Ithaca Entreprenuerial Hub Feasibility Analysis (original) (raw)

• 1. TOMPKINS COUNTY AREA DEVELOPMENT ENTREPRENEURIAL HUB FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS Emile Chin-Dickey // Josh Robbins Nov 13 2012

• 2. Who Are We? 1 Josh Emile • Co-founder of Calle • Co-founder of ZeroEnergy • Raised $3M in VC Design and freegreen.com • 2nd-year MBA student at • 2nd-year MBA student at Johnson Johnson • Roy H. Park Fellow • Roy H. Park Fellow E-mail: jrr336@cornell.edu E-mail: ec237@cornell.edu As Entrepreneurs, we’re interested in how entrepreneurial communities form Analysis & Purpose of Study Research Method Framework Recommendations Findings

• 3. The purpose of this study is to understand the feasibility of a community-based entrepreneurial hub in Ithaca 2 Situation Ithaca is home to an entrepreneurial community featuring several universities, entrepreneurially minded students, and a number of start-ups Complication Entrepreneurs are drawn to other cities (outside of Ithaca, NY) in pursuit of resources, money, and markets Key Question What characteristics are necessary to develop and sustain an entrepreneurial hub in Ithaca, NY? Analysis & Purpose of Study Research Method Framework Recommendations Findings

• 4. Data gathered for the study was conducted following a three-step process of secondary and primary research 3 Interviews Focus Groups Survey Interviews Focus Groups Quantitative Survey What did we do? What did we do? What did we do? • 10 accelerators and Two focus groups: Two surveys: incubators, 1. 5-person group 1.Local students and • 10 Ithaca entrepreneurs 2. 20-person group entrepreneurs (N=57) 2.Incubator/Accelerator alumni (N=16) What did it reveal? What did it reveal? What did it reveal? Broader attitudes concerning Quantified perceptions and The business and operating the Ithaca entrepreneurship attitudes of entrepreneurship model of accelerators and community, resources, perceiv in Ithaca and actual benefits incubators, the motivations for ed strengths and weaknesses of participating in an joining them, and major issues accelerator confronting operators Analysis & Purpose of Study Research Method Framework Recommendations Findings

• 5. Four focus areas serve as the basis for our analysis and final recommendation 4 1 Community • Who are the key entrepreneur groups? • How will the groups interact? 2 3 4 Industry Focus Operating Model Programming • What unique assets • What model best suits • What training is exist? Ithaca? needed? • What industry should • How will it accomplish • By what method will be the focus? long-term programming occur? sustainability? Analysis & Purpose of Study Research Method Framework Recommendations Findings

• 6. Community: Ithaca’s silos of entrepreneurship activity do not interact, limiting benefits to members 5 Ithaca Entrepreneurship Community Ithaca Cornell Ithaca College Entrepreneurs • Talent • Talent • Talent • Networks • Networks • Networks • Technical • Experience Research • Assets Silos do not pool collective resources to benefit individual ventures Pros of Ithaca Cons of Ithaca • Lack of “Tight community” • Lack of connection between student & • Quality of Life professional groups • Low cost of living • No single source of local entrepreneur • Cutting-edge science-based research info • Lack channels for linking up Analysis & Purpose of Study Research Method Framework Recommendations Findings

• 7. Industry Focus: Ithaca’s entrepreneurial strengths lie in software and science-based technology companies 6 Talent Interest (students & entrepreneurs) • Software • Physical and Life Sciences Unique Centers (GreenTech, NanoTe ch, BioTech) • Center for Nanoscale Systems Unique Assets • Nanobiotechnology Physical & Life Science Center Companies • Bioscience Incubator • Cornell World • Kionix Research Ranking • Zetroz • Rheonix • Advion Analysis & Purpose of Study Research Method Framework Recommendations Findings

• 8. Operating Model: Three operating model options exist as potential entrepreneurial community hubs 7 High Mentorshi p Low Real Investor Estate s Shared Work Space Incubators (Real Accelerators (Investor) Estate) Business • Charge start-ups • Charge start-ups • Investment (VC or Angel) Model rent/fee rent/fee Equity Stake • None • None • Equity stake (~5-6%) Time frame • Flexible, low • 6+ months • 3-6 months commitment Analysis & Purpose of Study Research Method Framework Recommendations Programming • Some education • Some education Findings • Mentoring w/deadline

