2004) Success Factors for Business Incubators: an Empirical Study of Canadian Business Incubators. Eric Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario Webb, C (2018). ‘Innovation labs as a means of preparing students for jobs that don’t exist yet’. [Website Article] Available at: https://www.bera.ac.uk/blog/innovation-labs-as-a-means-of-preparing-students-for-jobs- that-dont-exist-yet (Accessed 01/11/2018). 64

University Business Incubators: Viable funding and income strategies and limitations Webb, J. (2008) “Monitoring Evaluation and Impact Assessment (MEIA): Lessons Learned from infoDev’s Global Network of Business Incubators” [slide deck] AABI Conference Kuala Lumpur. p5. The World Bank (2010). “Global Good Practice in Incubation Policy Development and Implementation” Available at: https://www.infodev.org/infodev- files/resource/InfodevDocuments_834.pdf (Accessed 10/03/2019). P31. 65

University Business Incubators: Viable funding and income strategies and limitations Appendix Appendix 1 - University affiliation of incubatees Back to Definitions Adapted from CFE 2017. Percentage Incubatees 18% Undergraduates Postgraduates 17% Alumni 65% External Entrepreneurs 9% Source: CFE survey of incubator managers Appendix 2 - BEIS Comparison of Business Incubator types and their common features Source: BEIS Business Incubators and Accelerators: The National Picture, 2017 66

University Business Incubators: Viable funding and income strategies and limitations Back to Topic and Problem Appendix 3 - The UBI Global World Rankings of University Business Incubators 2018 Incubator University Country 1 The SETsquared Partnership United University of Bath, Bristol, Exeter, Kingdom Southampton, Surrey Canada 1 The DMZ at Ryerson University Ryerson University Italy Canada 3 PoliHub - Startup District & Politecnico di Milano Incubator Mexico University of Toronto 4 University of Toronto de Monterrey, Campus León (TEC Chile Entrepreneurship LEAN); Instituto Tecnológico y de Russia Estudios Superiores de Monterrey Canada 5 Incubadora de Alto Impacto United States del Tecnológico Mexico 6 IncubaUdeC Universidad de Concepción 7 Business Incubator of NRU HSE (National Research University Higher School Higher School of Economics) 8 McGill Dobson Centre for McGill University Entrepreneurship 9 Startup Aggieland Texas A&M University Red de Incubadoras de la 10 Universidad del Valle de Universidad del Valle de Mexico Mexico Source: UBI Global World Rankings (2018) Appendix 4 - Intellectual property: Spin-off activities by HE provider 2016/17 HE Provider Spin-offs Formal Staff Graduate Social with some spin-offs, startups startups enterprises Kingston University HEP not HEP Royal College of Art ownership owned 0 283 0 University of the Arts, London 0 275 2 Falmouth University 0 0 0 238 0 Conservatoire for Dance and 4 0 1 201 0 Drama 0 0 0 0 The University of Central Lancashire 0 0 3 190 0 University of Bedfordshire Southampton Solent University 1 0 2 176 0 The Manchester Metropolitan 0 0 0 159 3 University The University of Lincoln 0 0 0 151 0 University of Nottingham 0 0 0 149 5 0 0 0 115 0 1 0 1 99 1 Data source link: https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/providers/business-community/table-4e 67

University Business Incubators: Viable funding and income strategies and limitations Back to Literature Review Appendix 5 - iCat Research Log Search Term Database Results Filter 1 Filter 2 Source 2009-2019 2015-2019 Research and Development iCat 9,453,895 5,381,503 2,564,026 Economic Development London iCat 774,848 Incubator iCat 285,120 344,643 137,317 University Technology Transfer Office iCat 155,360 204,031 110,276 Incubator Support iCat 125,961 82,104 45284 Incubator Funding iCat 37,810 92,317 50,183 Incubator Support UK iCat 34,263 32,028 20,961 UBI iCat 31,246 25,465 14,002 Incubator London iCat 25,656 Not relevant Not relevant University Business Incubator iCat 22,853 Spin-offs iCat 21,201 14,600 6,866 Incubator Funding UK iCat 11,836 17,271 8,123 Incubator united kingdom iCat 8,692 3,672 University Business Incubator UK iCat 9804 9,955 6,407 Incubator Income iCat 6,908 Incubator startups iCat 6,626 111 64 Incubator Income UK iCat 4,321 Incubator startups UK iCat 2,225 5,265 2,496 755 4,198 2,278 2,263 3,405 783 1,535 380 593 68

