The Pillars of the Syrian Startup Ecosystem - Ideation Support

Ideation Support

Entrepreneurship begins long before investment, prototypes, or market entry. It starts with a spark, the earliest ideation phase in which individuals shape concepts, test assumptions, and decide whether to pursue entrepreneurial action. This stage is fragile: without structured support, many potential founders never progress beyond intention. Ecosystems that neglect ideation typically experience downstream consequences: incubators struggle to attract strong applicants, accelerators face weak cohorts, and investors encounter limited deal flow.^[1]

Entrepreneurial ecosystem research emphasizes that an ecosystem’s strength depends not only on the presence of actors but on the interdependencies between them.^[2] Ideation support underpins these interdependencies. It is the stage where human capital begins to form, initial networks develop, and ideas move from abstraction into early validation.

This report highlights seven core components of ideation support:

1. Talent development organizations
   
2. Academic institutions
   
3. Incubators
   
4. Accelerators
   
5. Venture studios
   
6. Competitions
   
7. Mentorship programs
   

These components should not be viewed as isolated initiatives but as layers within a structured support system (see fig. 1). At the base are talent development organizations and academic institutions, which cultivate foundational skills and entrepreneurial mindsets. In the middle are incubators, accelerators, and venture studios, which offer structured environments for transforming concepts into viable ventures. At the top are competitions and mentorship programs, which provide exposure, feedback, and networks.

This model is not presented as a rigid framework or a universal hierarchy. Instead, it serves as a practical illustration of how different support types interact and build upon one another. Entrepreneurial ecosystems are dynamic and context-dependent; their components function best when coordinated rather than siloed.

Collectively, these layers form a pathway that turns individual entrepreneurial intention into collective entrepreneurial action. They ensure that ideas are tested, refined, and supported within a broader ecosystem rather than left to chance.

The following sections examine each component in detail, beginning with talent development organizations.

Figure 1. The layered structure of ideation support in entrepreneurial ecosystems.

What a Talent Development Organization Is

Talent development organizations serve as the entry point into entrepreneurial ecosystems. Their objective is not to produce startups directly, but to prepare the individuals who will launch, join, or support them. Their core contribution is the creation of human capital: individuals who can recognize opportunities, mobilize resources, and act under uncertainty.^[3]

These organizations operate across diverse institutional forms, such as universities, NGO-led initiatives, training institutes, and government-backed projects. Regardless of their structure, they share a common mission: to translate raw potential into entrepreneurial capacity. This includes not only technical skills, but also self-confidence, problem-solving abilities, resilience, and an entrepreneurial mindset.^[4]

How Talent Development Functions in Practice

Effective talent development goes far beyond classroom instruction or motivational workshops. It is a structured learning journey that integrates education, practical application, and exposure to real entrepreneurial role models.
Most organizations begin with outreach and recruitment, often targeting youth, students, women, or underrepresented groups. Some adopt open-enrollment models, while others apply selective criteria. Even this selection stage can prompt applicants to reflect on their motivation and readiness.^[5]

Once participants are admitted, they move through a curriculum that blends:

• Hard skills: financial literacy, marketing, digital tools
• Soft skills: teamwork, negotiation, leadership, resilience
• Mindset training: opportunity recognition, comfort with ambiguity, iterative problem-solving^[6]

The distinguishing feature of strong programs is their methodology. Participants do not learn about entrepreneurship as an abstract concept; they learn to practice it.

Talent development organizations operate around three core interlinked functions (see Fig. 2):

1. Recruitment: bringing diverse individuals into the entrepreneurial pipeline
2. Training: equipping them with technical and behavioral skills
3. Mentorship and networks: providing long-term support, role models, and community

Figure 2. The three core functions of talent development organizations.

Hands-on learning is essential. Rather than rely on hypothetical exercises, strong programs use project-based activities, simulations, and real-world challenges. Participants may validate fundamental business ideas, pitch solutions to local needs, or conduct small-scale market experiments.^[7] This experiential approach helps individuals build confidence and navigate uncertainty.

Mentorship, whether delivered by experienced entrepreneurs or industry professionals, supports this process by providing tacit knowledge and emotional resilience. In fragile ecosystems, this layer is particularly important: mentors help participants see entrepreneurship as achievable and credible.^[8]

Finally, effective talent development extends beyond the program itself. Alumni networks, peer communities, and follow-up programs sustain entrepreneurial behavior over time and gradually strengthen the broader culture of innovation.

Why Talent Development Is Foundational

While finance, policy, and infrastructure matter, entrepreneurial ecosystems ultimately depend on capable people. Without human capital, supportive structures fail to translate into viable ventures.  This challenge is often called the pipeline problem: ecosystems that neglect talent development consistently struggle with weak startup founders, limited deal flow for investors, and frustrated policymakers due to high failure rates. The bottleneck is not the number of ideas, but the number of individuals prepared to execute them.^[9]

International evidence reinforces this point. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor surveys reveal that individuals exposed to entrepreneurship education and training report higher intentions and confidence in their skills, which translates into more startups being launched.^[10] 

The OECD frames this more broadly: building human capital is not just about startups but about creating entrepreneurial societies that are more adaptable to disruption, more competitive globally, and more resilient in downturns.^[11]

In Syria, where formal employment opportunities are constrained, talent development is particularly critical. It equips individuals with tools to create their own livelihoods and support community-level resilience.