• 9. Operating Model: The New York Region (Ithaca’s competitive landscape) has representation within each model type 8 High eLab Mentorship Requires constant investment into tenants Low (typically VC Real Estate Investors or angel backed) Analysis & Purpose of Study Research Method Framework Recommendations Findings

• 10. Operating Model: Physical work space is a requirement for an entrepreneurial hub 9 Estimated use of physical space (% of time) Working - coding, selling, etc. Meeting with mentors Other (Please indicate) Brainstorming Access to wifi Interactions w/entrepreneurs Time used for Presenting/Pitching 46% interpersonal activities Conference calls Administrative tasks Meeting with customers 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Physical space is Location should be 80% 65% absolutely necessary downtown Analysis & Purpose of Study Research Method Framework Recommendations Findings

• 11. Operating Model: The real estate model is not self- sustaining and would require additional thru year 5 10 5K Sq. Foot Building 20K Sq. Foot Building • Payroll 75KperYear75K per Year 75KperYear135K per Key • Building FREE Year FREE Assumption • CostCapacity Op. FULL FULL s • Sq. Ft. per 300 sq. ft. 300 sq. ft. • tenant Rent Rate 13;213; 2% annual increase 13;213; 2% annual increase Qty. of Tenants 12 50 Needed Estimated 5 Yr. Cash Shortfall <$195,000> $68,000 5K Sq. Foot building cannot break even due to space constraints; however, a 20K Sq. Foot building requires more tenants than are likely to demand space Analysis & Purpose of Study Research Method Framework Recommendations Findings

• 12. Operating Model: Physical work space should have additional services/benefits beyond being a place to work 11 Programs considered & joined Shared work-space out-of-state Shared work-space in-state Accelerators out-of-state Accelerators in-state Incubators out-of-state Incubators in-state 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Joined Considered Of those who considered programs, ALL chose incubators/accelerators because of perceived additional benefits/services Analysis & Purpose of Study Research Method Framework Recommendations Findings

• 13. Programming: Entrepreneurs are most interested in developing capital, mentorship, networks, professional services, and talent 12 Most important aspects of a business incubator/accelerator Access to capital Mentoring Influential people Access to professional services Availability of talent Network of entrepreneurs Office space Physical location Entrepreneurial eco-system Programming Access to tech or ideas Accountability Demo day Cost of living Access to entrepreneurial info Other (Please indicate) Cohesiveness of community 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Number of Respondents (multi-answer) Analysis & Purpose of Study Research Method Framework Recommendations Findings

• 14. Programming: Opportunity exists to improve on “Top 5” aspects in Ithaca 13 Ithaca Strengths & Weaknesses Cost of living Access to tech/ideas Access to entrepreneurial info Network of entrepreneurs Availability of talent Access to professional services Office space Programming Mentoring Entrepreneurial eco-system Cohesiveness of community Influential people Physical location Accountability Demo day Access to capital 1 2 3 4 5 6Strength 7 Weakness Experienced Student Analysis & Purpose of Study Research Method Framework Recommendations Findings

• 15. Recommendations 1of 2: Bridge interaction between entrepreneurial groups and leverage Ithaca’s expertise 14 Recommendations Risks Mitigations 1 • Seed board with • Form entrepreneurship influential members from • Students won’t attend Community board with each community local events and vice- representatives from • Emphasize versa each silo growing/tapping diverse • Skepticism in value-add • Formalize networks of interacting with other communication channels • Publicize successful groups across each silo cross-silo connections / referrals 2 • Emphasize software and • Start-ups leave Ithaca for • Don’t devote resources physical sciences Industry NYC or Silicon Valley towards competing • Build interest groups around industry focuses • Lack critical mass of against NYC or SV hubs companies seeking • Set, announce, and • Organize investor demo capital promote a deadline for day around industry the demo day cluster Analysis & Purpose of Study Research Method Framework Recommendations Findings

• 16. Recommendations 2 of 2: Identify funding for building and develop programming around entrepreneurial competitions 15 Recommendations Risks Mitigations 3 • Identify source(s) of gov’t • Supplemental financing funding for initial • Inability to finance cash should cover 5+ years Op Model purchase short fall • Offer incentives to • Identify financing to for • Inability to acquire anchor tenants operating cash shortfall necessary qty. of tenants • Actively promote space • Start with real estate in surrounding cities model 4 • Build network of 30+ Programming • Expand mentor network mentors • Lack of mentors with beyond residents in • Develop programming targeted experience Ithaca around demo days & • Teams not achieving • Develop selection criteria entrepreneur success as measured by to ensure teams surpass competitions with cash cash receipts desired hurdle prizes Analysis & Purpose of Study Research Method Framework Recommendations Findings