University Business Incubators: Viable funding and income strategies and limitations Back to Reseach Methodolgy Appendix 6 - Business Incubator Survey - MBA Management Research Project - Survey Flow Block: Default Question Block (22 Questions) Q1 This survey is carried out as part of the Master in Business Administration (MBA) Management Research Project at Kingston University. The purpose of this survey is to collate feedback from Incubator staff and managers and other stakeholders to gain an understanding of the current funding and income streams used alongside other issues. This survey is not limited to one staff submission per Incubator. The term 'Incubator' will be used in this survey's questions and includes the various types of Incubator or innovation model which you may have. Please read the questions carefully before you start completing this questionnaire. All responses will be treated in a confidential manner. According to the GDPR (2018) rules brought into UK law as the Data Protection Act 2018, by clicking on the 'Agree and Continue' button, you provide your consent to participate in this survey. Otherwise, you may decline your participation by clicking on 'Disagree and End'. Data collected in this survey will be used for research purposes only. Data is collected and stored in Qualtrics - an independent system outside of the Kingston University. Thank you very much for your contribution. Agree and Continue (1) Page Break Q2 Please tell us a bit about your Incubator. Q3 What is the name of your Incubator? Q4 Where is your Business Incubator located? Please enter the City or County. Q5 What type of incubator or innovation model you do have? University Business Incubator (1) Private Incubator (2) Government Incubator (3) Non-Profit Incubator (4) For-Profit Incubator (5) Technology Park (6) Mixed Portfolio (7) Other (8) ________________________________________________ Q6 What year was the Incubator established? eg. 2007 69

University Business Incubators: Viable funding and income strategies and limitations Q7 What is the maximum duration a startup can remain the Incubator? 6 months (1) 9 months (2) 12 months (3) 15 months (4) 18 months (5) 24 months (6) No limit (7) Q8 What is the maximum capacity of the Incubator? (number of startups or company tenants) 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 Max number of startups or company tenants () Q9 Does the Business Incubator also have an Accelerator Programme linked to it? Yes (1) No (2) Page Break Q10 This section explores the income and funding streams of Business Incubators. Q11 What proportion of the overall annual expenditure is covered by the following streams? Using the sliders below, please insert the values below to a maximum of 100% over all options. If you do not know the exact breakdown of your funding please give an approximate amount. _______ Public funds & Economic development agencies (%) (1) _______ University funding (%) (2) _______ Donations (%) (3) _______ Sponsorship (%) (4) _______ Private Grants (%) (5) _______ Government Subsidies (%) (6) _______ Non-Governmental Organisations (%) (7) _______ Alumni donors (%) (8) _______ Rental Income (%) (9) _______ Membership Fees (%) (10) _______ Training Fees (%) (11) _______ Consulting Services Fees (%) (12) _______ Equity Agreements (%) (13) _______ Royalty Agreements (%) (14) _______ Brokerage Fees (%) (15) _______ In-Kind Financing [or Bartered Goods and Services] (%) (16) 70

University Business Incubators: Viable funding and income strategies and limitations Q12 Does your Incubator have other methods of funding or income not listed above? Q13 Has your Incubator applied for public or government funds? Yes (1) No (2) Don't Know (3) Display This Question: If Q13 = Yes Q14 What have been the challenges when applying for this funding? Q17 Does your Incubator accepts equity or royalty agreements from startups? Yes (1) No (2) Don't Know (3) Q18 If the incubator accepts equity or royalty agreements from startups, please give us some more detail about the agreements. Q19 Looking forward Q20 Are there any new considerations for funding and income for your Incubator which you have not yet tried? ________________________________________________________________ Q21 What do you consider to be the biggest challenge facing Incubators regarding income and revenue generation? ________________________________________________________________ Q22 How does limited funding and income affect the Incubator’s ability to be effective and innovative? ________________________________________________________________ Q23 Would you be happy to be contacted with a short and informal follow up interview with the researcher to discuss these issues? Participants who are happy to confirm these details can request a copy of the final research report. Name (1) ________________________________________________ Job title (2) ________________________________________________ Phone number (3) ________________________________________________ Email Address (4) ________________________________________________ 71