Actors and Beneficiaries

Talent development organizations are operated by a wide range of institutions: universities, NGOs, foundations, international organizations, and government agencies. Increasingly, the private sector also funds or partners with these initiatives, recognizing that entrepreneurial skills support both corporate innovation and social responsibility agendas.^[12]

The direct beneficiaries are individuals at the ideation stage ,  students, aspiring entrepreneurs, women, and early-career professionals. The indirect benefits, however, extend across the ecosystem:

• Incubators and accelerators gain stronger candidate pipelines
• Investors access more capable founders.
• Governments benefit from job creation, innovation, and reduced dependency on public employment.
• Communities gain role models and cultural acceptance for entrepreneurship.^[13]

Position in the Ecosystem

Talent development sits at the base layer of the ecosystem. It feeds all subsequent support structures, incubators, accelerators, venture studios, and competitions, with capable individuals. Without this foundation, ecosystems risk building structures that operate in a vacuum.

This capacity-building role creates what researchers call entrepreneurial density: a critical mass of individuals who can start, join, or support ventures.^[14] This density is not physical infrastructure, but the human infrastructure that sustains innovation and regenerates opportunity over time.

When Talent Development Matters Most

Talent development is most essential at the earliest stage of the entrepreneurial journey, when uncertainty is highest, and dropout risk is greatest. Well-designed interventions, whether a workshop, a mentorship experience, or a project-based challenge, can be decisive in shaping whether individuals continue the path of entrepreneurship or not.^[15]

Beyond the early stage of entrepreneurship, talent development becomes vital during periods of economic disruption or social reconstruction. It enables people to shift from being passive recipients of financial conditions to being active creators of solutions. In fragile contexts, talent development is therefore not only a startup enabler but a societal resilience mechanism.

Academic Institutions: More Than Just a School

Universities and higher education institutions are central pillars of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Their role extends far beyond traditional teaching and research. They nurture entrepreneurial mindsets, generate new knowledge, and provide pathways for the commercialization of innovations. Academic institutions are not only sources of talent; they are also engines of research and innovation that provide a flow of ideas, discoveries, and entrepreneurial capacity.^[16] 

Increasingly, universities are described as “entrepreneurial universities,” institutions that integrate entrepreneurship into their missions alongside education and research.^[17]

Academic institutions contribute to ecosystems in three primary ways:

1. Human capital development: embedding entrepreneurship in curricula, offering dedicated courses and programs, and promoting entrepreneurship as a viable career path.
   
2. Knowledge and innovation transfer:  transitioning research discoveries into marketable products, enabling discoveries to move from the lab toward commercial application.
   
3. Infrastructure and community building:  providing labs, co-working spaces, and tech transfer offices (TTOs) that back early-stage ventures.
   

Through these functions, universities produce knowledge and help turn it into economic and social value.^[18]

How Academic Institutions Function in Practice

In practice, academic institutions incorporate entrepreneurship across several operational layers. At the educational level, universities increasingly add entrepreneurship education into undergraduate and graduate programs, equipping students with skills such as opportunity recognition, innovation management, and resilience.^[19] Graduate programs, including master’s degrees in entrepreneurship, now form a recognized pipeline for talent in many ecosystems.

At the research and innovation level, academic institutions serve as bridges between laboratories and markets. Through TTOs, they manage intellectual property, licensing, and commercialization processes. Many universities operate incubators or accelerators for academic spin-offs.

A common tool guiding this process is the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) scale, a nine-step scale that shows how developed a technology is, from the very first idea in a lab (TRL 1) to a market-ready deployment (TRL 9). This helps universities and their partners see how close research is to being ready for the market and decide what kind of support it needs along the way.^[20] This staged approach allows academic institutions to act as translators of innovation, lowering risks for investors and entrepreneurs who build on university-based research.

Figure 3. Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs)

At the ecosystem level, universities convene diverse stakeholders through idea competitions, hackathons, seminars, and innovation challenges. They also mobilize alumni networks, which act as long-term, creating communities of practice that continuously feed talent and ideas into the ecosystem.^[21]

In global examples such as the Cambridge ecosystem, strong university-industry linkages have been foundational for building a globally recognized deep tech ecosystem.^[22]

Why Academic Institutions Matter

Academic institutions play an irreplaceable role in modern entrepreneurial ecosystems.
On the talent side, they prepare students with entrepreneurial competencies that remain valuable whether they start companies, join startups, or innovate inside established firms.^[23] 

On the innovation side, they channel research into startups and licensing deals that turn discoveries into companies, jobs, and industries.^[24]

At the ecosystem level, they are not passive participants but active builders. By raising entrepreneurship, developing skills, and acting as early sources of both talent and technology, they ensure that other actors have capable individuals and high-quality ideas to work with.^[25] 

The OECD^[26] emphasizes that regions with strong entrepreneurial academic institutions are better positioned to adapt to technological disruption and global competition, as these institutions serve as stabilizing anchors.

Actors and Beneficiaries

The primary actors behind academic entrepreneurship are universities, often supported by government ministries of education, research councils, and regional development agencies. Private-sector partners, including corporations and investors, increasingly co-fund research, sponsor labs, and co-run entrepreneurship programs.

The direct beneficiaries are students, graduates, and researchers who gain entrepreneurial education, training, and pathways into venture creation. Indirectly, local firms benefit from partnerships and access to research, investors gain deal flow from university spin-offs, and governments see outcomes in job creation, competitiveness, and innovation capacity.^[27] Communities also benefit culturally, as universities promote entrepreneurship as a socially valued career choice.^[28]

When Academic Institutions Matter Most

Academic institutions are most influential in two critical moments:

1. The ideation stage, when exposure to entrepreneurship courses, role models, and competitions shapes students’ entrepreneurial intentions.
   