• 17. Fully developing the four focus areas is essential to create a sustainable entrepreneurial hub in Ithaca 16 Community • Formal ties across silos via Entrepreneurship Board Industry Focus Operating Model Programming • Build on existing • Begin with real estate • Utilize mentors and Nanotech, CleanTech, model in downtown progression training and Biotech assets locale with deadlines Analysis & Purpose of Study Research Method Framework Recommendation Findings

• 18. 17 Appendix Detailed Executive Summary Detailed Study Methodology Financial Model 1: 5K Square Foot Building Financial Model 2: 20K Square Foot Building Survey 1: Student & Experienced Entrepreneurs Survey 2: Incubator/Accelerator Alum

• 19. Detailed Executive Summary 18 Multiple • Cornell University and Ithaca College have several business plan universities and competitions, entrepreneurial activities, and clubs encouraging students to start businesses • These institutions perform cutting edge technical research that yield discoveries with entrepreneurial commercial potential efforts exist in • An active community of entrepreneurs start companies in Ithaca and surrounding cities Tompkins • The research facilities and relatively low cost of living are a catalyst for entrepreneurial County, NY endeavors Entrepreneurs are • Other cities offer more resources, especially investors, which entice entrepreneurs to leave drawn to other Ithaca • The technology developed at universities has a longer development cycle, which requires cities in pursuit of specific types of funding to grow resources, money • Ithaca has a small-city culture centered around emphasizing being local, being green, & being , and markets natural What characteristics are necessary to develop and sustain an entrepreneurial hub in Tompkins County, NY? 4 key areas must be developed for • Community: Formalize communication and links among distinct groups • Industry Focus: Software and physical sciences an entrepreneurial • Operating Model: Begin with real estate that can eventually add investors hub to be • Programming: Mentors coach towards entrepreneurial competitions providing cash prizes successful

• 20. Detailed Study methodology 19 Research Goal: This study researched and recommended a model for a tech business incubator facility for Ithaca to implement. The aim is to attract and retain talent within Ithaca’s entrepreneurial ecosystem. Data Collection Methods: This study included several primary research methods: one-on-one interviews, focus group interviews, and survey data. These methods were used to varying degrees as described below: Operating Model Research: This research covered business models associated with Operating Model Interviews entrepreneurial hubs (shared  Techstars Boulder (Colorado) workspaces, accelerators, incubators) in other  Madison Enterprise Center (Wisconsin) cities and towns. Facilities were selected to as  Betaspring (Rhode Island) closely mimic Ithaca characteristics: small-  BoomStartUp (Utah) medium sized towns featuring large research  Business Enterprise Center (Oregon) academic institutions. With this data, we  StartFast Venture (New York) developed hypotheses about facility efficacy to  Syracuse Tech Garden (New York test perceptions towards such facilities in Ithaca.  Business Incubator (Colorado)  Brandery (Ohio)  Rock Health Accelerator (San Francisco/Boston)

• 21. Detailed Study methodology (continued) 20 Local Entrepreneur & Student Research: This Focus Group B: research covered entrepreneurs that had and  Alex Fisher, Glycobia students that plan to start/ed companies in  Charles Hamilton, Challenge Ithaca and was geared towards collecting  Alex Hagen, Weaver Wind Energy attitudes and perspectives from these groups  Samantha Abrams, Emmy’s Organics Focus Group A: Interviews  Elisa Miller-Out, Singlebrook  Eric Eisenhut  Judith Lemke, CareFusion  Brad Treat, Mezmeriz  Morgan Lemke, TraceIT  Tom Schryver, EiR Cornell  Adeesha Ekanayake, TraceIT  Zach Shulman, CVF  Dounan Hu IT, Tech Consultant  Jon Greene, Widetronix  Oliver Zanen, Synceros  David Bloom, Ordr.in  Greg Kops, thinktopography  Danielle Klock, thinktopography Survey  Justin Lee RevoPT 1. Elisa Miller-Out's list-serve  Mike Wehrhahn, RevoPT 2. Ithaca Entrepreneurs list maintained by Brad  Fargo Balliett, chillmonkey.com Treat  Armando Diaz chillmonkey.com 3. EVCC Facebook group  Bob Parks educational dictionary software 4. Cornell Entrepreneurship Listserve  Nathan Reimer Reimer Consulting 5. Cornell Popshop Listserve  Sanjay Behuria, Peter Weisz Engineering 6. Nationwide incubators/accelerators  Matthew Clark, Gorges  Don Ellis, Gorges