University Business Incubators: Viable funding and income strategies and limitations Q24 Thank you for completing the survey. Responses will be collated and feedback submitted as a report in September 2019. If you have any questions about this research or would like to know more please contact [email protected] End of Block: Default Question Block Back to Reseach Methodolgy Appendix 7 - Survey email Kingston University - Business Incubator Survey Hello, I would like to invite you to take part in an online survey of individuals whose work involves business incubators, innovation or business startups in Higher Education. The research is being conducted as part of a project for Kingston University to help us better understand funding and income streams within University Business Incubators (UBI) has changed in the UK and how it affects incubators in different stages of maturity. I appreciate that time is important to you, so this survey will take around 6-7 minutes to complete and is being conducted in line with the Kingston Universities research code of ethics. Click the link below to get started: Start the survey here The survey is open to all incubator staff, managers and other stakeholders and not limited to one staff submission per Incubator, so please take part if you can. It is not mandatory to share any personal data with us. This data will also form research for my Master in Business Administration (MBA) Management Research Project at Kingston University. If you have any questions or would like to know more about the results of the survey, please simply contact me by replying to this email or by using the details below. Many thanks for your participation. Thanks, Phil 72

University Business Incubators: Viable funding and income strategies and limitations Back to Literature Review Appendix 8 - Balanced Scorecard for Economic Development Incubators (BSEDI) Source: Vanderstraeten et al. (2012) 73

University Business Incubators: Viable funding and income strategies and limitations Back to Findings Appendix 9 - Survey Respondants Data Recorded Date Progress Response Business Location Established Startup Startup (%) ID Incubator Type Duration Capacity London 21/05/2019 100 R1 University 2013 No limit 90 11:33 Business Leeds Incubator Winchester; 21/05/2019 100 R2 University Chandlers Ford 2015 12 65 11:36 Business Basingstoke months Incubator New Milton 21/05/2019 100 R3 London 2015 No limit 50 11:44 For-Profit 100 R4 Incubator Edinburgh 2013 No limit 30 21/05/2019 100 R5 2017 12:04 100 R6 Other Cambridge No limit 30 100 R7 2014 21/05/2019 100 R8 University Buckingham 12 30 13:53 100 R9 Business 2006 months 15 100 R10 Incubator Preston 50 21/05/2019 100 R11 University 2007 24 13:56 100 R12 Business Nottingham 2016 months 8 100 R13 Incubator 2013 102 21/05/2019 41 R14 University W Midlands 2013 24 30 18:39 41 R15 Business Stamford and 2016 months 45 73 R16 Incubator peterborough 2016 22/05/2019 100 R17 University London, Great No limit 10:00 100 R18 Business Malvern 2001 Incubator Teesside 2016 18 22/05/2019 2018 months 10:17 Mixed Portfolio Edinburgh 2014 2011 No limit 22/05/2019 University London 13:15 Business Hatfield, No limit Incubator Hertfordshire 22/05/2019 For-Profit London 18 15:49 Incubator Whitechapel, months For-Profit London 23/05/2019 Incubator No limit 35 10:46 University Business No limit 150 24/05/2019 Incubator 150 09:30 University 24 Business months 8 28/05/2019 Incubator 13:53 Non-Profit No limit Incubator 29/05/2019 University No limit 15 09:35 Business Incubator 29/05/2019 Private 11:50 Incubator University 02/06/2019 Business 18:30 Incubator 04/06/2019 10:20 74