2. The commercialization stage, where research results are ready to transition into market-ready ventures.

In Syria, where private R&D remains underdeveloped, universities often act as the primary source of both innovation and talent, making their role even more crucial.

In these contexts, academic institutions become the engine of renewal, driving both human capacity and innovation into the broader ecosystem.^[29][30]

Incubators: Role and Nature

Incubators are among the most widespread and visible institutions in entrepreneurial ecosystems. Unlike talent development programs, which prepare individuals at the pre-idea stage, incubators support entrepreneurs who already possess a concept, prototype, or early project. Their primary role is to help early-stage ventures survive the transition from idea to operational business.^[31]

A defining feature of incubators is selectivity. Applicants typically undergo a competitive process that filters for teams with potential and commitment. This ensures resources are concentrated on projects with potential while creating an environment where peer learning can increase. Once admitted, entrepreneurs gain legitimacy by being part of a recognized institution, which can open doors to partners and customers.

Incubators vary in their design and mission. Some are general-purpose incubators, supporting ventures across diverse industries. Others are sector-specific, specializing in biotechnology, IT, or clean energy. Specialized incubators can offer industry-specific expertise and targeted networks, while general-purpose incubators build more diverse entrepreneurial communities.^[32] 

Incubation models have evolved significantly over time. Early-generation models operated mainly as landlords, offering cheap office space. Later models became service providers, adding training and advisory programs.

Today’s leading incubators function as ecosystem connectors, involving
startups in broader communities of practice and building bridges to investors, corporates, and policymakers. ^[33][34]

Evidence from multiple regions shows that startups emerging from incubation experience higher survival rates and stronger early-stage stability compared to unsupported peers.^[35]  In fragile and post-conflict situations like Syria, incubators often become critical hubs of entrepreneurial regeneration, especially where traditional industries and R&D infrastructures have been disrupted.

As AI and digital technologies reshape entrepreneurship worldwide, the next generation of incubators may become hybrid platforms combining physical spaces with digital incubation, remote mentorship, and AI-driven business diagnostics that link entrepreneurs in fragile contexts to global networks.^[36]

How Incubators Function in Practice

Incubators translate their mission into practice through a layered, structured process that supports founders from idea validation to operational stability and early market entry.

1. Physical and Logistical Infrastructure

Incubators provide shared office spaces, laboratories, prototyping facilities, and administrative support. These facilities and resources are both functional and symbolic, giving ventures a visible place in the ecosystem.^[37]

2. Business Support Services

Incubators deliver a wide range of advisory and professional services tailored to early ventures, including:

• legal and regulatory guidance
• intellectual property management
• business model development
• market analysis
• financial planning

Unlike talent development programs, which emphasize personal skills, incubators focus on organizational needs: how a team can structure its business model, identify markets, and prepare for customers. In fragile contexts, incubators often represent one of the only available sources of professionalized business advice.^[38]

3. Network integration

Incubators act as bridges into the broader ecosystem, connecting entrepreneurs to mentors,

• Industry partners
• Mentors and experts
• Early adopters and customers
• Investors
• Universities and research centers

This connector role has grown as incubators have evolved from simple landlords into ecosystem enablers. In practice, this includes hosting networking events, organizing demo days, and facilitating partnerships with established firms.^[39]

This process,, as illustrated (see Fig.4), can be visualized as a funnel: entrepreneurs enter with early ideas and, through physical support, business services, and networks, emerge as startups prepared for market entry.

Figure 4. The incubation funnel process.

Figure Note:
This figure is intended as a simplified visual representation of how incubators function. It highlights the layered nature of incubation, physical/logistical support, business services, and networks, concluding in startup graduation. It does not represent a strict or universal framework, but an explanatory tool for clarity.

Another key element is incubation duration and graduation. Most programs last one to three years, during which startups are expected to achieve milestones such as market entry or sustainable revenues. Graduation is a test of viability, as incubators aim to release ventures capable of standing on their own in open markets^[40].

4. Digital and Hybrid Incubation

Remote incubation and hybrid models now allow mentorship, training, and even customer discovery to take place online. The integration of AI tools, for example, automated market research or prototype testing, suggest that future incubators will be flexible environments blending local physical hubs with global digital platforms. For countries like Syria, this creates opportunities to overcome infrastructure limitations and plug entrepreneurs into international networks of expertise with its diaspora.^[41]

Why Incubators Matter

Incubators address a critical structural gap: without structured environments to translate talent and ideas into viable ventures, ecosystems produce too few investment-ready firms, leaving accelerators underfilled and investors without strong deal flow.^[42] Incubators perform this translation role, taking inputs from education and talent pipelines and preparing them for later stages of growth and finance.^[43]

Their impact, however, takes time. Evidence shows that well-designed incubators can take twenty years or more to show measurable outcomes. Poorly designed incubators risk becoming “white elephants” that absorb resources without delivering results.^[44]

Actors and Beneficiaries

Incubators are established and operated by diverse actors, including:

•  Universities
•  Regional and development agencies
•  International organizations and donors
• Corporations seeking innovation pipelines ^[45][46]
• Venture capital funds investing in early-stage ecosystems

Their primary beneficiaries are early-stage entrepreneurs who require structured support. Indirect beneficiaries include:

• Accelerators, which receive higher-quality deal flow
•  Investors, who gain ventures tested for viability.
•  Local communities benefit through job creation and the legitimacy
•  Governments via innovation-led development

The Role and Nature of Accelerators

Accelerators have emerged over the past two decades as one of the most transformative models of entrepreneurial support. Unlike incubators, which emphasize survival and long-term development, accelerators are designed to compress years of entrepreneurial learning into a short, intensive period of growth. They target ventures that already have a team and a prototype or early product, and help them prepare for rapid scaling and investment readiness.