• 22. Scenario 1: 5K Sq. Feet Building Model 21 REAL ESTATE MODEL - Building Size 5K Sq Feet Pro Forma Profit and Loss Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Revenues/Donations Rent Income 48,750.00 49,725.00 50,719.50 51,733.89 52,768.57 53,823.94 54,900.42 55,998.43 57,118.39 58,260.76 Donations Sponsorship Government Funding 150,000.00 Net Return from Exit - - - - - - - - - - 150,000.00 48,750.00 49,725.00 50,719.50 51,733.89 52,768.57 53,823.94 54,900.42 55,998.43 57,118.39 58,260.76 Operating Costs Lease/Mortgage Payments - - - - - - - - - - - Payroll/Staffing - 75,000.00 75,000.00 75,000.00 75,000.00 75,000.00 75,000.00 75,000.00 75,000.00 75,000.00 75,000.00 Meals/Entertainment/Events - 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 Utilities - 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 Office Supplies - 4,800.00 4,800.00 4,800.00 4,800.00 4,800.00 4,800.00 4,800.00 4,800.00 4,800.00 4,800.00 Accounting/Legal Fees - 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 Depreciation - 15,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 Founders Stipend - - - - - - - - - - - One-time Set-up Costs* 150,000.00 - - - - - - - - - - 150,000.00 104,800.00 104,800.00 104,800.00 104,800.00 104,800.00 104,800.00 104,800.00 104,800.00 104,800.00 104,800.00 Net Income - (56,050.00) (55,075.00) (54,080.50) (53,066.11) (52,031.43) (50,976.06) (49,899.58) (48,801.57) (47,681.61) (46,539.24) Cumulative Income(Loss) - (56,050.00) (111,125.00) (165,205.50) (218,271.61) (270,303.04) (321,279.10) (371,178.69) (419,980.26) (467,661.86) (514,201.10) Annual Net Cash Surplus(Shortfall) - (41,050.00) (40,075.00) (39,080.50) (38,066.11) (37,031.43) (35,976.06) (34,899.58) (33,801.57) (32,681.61) (31,539.24) * See Start-up Costs Tab for Details Metrics Avg # of Tenants - 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 Avg Square Foot Per Team - 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300

• 23. Scenario 2: 20K Sq. Feet Building Model 22 REAL ESTATE MODEL - Building Size 20K Sq Feet Pro Forma Profit and Loss Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 Revenues/Donations Rent Income 195,000.00 198,900.00 202,878.00 206,935.56 211,074.27 215,295.76 219,601.67 223,993.71 228,473.58 233,043.05 Donations Sponsorship Government Funding 600,000.00 Net Return from Exit - - - - - - - - - - 600,000.00 195,000.00 198,900.00 202,878.00 206,935.56 211,074.27 215,295.76 219,601.67 223,993.71 228,473.58 233,043.05 Operating Costs Lease/Mortgage Payments - - - - - - - - - - - Payroll/Staffing - 135,000.00 135,000.00 135,000.00 135,000.00 135,000.00 135,000.00 135,000.00 135,000.00 135,000.00 135,000.00 Meals/Entertainment/Events - 12,500.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 12,500.00 Utilities - 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 Office Supplies - 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 Accounting/Legal Fees - 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 Depreciation - 60,000.00 60,000.00 60,000.00 60,000.00 60,000.00 60,000.00 60,000.00 60,000.00 60,000.00 60,000.00 Founders Stipend - - - - - - - - - - - One-time Set-up Costs* 600,000.00 - - - - - - - - - - 600,000.00 249,500.00 249,500.00 249,500.00 249,500.00 249,500.00 249,500.00 249,500.00 249,500.00 249,500.00 249,500.00 Net Income - (54,500.00) (50,600.00) (46,622.00) (42,564.44) (38,425.73) (34,204.24) (29,898.33) (25,506.29) (21,026.42) (16,456.95) Cumulative Income(Loss) - (54,500.00) (105,100.00) (151,722.00) (194,286.44) (232,712.17) (266,916.41) (296,814.74) (322,321.04) (343,347.46) (359,804.41) Annual Net Cash Surplus(Shortfall) - 5,500.00 9,400.00 13,378.00 17,435.56 21,574.27 25,795.76 30,101.67 34,493.71 38,973.58 43,543.05 * See Start-up Costs Tab for Details Metrics Avg # of Tenants - 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Avg Square Foot Per Team - 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300