University Business Incubators: Viable funding and income strategies and limitations 04/06/2019 University 10:21 100 R19 Business Guildford 1983 No limit 91 04/06/2019 100 10:23 100 Incubator 04/06/2019 100 R20 Other Stockport 2005 No limit 57 11:59 100 100 R21 University Lincoln, 2002 24 21 04/06/2019 Business Lincolnshire months 14:21 100 Incubator 04/06/2019 100 University 24 17:33 months 100 R22 Business Lincoln 2012 14 05/06/2019 100 09:11 100 Incubator 05/06/2019 59 R23 Other Birmingham 2018 12 150 15:38 41 months 41 05/06/2019 41 R24 University Cirencester, 2008 6 17:32 73 Business Gloucestershire 41 Incubator 07/06/2019 100 10:01 41 University 73 07/06/2019 100 R25 Business Portsmouth 2014 No limit 15 10:46 Incubator 07/06/2019 11:12 R26 University Hatfield, 2017 24 150 Business Hertfordshire months 11/06/2019 Incubator 09:55 R27 University Kingston Upon 2014 No limit 20 11/06/2019 Business Thames 10:02 Incubator 11/06/2019 R28 Other South 2016 No limit 10 10:30 Cambridgeshire 11/06/2019 University 24 11:29 months R29 Business London 2010 20 12/06/2019 2014 12 40 17:11 Incubator months 13/06/2019 University 15:12 R30 Business Cornwall 13/06/2019 16:38 Incubator 13/06/2019 R31 Government Bracknell 2013 No limit 15 16:49 Incubator 17/06/2019 R32 Non-Profit Liverpool 2015 No limit 13 10:27 Incubator 2018 20 24 18/06/2019 University months 15:06 R33 Business Leicester Incubator R34 For-Profit Camden, 2000 No limit 30 Incubator London R35 Government Retford No limit 37 Incubator R36 University Birghton and 1996 No limit 90 Business Croydon Incubator R37 Private Nottingham 2003 No limit 150 Incubator R38 University Huddersfield, 2013 No limit 120 Business West Yorkshire Incubator R39 Other York 2019 18 15 months 75

University Business Incubators: Viable funding and income strategies and limitations Appendix 10 - Proportion of the overall annual income by revenue stream # Field Minimum Maximum Mean Std Variance Count Deviation Public funds & 1 Economic development 0.00 90.00 13.22 25.55 652.61 32 agencies (%) 2 University funding (%) 0.00 100.00 26.06 34.01 1157.00 32 3 Donations (%) 0.00 50.00 2.03 9.00 81.03 32 4 Sponsorship (%) 0.00 20.00 1.56 4.58 21.00 32 5 Private Grants (%) 0.00 20.00 2.19 5.44 29.59 32 6 Government Subsidies (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32 0.00 32.00 1.34 5.77 33.35 32 7 Non-Governmental 0.00 100.00 6.41 22.58 509.74 32 Organisations (%) 8 Alumni donors (%) 9 Rental Income (%) 0.00 100.00 33.00 40.37 1629.50 32 10 Membership Fees (%) 0.00 98.00 5.31 18.16 329.84 32 11 Training Fees (%) 0.00 40.00 2.50 7.60 57.81 32 0.00 81.00 5.13 15.99 255.61 32 12 Consulting Services Fees 0.00 20.00 1.25 4.84 32 (%) 23.44 13 Equity Agreements (%) 14 Royalty Agreements (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32 15 Brokerage Fees (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32 Source: Primary Survey Results 76

University Business Incubators: Viable funding and income strategies and limitations Appendix 11 - Revenue by type of incubator and age - UBIs Respondent Business Incubators Type Established Public funds & Economic development agencies University funding Donations Sponsorship Private Grants Non-Governmental Organisations Alumni donors Rental Income Membership Fees Training Fees Consulting Services Fees R16 UBI 2018 90 0 0 0 10 0 0 0000 R5 UBI 2017 0 0000 0 0 100 0 0 0 R26 UBI 2017 40 45 0 0 10 0 0 0050 R13 UBI 2016 0 11 0 0 20 32 0 37 0 0 0 R2 UBI 2015 0 0000 0 100 0 0 0 0 R6 UBI 2014 0 0000 0 85 0 0 10 5 R25 UBI 2014 0 90 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 R27 UBI 2014 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0000 R30 UBI 2014 80 0 0 0 20 0 0 0000 R1 UBI 2013 0 0000 0 0 100 0 0 0 R10 UBI 2013 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0000 R22 UBI 2012 70 30 0 0 0 0 0 0000 R18 UBI 2011 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 67 0 0 0 R29 UBI 2010 0 50 0 5 0 0 0 45 0 0 0 R24 UBI 2008 0 40 15 15 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 R8 UBI 2007 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 R7 UBI 2006 0 50 50 0 0 0 0 0000 R38 UBI 2004 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0000 R21 UBI 2002 0 0000 0 0 100 0 0 0 R36 UBI 1996 25 0000 0 0 65 5 0 5 R19 UBI 1983 0 0000 0 0 100 0 0 0 % of total respondents 23.8 57.14 9.5 9.5 19 9.52 9.5 43 9.5 9.5 9.5 77