Cohen and Hochberg^[47] define accelerators as fixed-term, cohort-based programs that combine mentorship, education, and small-scale seed funding, culminating in a public pitch event or “demo day.” This structure distinguishes accelerators from other support models in three ways: 1. They work in batches rather than on a rolling basis
2. They operate on time-limited cycles, usually three to six months
3. They are explicitly investment-driven, often exchanging equity for participation^[48]

Over time, accelerators have become gatekeepers of quality and legitimacy in entrepreneurial ecosystems. The selection process is highly competitive, with acceptance rates often below 5%. As Pauwels et al.^[49] highlight, this selectivity not only concentrates resources on high-potential ventures but also signals quality to investors, corporates, and policymakers. Once admitted, ventures gain intensive exposure to mentorship and market-validation processes, often underpinned by lean startup methodologies.

Empirical research confirms their influence. Hallen, Bingham, and Cohen^[50] find that accelerator participation can speed up fundraising, expand founders’ professional networks, and shorten time-to-market.

However, their impact varies significantly: while top-tier accelerators such as Y Combinator or Techstars generate lasting advantages, poorly designed programs risk becoming “startup bootcamps” that offer visibility but little long-term value^[51][52].

Accelerators also play a more expansive role in fragile or emerging markets. GALI studies^[53][54] show that in such contexts, accelerators act as ecosystem builders, offering legitimacy, international linkages, and advocacy in addition to training and capital. For Syria, where fragmentation and limited financing remain key constraints, accelerators can become concentrated hubs of visibility and connectivity, connecting startups not only to local partners but also to diaspora investors and global networks of expertise.

How Accelerators Function in Practice

Accelerators translate their mission into practice through a cohort-based model that compresses entrepreneurial learning into a short, intensive cycle. Unlike incubators, which provide open-ended support focused on survival, accelerators are designed for speed and investment readiness^[55]. The process begins with competitive selection. Acceptance rates at top programs like Y Combinator or Techstars are typically below 5%, making admission itself a strong signal of quality^[56]. Selection criteria emphasize the founding team and scalability potential more than a finished product, as accelerators aim to accelerate ventures that are already underway, rather than incubating ideas from scratch. For many entrepreneurs, being accepted demonstrates legitimacy in the eyes of investors, corporations, and even future employees^[57].

Program Design
Once admitted, startups enter an intensive three to six-month program. The structure usually combines three components:

• Curriculum and training. Workshops cover lean startup methods, customer discovery, product–market fit, fundraising, and growth strategies ^[58]
  
• Mentorship. Each startup is paired with serial entrepreneurs, investors, and industry specialists. Cohen and Hochberg^[59] note that mentorship is the defining feature of accelerators, both in intensity and diversity
  
• Seed funding. Many accelerators invest directly in their cohorts, often in exchange for equity. This aligns incentives and ensures the accelerator’s long-term interest in portfolio success^[60]

Demo Day and Ecosystem Exposure

At the end of the cycle, startups pitch to a curated audience of investors, corporates, and media. Demo day functions as:

• A quality filter
  
• A visibility engine
  
• A gateway to investor pipelines
  
• A reputation amplifier for both startups and the accelerator^[61]
  

Alumni Networks and Long-Term Value

Although the formal program is short, the post-program network is long-lasting. Alumni communities, investor connections, and continuing mentorship remain critical sources of value. For many ventures, the accelerator’s brand and alumni links matter more than the initial training or capital injection^[62]. In weaker or post-conflict ecosystems, accelerators extend their role beyond individual venture support. GALI studies^[63] [64] show that in emerging markets, accelerators often act as ecosystem builders, convening stakeholders, shaping policy, and connecting local startups to global capital and knowledge flows. Hybrid accelerators, blending digital delivery with diaspora mentorship, are particularly relevant in places like Syria, where infrastructure is limited but talent and ideas are abundant.

Figure 5. The accelerator process cycle

Figure Note: This figure illustrates the common accelerator cycle: competitive selection, intensive program support, peer cohort dynamics, and graduation through demo day. It is not a universal or rigid model but highlights shared features of most accelerator programs.

Why Accelerators Matter

Accelerators matter because they address one of the most persistent structural gaps in entrepreneurial ecosystems: an oversupply of raw ideas and early-stage projects, and a shortage of investment-ready ventures. This creates what scholars call the “missing middle”: too many teams at the ideation or prototype stage, but too few companies can scale or attract outside capital^[65]. By providing legitimacy through competitive selection, compressing years of learning into a few months, and directly exposing founders to networks of mentors and investors, accelerators serve as the translation mechanism that transforms entrepreneurial energy into ventures that can compete for funding and partnerships^[66]. In doing so, they reduce uncertainty for both entrepreneurs and investors, increasing the overall efficiency of ecosystems.

Evidence supports this role. Studies of accelerator programs across different geographies demonstrate consistent benefits: ventures that participate in accelerators raise external finance more frequently, grow faster, and survive longer than comparable non-accelerated peers^[67][68]. Accelerators also amplify intangible assets such as confidence, legitimacy, and cultural acceptance of entrepreneurship. Alumni networks and peer-learning cohorts create spillovers that extend well beyond a single program, seeding ecosystems with new mentors, angel investors, and role models. In fragile and emerging markets, these cumulative effects can significantly accelerate ecosystem maturity by creating a critical mass of ventures that demonstrate viability and attract attention from larger investors and policymakers^[69][70].