• 24. Survey Results: Student and Experienced 23 Entrepreneurs

• 25. Survey 1: Student and Experienced Entrepreneurs 24 1. Please select the option that best describes you. Experienced Entrepreneur Student Entrepreneur Incubator/Accelerator Alumn 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 N=82 Survey continued on next page

• 26. Survey 1: Student and Experienced Entrepreneurs (continued) 25 2. In which industry are you most likely to start/have started a business? Check all that apply Web apps Mobile Social Media Enterprise Software Social Enterprise Retail Green Tech Consulting Hi Tech Bio-tech Games Other Nanotech Medical Devices CPG 0 5 10 15 20 25 N=57 Survey continued on next page

• 27. Survey 1: Student and Experienced Entrepreneurs (continued) 26 3. If you were to apply for a business incubator/accelerator (described at the beginning of the survey), which of the following characteristics would you consider when making the decision? Select up to 3 characteristics. Expertise of program backers Angel/VC accessibility Program success rate Proximity to other entrepreneurs Critical mass of entrepreneur community Programming Desirable city lifestyle Other Easiest application Shortest term 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 N=57 Survey continued on next page

• 28. Survey 1: Student and Experienced Entrepreneurs (continued) 27 4. If you were to apply for a business incubator/accelerator (described at the beginning of the survey), which of the following characteristics would you consider when making the decision? Select up to 3 characteristics. Access to capital Influential people Availability of talent Office space Entrepreneurial eco-system Access to tech or ideas Demo day Access to entrepreneurial info Cohesiveness of community 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 N=53 Survey continued on next page

• 29. Survey 1: Student and Experienced Entrepreneurs (continued) 28 5. According to your perception, rank Ithaca’s strengths AND weaknesses of each entrepreneurial aspect below. Access to tech/ideas Cost of living Access to entrepreneurial information Availability of talent Programming Network of entrepreneurs Entrepreneurial eco-system Access to professional services Influential people Mentoring Office space Cohesiveness of community Physical location Demo day Accountability Access to capital 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 N=51 Survey continued on next page

• 30. Survey 1: Student and Experienced Entrepreneurs (continued) 29 6. Please rate how important it is for you to be connected with Cornell students, Ithaca College students, and local entrepreneurs. Scale of 1 to 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N=51 Survey continued on next page

• 31. Survey 1: Student and Experienced Entrepreneurs (continued) 30 7. Please rate how important it is for you to obtain entrepreneurial information about people in the Ithaca area who are outside your current entrepreneur circle. Scale of 1 to 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N=51 Survey continued on next page

• 32. Survey 1: Student and Experienced Entrepreneurs (continued) 31 8. According to your perception, please rate the quality of mentors in Ithaca. Scale of 1 to 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N=51 Survey continued on next page

• 33. Survey 1: Student and Experienced Entrepreneurs (continued) 32 9. Below is a list of reasons to choose to locate your business in a specific location. Please select up to 5 of the most important characteristics. Access to talent pool Access to mentors Access to capital Desirable place to live Proximity customers Low cost of living Market to test product Affordable professional services Existing professional network Close to family Leisure activities Industry expertise Proximity to suppliers Hub of distribution 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 N=49 Survey continued on next page

• 34. Survey 1: Student and Experienced Entrepreneurs (continued) 33 10. In terms of location within a desirable city, which would you prefer? Downtown Suburbs Other 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 N=47 Survey continued on next page

• 35. Survey 1: Student and Experienced Entrepreneurs (continued) 34 11. Which of the following product development needs are missing from the Ithaca entrepreneur scene? Select all that apply. Talent for coding Other Wet-lab space Nothing is missing Other technical talent Other physical asset 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 N=47 Survey continued on next page

• 36. Survey 1: Student and Experienced Entrepreneurs (continued) 35 12. Rank the size of impact a community-based (i.e. not affiliated with Cornell, Ithaca College, or another academic institution) incubator would have on the Ithaca-Tompkins region. Scale of 1 to 4 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 N=47 Survey continued on next page

• 37. Survey 1: Student and Experienced Entrepreneurs (continued) 36 13. Please indicate your age. 41+ 36 to 40 31 to 35 26 to 30 21 to 25 16 to 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 N=47 Survey continued on next page