University Business Incubators: Viable funding and income strategies and limitations Back to Findings Appendix 12 - Revenue by type of incubator and age - BIs Respondent Business Incubators Type Established Public funds & Economic development agencies University funding Sponsorship Private Grants Alumni donors Rental Income Membership Fees Training Fees Consulting Services Fees Equity Agreements R39 Other 2019 0 60 20 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 2018 64 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R23 Other 2016 10 10 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 R9 Mixed Portfolio 2016 2 0 0 0 0 0 98 0 0 0 For-Profit 2016 0 0 0 10 0 90 0 0 0 0 R12 Incubator 2015 15 10 0 0 0 30 5 15 5 20 R28 Other 2014 0 0 000 0 0 40 40 20 For-Profit R3 Incubator 2013 19 0 000 00 0 81 0 R17 Private Incubator 2013 0 0 10 0 0 22 30 10 28 0 2005 8 0 0 0 0 90 2 0 0 0 R4 Other For-Profit 2000 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 54.5 36.4 18.2 9.1 9.1 45.5 36.4 27.3 36.4 18.2 R11 Incubator R20 Other For-Profit R34 Incubator % of total respondents Back to Findings Appendix 13 - Correlation between incubator type and revenue streams Public funds & Economic development agencies univer~r privat~r nonpro~r forpro~r govern~r mixedp~o other public~g university~r 1.0000 1.0000 . . 1.0000 1.0000 privateinc~r -0.2482 . . 1.0000 . 1.0000 0.0839 nonprofiti~r .. . -0.0773 forprofiti~r . -0.0679 . -0.0679 . -0.0226 government~r -0.5222 . . -0.1627 mixedportf~o . -0.1327 . -0.0323 other -0.2482 -0.0773 publicfund~g -0.5946 -0.0929 0.0706 78

University Business Incubators: Viable funding and income strategies and limitations University funding univer~r privat~r nonpro~r forpro~r govern~r mixedp~o other univer~g university~r 1.0000 1.0000 . . 1.0000 privateinc~r -0.2482 . . 1.0000 . 1.0000 nonprofiti~r .. . -0.0773 1.0000 forprofiti~r . -0.0679 . -0.0679 . -0.0848 -0.0894 government~r -0.5222 . . -0.1627 mixedportf~o . -0.2618 . -0.0323 other -0.2482 -0.0773 university~g -0.5946 -0.1376 0.3321 Sponsorship other sponso~p univer~r privat~r nonpro~r forpro~r govern~r mixedp~o university~r 1.0000 1.0000 . . 1.0000 1.0000 privateinc~r -0.2482 . . 1.0000 . 1.0000 0.2289 nonprofiti~r .. . -0.0773 forprofiti~r . -0.0679 . -0.0679 . -0.0612 government~r -0.5222 . . -0.1627 mixedportf~o . 0.0773 . -0.0323 other -0.2482 -0.0773 sponsorship -0.5946 -0.0612 -0.1840 Donations univer~r privat~r nonpro~r forpro~r govern~r mixedp~o other donati~s university~r 1.0000 1.0000 . . 1.0000 privateinc~r -0.2482 . . 1.0000 . 1.0000 nonprofiti~r .. . -0.0773 1.0000 forprofiti~r . -0.0679 . -0.0679 . -0.0405 -0.0971 government~r -0.5222 . . -0.1627 mixedportf~o . -0.0853 . -0.0323 other -0.2482 -0.0773 donations -0.5946 -0.0405 0.1633 Private Grants univer~r privat~r nonpro~r forpro~r govern~r mixedp~o other privat~s university~r 1.0000 1.0000 . . 1.0000 privateinc~r -0.2482 . . 1.0000 . 1.0000 nonprofiti~r .. . -0.0773 1.0000 forprofiti~r . -0.0679 . -0.0679 . -0.0722 -0.0148 government~r -0.5222 . . -0.1627 mixedportf~o . -0.1520 . -0.0323 other -0.2482 -0.0773 privategra~s -0.5946 -0.0722 0.1701 Non-Governmental Organisations other nongov~s univer~r privat~r nonpro~r forpro~r govern~r mixedp~o university~r 1.0000 1.0000 . . 1.0000 privateinc~r -0.2482 . . 1.0000 . 1.0000 -0.0852 1.0000 nonprofiti~r .. . -0.0773 forprofiti~r . -0.0679 . -0.0679 . -0.0418 other alumni~s government~r -0.5222 . . -0.1627 mixedportf~o . -0.0879 . -0.0323 other -0.2482 -0.0773 nongovernm~s -0.5946 -0.0418 0.1570 Alumni Donors univer~r privat~r nonpro~r forpro~r govern~r mixedp~o university~r 1.0000 1.0000 . . 1.0000 privateinc~r -0.2482 . . 1.0000 . 1.0000 nonprofiti~r .. . -0.0773 1.0000 forprofiti~r . -0.0679 . -0.0679 . -0.0510 -0.0459 government~r -0.5222 . . -0.1627 mixedportf~o . -0.1072 . -0.0323 other -0.2482 -0.0773 alumnidonors -0.5946 -0.0510 0.1471 79