Yet accelerators are not a magic bullet, nor can they be transplanted wholesale from Silicon Valley. As Isenberg^[71] argues, copying the Valley model risks producing “Potemkin accelerators” that mimic surface rituals, demo days, pitch training, and seed checks without solving local bottlenecks.

Even Silicon Valley itself was the product of unique historical accidents, including Cold War military spending, Stanford’s university–industry collaboration, a tolerant risk culture, and global talent inflows, and could not be replicated today. Instead, successful accelerators adapt to their contexts: Rwanda embedded them in coffee, tea, and tourism; Chile used them to attract global entrepreneurs-in-residence. For Syria, the challenge is to design accelerators that align with reconstruction priorities, leverage digital and diaspora resources, and channel entrepreneurial energy into sectors such as the circular economy, food systems, and localized manufacturing. In this way, accelerators can turn the “missing middle” into a foundation for resilience and renewal.

Actors and Beneficiaries

Accelerators are operated by a wide range of actors, reflecting their dual role as investment vehicles and ecosystem builders. Many are founded and financed by venture capital firms, which use them as structured pipelines to identify and de-risk early-stage opportunities ^[72].
Corporations increasingly run accelerators to access innovation, pilot emerging technologies, and create acquisition channels, while universities establish academic accelerators to commercialize research and support spin-offs^[73]. In fragile or emerging economies, governments, NGOs, and donor-backed agencies often step in, using accelerators as policy tools to stimulate entrepreneurship and job creation^[74].

The beneficiaries extend across the ecosystem. For startups, accelerators offer speed, legitimacy, and access to networks that would otherwise take years to build. For investors, they reduce search and due diligence costs by delivering curated, investment-ready deal flow^[75].

Corporations benefit from access to innovative startups and new business models without disrupting core operations, while governments and donors leverage accelerators to signal progress and attract foreign investment ^[76]. At the community level, accelerators foster entrepreneurial role models and create spillover effects through alumni networks, thereby strengthening ecosystem density and resilience.

The Role and Nature of Venture Studios

Venture studios, sometimes called startup studios, venture builders, or company builders, represent a distinct and relatively recent model of entrepreneurial support. Unlike incubators or accelerators, which primarily work with external entrepreneurs and existing startups, venture studios generate and develop business ideas internally, assembling teams, resources, and capital around them ^[77]. Their model is based on systematic company creation, in which the studio itself serves as a co-founder, providing not only funding but also operational infrastructure, validated business ideas, and expert guidance^[78].

This approach addresses one of the most persistent risks in early-stage entrepreneurship: the high failure rate of startups due to a lack of market fit, insufficient resources, or founder inexperience. By internalizing ideation and testing processes, venture studios aim to produce fewer but higher-quality startups, effectively shifting the probability of success^[79].

Research notes that venture studios invert the typical founder–investor dynamic: rather than entrepreneurs pitching to investors, studios build ventures in-house and recruit entrepreneurs to scale them^[80].

Venture studios differ in orientation and scope. Some focus on technology-driven ventures, while others are specialized in impact or climate innovation^[81]. A growing number of corporate venture studios also operate as vehicles for strategic innovation, enabling large firms to explore new business models without disrupting core operations. This diversity reflects both the flexibility of the studio model and the experimental stage of its global evolution.

How Venture Studios Function in Practice

Venture studios follow a systematic and internally driven process that distinguishes them from incubators and accelerators. Rather than waiting for entrepreneurs to bring in ideas, studios proactively generate and validate opportunities, often in collaboration with corporate partners, universities, or government agencies^[82]. This makes them both producers of entrepreneurial opportunities and co-founders of the ventures that emerge. Their methodology typically unfolds across three interconnected stages: ideation and discovery, validation, and company creation^[83].

In the ideation stage, studios scan markets and technologies to identify pressing problems and scalable opportunities. This process may be fueled by internal research, corporate R&D partnerships, or challenges aligned with strategic priorities such as climate innovation^[84]. Unlike open competitions, which generate a wide funnel of ideas, venture studios operate with intentional focus, concentrating resources on a smaller number of high-potential concepts.
The validation stage builds on this funnel by testing whether ideas have real customer demand. Studios develop minimal viable products (MVPs), run pilot projects, and apply rapid experimentation techniques. Only concepts that demonstrate clear traction, early revenues, strong adoption signals, or validated technical feasibility move forward. Importantly, studios maintain “go/no-go” checkpoints, enabling them to kill weak ideas early and reallocate resources to stronger opportunities^[85].

Finally, in the company creation stage, validated ideas are spun out as new startups. The studio provides seed funding, legal and administrative infrastructure, and access to in-house specialists in marketing, design, and technology. Often, studios recruit or pair with external entrepreneurial talent to take over operational leadership, while the studio retains a co-founder role and equity stake^[86]. This dual structure of an external founder plus institutional co-founder shifts the risk profile: entrepreneurs avoid starting from scratch, and investors gain ventures already stress-tested for viability.

This staged process is illustrated (see fig.6), which shows how venture studios move from idea sourcing through MVP testing and validation to the creation of a company prepared for scaling. Unlike incubators or accelerators, venture studios embed multiple “stop” checkpoints, ensuring that only the most promising concepts advance. Increasingly, digitalization is reshaping this cycle: studios use AI-driven market scans, remote validation with global customers, and cloud-based infrastructure to accelerate and globalize the company-building process.

Figure 6. How Venture Studios Work: Adapted from HBR (2022).

This figure illustrates the typical venture studio cycle, from idea sourcing to company scaling. It emphasizes iterative testing loops, selective advancement, and the transition from internal studio work to recruiting external founders for growth.