• 38. Survey 1: Student and Experienced Entrepreneurs (continued) 37 14. Please indicate the level of school you have completed. Doctorate degree Graduate degree Senior in college Junior in college Sophomore in college Freshman in college High school 0 5 10 15 20 25 N=47 Survey continued on next page

• 39. Survey 1: Student and Experienced Entrepreneurs (continued) 38 15. Please indicate your field of study in school. Business (marketing, finance, accounting, operations, etc.) Computer Science/Engineering Other Non-Technical (Please Indicate) Other Technical/Math/Science Liberal Arts Economics Physics/Chemistry/Life Sciences 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 N=47 Survey continued on next page

• 40. Survey 1: Student and Experienced Entrepreneurs (continued) 39 16. Please indicate where you lived before coming to Ithaca, NY for school or another reason. Mid-Atlantic (besides Ithaca-Tompkins region, NY) West Outside the lower 48 U.S. States (Please indicate) New England Rocky Mountain Region Pacific Northwest South Midwest 0 5 10 15 20 25 N=47 Survey continued on next page

• 41. Survey 1: Student and Experienced Entrepreneurs (continued) 40 17. If you are a student or plan on moving in the next 1 to 4 years, please indicate where you plan on living. Mid-Atlantic (besides Ithaca-Tompkins region, NY) Don't know Ithaca-Tompkins region, NY New England West Outside the lower 48 U.S. States (Please indicate) Rocky Mountain Region South 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 N=47 Survey continued on next page

• 42. Survey 1: Student and Experienced Entrepreneurs (continued) 41 18. Please indicate where you currently live. Ithaca-Tompkins region, NY New England Mid-Atlantic (besides Ithaca-Tompkins region, NY) Pacific Southwest Pacific Northwest 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 N=47 Survey continued on next page

• 43. Survey 1: Student and Experienced Entrepreneurs (continued) 42 19 (1 of 3). Is there anything you would like us to know about your views concerning a community based incubator/accelerator in Ithaca, NY? (Note: each bullet is a separate respondent) • Cost of living, taxes and electric are VERY high in Tompkins County and NY state as compared to Syracuse and outside of NY. This is the biggest detterant. I would never incorporate in NY state. • Somehow connect it to other hubs -- SV, NYC, Boston, Denver, etc • Access to NYC • get it done :) • This is sorely needed and will be greatly appreciated when launched. • I'm not sure what a wet-lab is so it was difficult to answer that question. I think a demo day that complements e@c week would be excellent to attract talent and investors. The demo day and e@c should be for all Cornell schools instead of just Johnson. I believe Cornell's tech transfer program is inhibiting the transfer of tech with their current royalty policies. What I would like to see most is an accelerator program that focuses on systems and design thinking principles. Additionally, the accelerator would foster creativity and have the means to take an idea from concept to tangible product. Creating a tangible products requires design and manufacturing capabilities currently not found anywhere on Cornell's campus. The space must be able to support work outside of computer science related businesses.

• 44. Survey 1: Student and Experienced Entrepreneurs (continued) 43 19 (2 of 3). Is there anything you would like us to know about your views concerning a community based incubator/accelerator in Ithaca, NY? • I think for a place like this to work, especially with tons of students being part of it, that it would require or offer a living space for student entrepreneurs. I personally would have made it to many more events if they had been in the downstairs of my building, as opposed to having to walk 30 mins to campus. It also helps create a very strong network of individuals and keeps everyone accountable. • I think it's important for the municipalities to fully support local independently owned businesses, and that a community based incubator/accelerator would best be created with the knowledge and support of the local municipalities. • Great idea, I would love to contribute as a mentor and quite possibly a participant. Would be great to see an environment that encourages more then just software only projects. Possibly an intersection of a fully capable makerspace with an incubator • It is difficult to accommodate multiple industries. Likely would need to keep it basic, but prior attempts failed because they offered little. • Given the size of Ithaca, the net effect of a community based incubator would be huge. Additionally, having a community based incubator not directly tied to a university makes for a more inclusive environment while still providing amply opportunities for all students located in town.