University Business Incubators: Viable funding and income strategies and limitations Rental Income univer~r privat~r nonpro~r forpro~r govern~r mixedp~o other rental~e university~r 1.0000 1.0000 . . 1.0000 1.0000 privateinc~r -0.2482 . . 1.0000 . 1.0000 0.0320 nonprofiti~r .. . -0.0773 forprofiti~r . -0.0679 . -0.0679 . 0.2091 government~r -0.5222 . . -0.1627 mixedportf~o . 0.0468 . -0.0323 other -0.2482 -0.0773 rentalincome -0.5946 -0.1468 -0.0799 Membership Fees univer~r privat~r nonpro~r forpro~r govern~r mixedp~o other member~s university~r 1.0000 1.0000 . . 1.0000 privateinc~r -0.2482 . . 1.0000 . 1.0000 nonprofiti~r .. . -0.0773 1.0000 forprofiti~r . -0.0679 . -0.0679 . -0.0525 -0.1164 government~r -0.5222 . . -0.1627 mixedportf~o . 0.5814 . -0.0323 other -0.2482 -0.0773 membership~s -0.5946 -0.0525 -0.2774 Training Fees univer~r privat~r nonpro~r forpro~r govern~r mixedp~o other traini~s university~r 1.0000 1.0000 . . 1.0000 privateinc~r -0.2482 . . 1.0000 . 1.0000 nonprofiti~r .. . -0.0773 1.0000 forprofiti~r . -0.0679 . -0.0679 . -0.0591 -0.1415 government~r -0.5222 . . -0.1627 mixedportf~o . 0.1864 . -0.0323 other -0.2482 -0.0773 trainingfees -0.5946 -0.3245 0.8858 Consulting Fees univer~r privat~r nonpro~r forpro~r govern~r mixedp~o other consul~s university~r 1.0000 1.0000 . . 1.0000 1.0000 privateinc~r -0.2482 . . 1.0000 . 1.0000 0.2981 nonprofiti~r .. . -0.0773 forprofiti~r . -0.0679 . -0.0679 . -0.0576 government~r -0.5222 . . -0.1627 mixedportf~o . 0.0739 . -0.0323 other -0.2482 -0.0773 consulting~s -0.5946 -0.4018 0.3918 Equity Agreements univer~r privat~r nonpro~r forpro~r govern~r mixedp~o other equity~s university~r 1.0000 1.0000 . . 1.0000 privateinc~r -0.2482 . . 1.0000 . 1.0000 nonprofiti~r .. . -0.0773 1.0000 forprofiti~r . -0.0679 . -0.0679 . -0.0464 -0.1111 government~r -0.5222 . . -0.1627 mixedportf~o . 0.2928 . -0.0323 other -0.2482 -0.0773 equityagre~s -0.5946 -0.3568 0.6956 80