Why and When Venture Studios Matter

Venture studios matter because they address one of the most persistent weaknesses of entrepreneurial ecosystems: the high failure rate of early-stage startups. Most new ventures collapse due to a lack of product–market fit, insufficient resources, or founder inexperience. By internalizing ideation, validation, and early company building, studios aim to reduce this uncertainty, generating fewer but stronger startups that are investment-ready^[87][88].

 Instead of waiting for entrepreneurs with half-formed ideas, studios actively design and test opportunities, ensuring that only validated concepts become firms.

This systematic approach makes venture studios especially valuable where traditional support mechanisms fall short. Incubators help entrepreneurs survive, and accelerators compress learning cycles, but both depend on committed founders with viable ideas. Venture studios fill the gap, producing well-structured ventures that feed into accelerators, investors, and corporate partners^[89]. As Blank argues, they invert the founder–investor relationship: rather than entrepreneurs pitching for resources, studios build businesses in-house and then recruit founders to scale them^[90].

Their relevance is most significant under certain conditions. In fragile or emerging ecosystems, where founder experience is limited and failure rates are higher, venture studios can act as engines of entrepreneurial capacity, turning scarce talent into scalable firms. In corporate or government contexts, they offer a safe space for testing disruptive business models without weakening established operations^[91]. In short, venture studios matter because they systematically increase the odds of startup survival and ecosystem vitality.

They matter most when ecosystems lack experienced founders, when capital markets are thin, or when transformative innovation is required in sectors of strategic importance.

The Role and Nature of Mentorship

Mentorship is the connective layer that runs through every part of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Unlike incubators or accelerators, which provide structured programs, mentorship operates as a mechanism that amplifies the effectiveness of all other support structures. It provides founders with personalized guidance, knowledge transfer, and emotional resilience, the invisible but essential components that turn uncertainty into progress^[92][93].

At its core, mentorship is a learning process built on trust and experience-sharing. St-Jean^[94] describes it as a dynamic interaction where novice entrepreneurs acquire knowledge, develop self-efficacy, and gain confidence to act. Similarly, St-Jean and Audet^[95] emphasize that mentors act as catalysts for learning-by-doing, helping founders reflect, experiment, and iterate more effectively. This relational form of learning bridges the gap between theory and practice, which is especially critical in the ideation and early growth stages where uncertainty is highest.

Mentorship appears in multiple forms across ecosystems, from structured programs in accelerators and incubators to informal alumni or peer networks. In the earliest stages, mentors often help individuals clarify value propositions, identify markets, and validate ideas. Within incubators and accelerators, they act as specialists, offering insights on product design, funding strategies, and scaling challenges^[96][97].

Across all stages, mentorship contributes not only to skill development but also to social legitimacy. An association with an experienced mentor signals credibility to investors, partners, and other stakeholders^[98].

How Mentorship Functions in Practice

Mentorship works best when it is structured yet flexible, grounded in shared goals, regular interactions, and reciprocal learning. Cull^[99] found that successful mentor–mentee relationships depend on clarity of expectations, mutual commitment, and trust. In startup ecosystems, these principles are embedded in mentorship programs that integrate regular check-ins, performance reviews, and measurable objectives.

In formal settings such as accelerators, mentorship is a defining feature. Cohen and Hochberg argue that mentorship is the most valued aspect of accelerator participation, often more important than seed funding or workshops. The Global Accelerator Learning Initiative (GALI) confirms this, noting that startups receiving intensive, tailored mentorship show stronger investment readiness, better fundraising outcomes, and higher survival rates^[100].

Digitalization is expanding access to mentorship globally. Platforms such as MicroMentor and Founder Institute have introduced hybrid and remote mentoring models that connect founders with experts worldwide, reducing geographic and institutional barriers. In fragile ecosystems like Syria, where local expertise and networks are often fragmented, such digital mentorship provides a lifeline, allowing entrepreneurs to access global knowledge, diaspora mentors, and international validation without leaving their local contexts^[101][102].

Why Mentorship Matters

Mentorship matters because it transforms entrepreneurship from an individual pursuit into a guided learning journey. Evidence consistently shows that mentored entrepreneurs demonstrate greater persistence, self-efficacy, and growth orientation than those without mentors^{[103][104][105]} . Eesley and Miller^[106] found that early exposure to mentors significantly increases the likelihood of individuals pursuing entrepreneurial careers, especially when mentors are experienced entrepreneurs themselves.

Beyond personal impact, mentorship strengthens the ecosystem as a whole. It builds relational infrastructure, trust, and knowledge-sharing that make ecosystems more adaptive and resilient. As experienced founders mentor new generations, mentorship creates positive feedback loops that sustain entrepreneurial culture.

In fragile or rebuilding economies, this role is amplified. Where formal institutions are weak, mentors often fill the gap, providing both technical expertise and moral legitimacy. In Syria’s case, mentorship from diaspora entrepreneurs and international experts could bridge structural gaps, connecting local startups to resources and credibility in global markets.

Ultimately, mentorship is the continuity mechanism of entrepreneurial ecosystems. While incubators offer structure and accelerators provide pace, mentorship ensures that learning, trust, and social capital endure beyond individual programs. It transforms ecosystems from collections of institutions into communities of practice.

The Role and Nature of Competitions

Entrepreneurial competitions play a distinctive role in supporting early-stage ideation by providing structured environments for exposure, feedback, and validation. Unlike incubators or accelerators that offer sustained mentorship, competitions act as short-term catalysts that compress months of entrepreneurial learning and networking into concentrated events that bring together entrepreneurs, investors, corporates, and policymakers^[107]. These events function as anchor moments that intensify interactions among ecosystem actors and stimulate collaboration across organizational boundaries^[108][109].