• 45. Survey 1: Student and Experienced Entrepreneurs (continued) 44 19 (3 of 3). Is there anything you would like us to know about your views concerning a community based incubator/accelerator in Ithaca, NY? • This needs to work with other incubators in the area (Binghamton, Tech Garden, HTR, Buffalo) and approach things regionally. If the desire is to be competitive, instead of collaborative, with the other regional options, this is a non-starter. • I worked at a biotech startup in Ithaca for several years, and I knew of several people who were interested in working on their own ideas for companies (biotech, white biotech/green tech), but there was almost no support for such activities outside of Cornell facilities. I ended up moving to the SF Bay Area because of it. Ithaca needs a community based incubator/accelerator where innovators can demonstrate proof of principle, and get the mentoring/administrative support they need to secure additional funding (whether from angels or grants). Survey continued on next page

• 46. 45 Survey Results: Incubator/Accelerator Alumni

• 47. Survey 2: Incubator and Accelerator Alumni 46 1. Below is a list of reasons for deciding to apply to an incubator/accelerator. Please check all that apply. Needed help raising money 82% Needed office space 82% Recommend by friend/mentor 64% Needed guidance to prioritize next steps for my business 64% Recognition that comes with high-profile incubators/accelerators 55% Needed business plan writing help 55% Needed help developing my product 45% Needed help finding a management team 45% Capital infusion upon induction 36% Networking opportunities with similar stage companies 27% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Survey continued on next page N=20

• 48. Survey 2: Incubator and Accelerator Alumni (continued) 47 2. Below is a list of incubator/accelerator options. Please indicate those considered. Select all that apply. Shared work-space out-of-state Shared work-space in-state Accelerators out-of-state Accelerators in-state Incubators out-of-state Incubators in-state 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Frequency of Responses N=13 Survey continued on next page

• 49. Survey 2: Incubator and Accelerator Alumni (continued) 48 3. Below is a list of incubator/accelerator options. Please indicate the 1 you selected. Shared work-space out-of-state Shared work-space in-state Accelerators out-of-state Accelerators in-state Incubators out-of-state Incubators in-state 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Frequency of Responses N=13 Survey continued on next page

• 50. Survey 2: Incubator and Accelerator Alumni (continued) 49 4. Where was/is the incubator/accelerator located within the city? Downtown Suburb (outskirts) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 N=18 Survey continued on next page

• 51. Survey 2: Incubator and Accelerator Alumni (continued) 50 5. How did you hear about the incubator/accelerator you attend(ed)? Select all that apply. Recommendation from friend/mentor Word of mouth Online Other (Please indicate) Conference Email 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 N=12 Survey continued on next page

• 52. Survey 2: Incubator and Accelerator Alumni (continued) 51 6. Do you feel it was necessary to have a dedicated physical space or could the same results have been accomplished using coffee shops, libraries, universities, local businesses, etc.? No 20% Yes 80% N=11 Survey continued on next page

• 53. Survey 2: Incubator and Accelerator Alumni (continued) 52 7. Please estimate how you used the physical space. You must allocate 100%. Working - coding, selling, etc. 30% Meeting with mentors 14% Access to wifi 13% Brainstorming with team 12% Random meetings/interactions with other entrepreneur 9% occupants Other (Please indicate) 6% Meeting with customers 5% Presenting (using projector) 5% Administrative tasks (printing, photocopying, faxing) 4% Conference calls 3% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% N=16 Survey continued on next page

• 54. Survey 2: Incubator and Accelerator Alumni (continued) 53 8. How long were you part of the incubator/accelerator? 3+ years More than 2 years, up to 3 years More than 1 year, up to 2 years More than 9 months, up to 1 year More than 6 months, up to 9 months More than 3 months, up to 6 months 3 months or less 0 1 2 3 4 5 N=16 Survey continued on next page

• 55. Survey 2: Incubator and Accelerator Alumni (continued) 54 9. Please select the 3 aspects of the incubator/accelerator that had the most impact on the success of you and/or your business. Introductions to influential people 22% Mentoring (receiving guidance tailored specifically to your current business issues from a designated mentor with experience in… 20% Physical location where meetings with customers/vendors could be held 16% Access to professional services/advice (legal, accounting, HR, etc.) 12% Access to capital 10% Outside individuals helping you stay accountable and prioritize tasks 8% Programming (workshops, seminars, guest speakers, etc.) 6% Demo day 4% Ability to find additional members for management team 2% Software development help 0% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Frequency of Response N=16 Survey continued on next page