Their value extends beyond financial rewards. Participation or success in a recognized competition enhances a startup’s credibility and visibility, signaling competence to potential investors and partners^[110].

Such signaling strengthens legitimacy and improves access to critical resources and networks that influence early venture performance^[111]. Hackathons, which share structural similarities with startup competitions, also contribute to ecosystem dynamism by stimulating creativity, experimentation, and teamwork. Studies show that hackathons can enhance participants’ entrepreneurial intention and ability to generate market-oriented solutions under time pressure^[112][113]. In broader innovation contexts, hackathons and competitions both promote value creation among diverse stakeholders while revealing challenges regarding how that value is distributed within the ecosystem^[114].

How Competitions Function in Practice

Competitions generally follow a three-phase structure: application, development, and showcase. During the application phase, participants present concise concept summaries that are evaluated for novelty and feasibility. During the development stage, selected teams typically receive mentoring, participate in workshops, and refine their prototypes. The final showcase or demo day allows entrepreneurs to pitch to investors or expert juries^[115][116]. This process yields several benefits beyond funding. It exposes founders to real market feedback, encouraging them to adapt business models based on expert critique^[117]. It also develops essential soft skills, pitching, storytelling, and negotiation that improve long-term fundraising potential^[118]. Moreover, even non-winning startups gain legitimacy and visibility through exposure to mentors, investors, and peers^[119]. Hackathons provide similar experiential learning environments. They allow teams to engage in collaborative problem-solving while applying innovation methods to real-world challenges. Open-data hackathons, for example, have been shown to boost entrepreneurial self-efficacy and foster collaboration across disciplines^[120]. When organized strategically, hackathons can drive service innovation and knowledge sharing within and beyond participating organizations^[121].

Why Competitions Matter

Competitions matter because they transform visibility into opportunity. They help early-stage entrepreneurs overcome the credibility gap that limits access to capital and partnerships^[122]. Beyond financial incentives, their symbolic and social value lies in creating community energy and reinforcing entrepreneurial identity^[123].

Universities, corporates, and policymakers increasingly use competitions to translate creative or research-based ideas into market applications and to identify emerging entrepreneurial talent^[124].

Hackathons complement these effects by bridging technical innovation and entrepreneurial execution. They strengthen collaborative cultures and enable rapid prototyping of new solutions^[125][126]. Collectively, competitions and hackathons serve as episodic yet powerful interventions that energize ecosystems, expand social capital, and embed entrepreneurship as a shared community practice^[127][128].

Bibliography

Abreu, Muñoz. Venture Studios: Analyzing a New Asset in the Venture Ecosystem. Cambridge, MA: MIT, n.d. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/139445.

Attalah, Ismail. “Who Captures Value from Hackathons? Innovation Contests in Open Innovation Ecosystems.” Creativity and Innovation Management 32, no. 1 (2023): 12–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12552.

Audretsch, David B., and Maksim Belitski. “The Role of R&D and Knowledge Spillovers in Innovation and Entrepreneurship.” Small Business Economics 57, no. 4 (2021): 1881–1899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2020.103391.

Blank, Steve. “Entrepreneurs, Is a Venture Studio Right for You?” Harvard Business Review, 2022. https://hbr.org/2022/12/entrepreneurs-is-a-venture-studio-right-for-you.

Bruneel, Johan, Tiago Ratinho, Bart Clarysse, and Aard Groen. “The Evolution of Business Incubators: Comparing Demand and Supply of Business Incubation Services across Different Incubator Generations.” Technovation 32, no. 2 (2012): 110–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2011.11.003.

Cohen, Susan, and Yael Hochberg. “Accelerating Startups: The Seed Accelerator Phenomenon.” Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship 9, no. 1 (2014): 1–62. https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&context=management-faculty-publications.

Cull, Jon. “Mentoring Young Entrepreneurs: What Leads to Success?” International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring 4, no. 2 (2006): 8–18.

Eesley, Charles, and William Miller. “The Effects of Mentoring in Entrepreneurial Career Choice.” Fung Institute Working Paper. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, 2014.

Elmi, Mohamed, Giuseppe Bertella, and Michele Castriotta. “Startup Competitions Decoded: Unpacking the Phenomenon’s Dimensions.” In European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship Proceedings, 1694–1703. 2023. https://doi.org/10.34190/ecie.18.1.1694.

Entrepreneur Futures Network. Mentoring in Startup Ecosystems: Final Report. Kansas City, MO: Kauffman Foundation, 2018. https://entrepreneurfutures.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Final-Report_Mentoring-in-Startup-Ecosystems_102107.pdf.

Stam, Erik. “Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Regional Policy: A Sympathetic Critique.” European Planning Studies 23, no. 9 (2015): 1759–1769. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1061484.

Financial Times. “University-Business Links Drive Cambridge’s Deep Tech Ecosystem.” 2024. https://www.ft.com/content/0bf8a055-65b8-4faa-8da5-37f39dd26bc2.

Global Accelerator Learning Initiative (GALI). What’s Working in Startup Acceleration. 2016. https://www.galidata.org/assets/report/pdf/GALI_digital_041816.pdf.

———. Accelerating Startups in Emerging Markets. 2018. https://www.galidata.org/assets/report/pdf/Accelerating%20Startups%20in%20Emerging%20Markets.pdf.

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM). Global Report 2018/2019. Wellesley, MA: Babson College; London: London Business School, 2019. https://www.babson.edu/media/babson/assets/global-entrepreneurship-monitor/gem-2018-2019-global-report.pdf.

Grimaldi, Rosa, and Alessandro Grandi. “Business Incubators and New Venture Creation: An Assessment of Incubating Models.” Technovation 25, no. 2 (2005): 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(03)00076-2.

Guerrero, Maribel, David Urbano, and Alain Fayolle. “Entrepreneurial Activity and Regional Competitiveness: Evidence from European Entrepreneurial Universities.” Journal of Technology Transfer 41 (2016): 105–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9377-4.

Hallen, Benjamin, Christopher Bingham, and Susan Cohen. “Do Accelerators Work? If So, How?” Organization Science 31, no. 2 (2020): 378–414. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2019.1304.

Hayter, Cassandra S., Aaron J. Nelson, Sam Zayed, et al. “Conceptualizing Academic Entrepreneurship Ecosystems: A Review, Analysis and Extension of the Literature.” Journal of Technology Transfer 43 (2018): 1039–1082. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9657-5.

Huralikoppi, Sari. “A Systematic Literature Review on the Effectiveness of Mentoring Social Impact Startups and Future Research Directions.” EasyChair Preprint, 2021.

Isenberg, Daniel. “How to Start an Entrepreneurial Revolution.” Harvard Business Review, June 2010. https://hbr.org/2010/06/the-big-idea-how-to-start-an-entrepreneurial-revolution.

Jasieński, Marek, Jakub Kotra, and Eda Ünür Yılmaz. A Roadmap to a Successful Incubator. Kraków: Małopolska Regional Development Agency, 2018. https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/erasmus-plus/project-result-content/62430d97-ec5d-476f-84dd-c74731e5beb6/A%20Roadmap%20to%20a%20Successful%20Incubator.pdf.

Kamariotou, Maria. “Hackathons for Driving Service Innovation Strategies.” Procedia Computer Science 207 (2022): 450–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.09.064.

Kitsios, Fotis, and Maria Kamariotou. “Open Data Hackathons: An Innovative Strategy to Enhance Entrepreneurial Intention.” University of Macedonia Institutional Repository, 2018.

Marzocchi, Chiara, Fumi Kitagawa, and Marta Sánchez-Barrioluengo. “Evolving Missions and University Entrepreneurship: Academic Spin-Offs and Graduate Start-Ups in the Entrepreneurial Society.” Journal of Technology Transfer 44 (2019): 167–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9619-3.

Mian, Sarfraz, Wafa Lamine, and Alain Fayolle. “Technology Business Incubation: An Overview of the State of Knowledge.” Technovation 50–51 (2016): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2016.02.005.

Mian, Sarfraz, Magnus Klofsten, and Wafa Lamine, eds. Handbook of Research on Business and Technology Incubation and Acceleration. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018. https://doi.org/10.4337/978178897478.

Moiana, Giacomo, Antonio Ghezzi, and Andrea Rangone. “Venture Studios Beyond the Hype.” Business Horizons (forthcoming 2025). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2025.09.001.

Neck, Heidi M., and Patricia G. Greene. “Entrepreneurship Education: Known Worlds and New Frontiers.” Journal of Small Business Management 49, no. 1 (2011): 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2010.00314.x.

OECD. Advancing the Entrepreneurial University. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2022. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2022/07/advancing-the-entrepreneurial-university_fe701969/d0ef651f-en.pdf.

Østergaard, Anders, and Svetla Marinova. “Human Capital in the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem.” International Journal of Entrepreneurial and Small Business 35, no. 3 (2018): 279–298. https://ap-psych.dk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Ostergaard_Marinova_2018_Human-capital-in-the-Entrepreneurship-Ecosystem_IJESB.pdf.

Park, J. E., et al. “Impact of Venture Competitions on Entrepreneurial Network Formation and Performance.” Cogent Business & Management 7, no. 1 (2020): 1826090. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2020.1826090.

Pauwels, Christophe, Bart Clarysse, Mike Wright, and Jonas Van Hove. “Understanding a New Generation Incubation Model: The Accelerator.” Technovation 50–51 (2016): 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2015.09.003.

St-Jean, Étienne. “Mentoring as a Learning Process: The Case of Entrepreneurs.” International Journal of Training and Development 16, no. 3 (2012): 200–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2419.2012.00404.x.

St-Jean, Étienne, and Josée Audet. “The Role of Mentoring in the Learning Development of the Novice Entrepreneur.” International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 8, no. 1 (2012): 119–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-009-0130-7.

Stolz, Lasse. “Start-Up Competitions as Anchor Events in Entrepreneurial Ecosystems.” Fennia – International Journal of Geography 201, no. 1 (2023): 35–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/04353684.2022.2052739.

Tkalich, Daniel, Nils Brede Moe, and Pål Ulfsnes. “Making Internal Software Startups Work.” arXiv preprint, 2022. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2201.10811.

World Bank / infoDev. Business Incubation: Definitions and Principles. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2004. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/717091562157862660/pdf/BIM-Module-1-Business-Incubation-Definitions-and-Principles.pdf.

———. Incubators in Developing Countries: Characteristics and Performance. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2010. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/186751468770425799/pdf/266370WP0Scode090incubators0Infodev.pdf.

World Economic Forum. Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Around the Globe and Early-Stage Company Growth Dynamics. Geneva: World Economic Forum, 2013. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_EntrepreneurialEcosystems_Report_2013.pdf.

———. “What Are Venture Studios and How Can They Help with Climate Innovation?” 2023. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/06/what-are-venture-studios-and-how-can-they-help-with-climate-innovation/