• 56. Survey 2: Incubator and Accelerator Alumni (continued) 55 10. Please select the 3 aspects of an incubator/accelerator that had the least impact on the success of you and/or your business. Software development help 23% Ability to find additional members for management team 15% Outside individuals helping you stay accountable and prioritize… 13% Demo day 13% Physical location where meetings with customers/vendors could… 13% Programming/curriculum (workshops, seminars, guest… 8% Capital 6% Introductions to influential people 6% Resources 2% Mentoring (being assigned a mentor and receiving guidance… 2% Other (Please indicate) 0% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Frequency of Response N=16 Survey continued on next page

• 57. Survey 2: Incubator and Accelerator Alumni (continued) 56 11. Please rank the following factors on how satisfied you were with your overall experience at the incubator/accelerator. Ability to develop product 4.8 Develop a pitch deck & presentation 4.7 Ability to develop customers 4.4 Mentoring 4.4 Access to capital 3.8 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 N=10 Survey continued on next page

• 58. Survey 2: Incubator and Accelerator Alumni (continued) 57 12. Were you able to raise sophisticated funding (angel or VC) as a result of your experience in the incubator/accelerator? No 69% Yes 31% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% N=16 Survey continued on next page

• 59. Survey 2: Incubator and Accelerator Alumni (continued) 58 13. Did your company realize a successful exit? (example: IPO or sale) No 88% Yes 13% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% N=16 Survey continued on next page

• 60. Survey 2: Incubator and Accelerator Alumni (continued) 59 14. Comparing your capabilities before entering and after leaving the incubator/accelerator, how much did your competence in each of the following areas improve? 1=No Improvement 7=Significant Improvement Develop a pitch deck & presentation Networking Information Technology Raising money Human Resources/Capital Strategic planning Operations Finance and Accounting Marketing Product development Customer development 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N=16 Survey continued on next page

• 61. Survey 2: Incubator and Accelerator Alumni (continued) 60 15. Is your company still in business? No 25% Yes 75% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% N=16 Survey continued on next page

• 62. Survey 2: Incubator and Accelerator Alumni (continued) 61 16. How long has it been since you left the incubator/accelerator? 6+ years More than 4 years up to 6 years More than 2 years up to 4 years Less than 2 years I'm still at the incubator/accelerator 0 1 2 3 4 N=8 Survey continued on next page

• 63. Survey 2: Incubator and Accelerator Alumni (continued) 62 17. Did you keep your business in the same city as the incubator/accelerator after "graduating"? No Yes 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 N=16 Survey continued on next page

• 64. Survey 2: Incubator and Accelerator Alumni (continued) 63 18. Overall, how satisfied were you with your experience at the incubator/accelerator you went through? 1=Completely Unsatisfied 7=Completely Satisfied Overall incubator/accelerator level of 4.4 satisfaction 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 N=16 Survey continued on next page

• 65. Survey 2: Incubator and Accelerator Alumni (continued) 64 19. Please indicate the highest level of school you have completed. Doctorate Degree Master's Degree Senior in college Junior in college Sophomore in college Freshman in college High school 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N=9 Survey continued on next page

• 66. Survey 2: Incubator and Accelerator Alumni (continued) 65 20. Please indicate your undergraduate major field of study in school. Other Law Liberal Arts Physics/Chemistry/Life Sciences Business (marketing, finance, accounting, operations,… Economics Computer Science/Engineering 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 N=16 Survey continued on next page

• 67. Survey 2: Incubator and Accelerator Alumni (continued) 66 21. Is there anything you would like us to know about your experience with an incubator/accelerator? (Note: each bullet is a separate respondent) • Was at UMBC Incubator, which is run by a Cornell-Johnson School Alum Ellen Hemmerly: www.bwtechumbc.com • Shared space with other entrepreneurs at similar stages, and the cohesiveness we developed within our cohort, were extremely valuable. It was outstanding. • Our failure to raise capital and take things to the next level had nothing to do with the incubator itself and had everything to do with a toxic presence in our team. • I believe it is *critical* that the backers of the incubator are in NO WAY conflicted with also being potential investors. I have seen where the mentoring and support from the incubator can become tainted by mentor/investors forgetting their role as mentor, and becoming useless and a detriment to the company as they begin to see Demo Day coming. I also believe the incubator needs to provide community support, even to those entrants who are not picked to participate. This means also supporting year-round events and public benefits to all - not just the companies picked to participate. The incubator MUST become the hub of a community that benefits the community, IMHO, or it will not be seen as valuable long term. • It need a lot of outside funding and community support regardless of the venture structure.