Figure 1.Overlapping Features between two Formats of Open Innovations: Incubators and Accelerators

Figure 2. Conceptual Model of University-linked Accelerator

Figure 3. Incubator and Accelerator Business Models: Source of Funding, (%)

Figure 4. How Open Innovations of a University Influence Various Stakeholders

Figure 5. Subcategory - Economy Enhancement

Figure 6. Subcategory - Talent Retention

Figure 7: Subcategory - Competence Development

Figure 8: Subcategory -Access to Fund

Figure 9: Subcategory - Access to Network

Introduction

In recent years, researchers rethink significantly the concept of academic entrepreneurship. This changes correlate with the development of technology transfer offices (TTOs) in the 1980s and 1990s (Lockett et al., 2014). Although two university technology transfer activities, patenting and licensing, are the main focus of such TTOs. Little attention was paid to the start-up dimension, since this would distract attention from potentially more prosperous patent licensing deals. The modern concept of academic entrepreneurship includes five major elements of the university ecosystem:

1. the rise of property-based institutions, such as incubators, accelerators and science parks to support technology transfer and entrepreneurship;

2. substantial growth in the number of entrepreneurship courses and programs on campus;

3. the establishment and growth of entrepreneurship centers for academic purpose;

4. a rise in the number of entrepreneurship experiences on campus to stimulate commercialization and startup creation;

5. a rapid increase in alumni support of various aspects of this entrepreneurial ecosystem (Siegel &Wright, 2015).

Observing the evidence for academic entrepreneurship along with managing accelerator programs, the first one is that such entrepreneurship may contribute for university's development and success under tough competitive pressure (AUTM, 2013). Although usually the contribution of an accelerator program to overall competitive advantage of a university could be hardly measured as well as true contribution of academic entrepreneurship, yet it drives strategic decision-making processes, which positively influence university's position and perception. Another important reason why universities put efforts on developing accelerator programs is the gradual decline of national support in Europe and of state support in the USA. The existing trend provokes universities' administrations and alumni to constant search of ways for commercialization of academic activity (Siegel &Wright, 2015). According to D. S. Siegel and M. Wright, in order to generate direct financial returns currently universities tend to develop academic spin-offs through TTOs and science parks. The emerging perspective that a number of scientific institutions have already identified are accelerators as a complex solution along with entrepreneurship garages in universities, student business plan competitions on the regular basis, collaborative networks and special leadership programs with industry and alumni, employee mobility, public-private incubators. Such rising perspective would enhance the commercialization of university research and serve as a source of revenue for the university.

There are several reasons why universities and research institution start to join forces with private sector. On the one hand, the collaboration covers a variety of aspects, including following: the institutional recognition of discoveries, further disseminate knowledge gained through academic research, compliance with federal regulations, sourcing for talented faculty, development the local economy, corporate research support, obtainment licensing revenue to support further research and education. It is impossible to overestimate the value of such resource of university-linked partnership as licensing. Since the early 1990s, licensing activity in U.S. research universities has increased considerably. Analyzing the growth of university licensing, Thursby and Thursby (2002) draw on data from a survey by the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) and state that in 1998 alone, the 132 research universities responding to the survey reported more than 9500 disclosures, more than 4100 new patent applications, and more than 3000 licenses and options executed.On the other hand, universities and business sector are natural partners in many countries, where firms seek external sources of knowledge to complement their human resources and R&D laboratories. Currently, creating new products and services requires sources of creativity beyond the companies' boundaries, involving cooperation with customers, suppliers, research institutes and even competing companies (Chesbrough& Crowther, 2006). In order, to understand the certain place that accelerators took in a system of open innovations of a university it is crucial to define the area, where such collaboration takes

place (table 1).

Table 1: Areas of University-industry Relations

Source: Perkmann& Walsh, 2007

The following segmentation demonstrates that university-linked accelerators and incubators lie in the area of academic entrepreneurship.

Activities of incubators are closely connected with technology transfer. The technology incubators are a growing part of the institutional infrastructure for university industry technology transfer, and there are a number of benefits of acceleration for technology commercialization (Kalis, 2001). Generally, technology transfer means transferring scientific findings from one organization to another for development and commercialization (AUTM, 2018). The process typically includes: identifying and evaluating new technologies, protecting technologies through patents, copyrights and other forms of intellectual property protection, assisting with commercialization strategies, such as marketing to existing private sector companies, creating new start-up companies, and negotiating licensing agreements. From the early 1980s, university incubators have emerged within the wider concept of university technology transfer (UTT) process as effective mechanisms for nurturing and supporting spin-out firms (Lewis et al., 2001;Voisey et al., 2013). Afterwards such models have emerged globally with the aim of stimulating economic development and growth.

At the same time, incubator acts like a form of nurturing new companies include institutions that specialize in advising, launching, and monitoring the progress of new businesses (Albort-Morant&Oghazi, 2016). Support services for new firms include providing business training, giving adviceon how to develop business and marketing plans, building management teams, and offering general business services such as accounting, advertising, and legal and financial assistance. These basic services can helpnew companies to secure funding and access a wide range of niche professional services (Chan & Lau, 2005).

According to UBI Global, the leading company in performance and impact analysis of business incubators and entrepreneurial ecosystems, which conducts the largest global benchmark of business incubators, the are a slight difference in definitions between university business incubator and university business accelerator. University business incubator means any incubation program that is directly managed by one or more universities or is formally affiliated with one or more universities. Technology incubators are university-based technology initiatives that should facilitate knowledge flows from the university to the incubator firms. At the same time university business accelerator can be defined as any acceleration program that is directly managed by one of more universities or is formally affiliated with one or more universities. However, both formats could be implemented if associated mode, meaning that incubator or accelerator works closely with one or more universities but is not formally affiliated with any university. However, there is a number of aspects, which should be covered, while describing an acceleration program. Incubators are typically physical spaces, available on relatively flexible terms, which provide additional incubation services (Dee et al., 2015). These services generally include provision of training for project (business oriented ones), access to networking and to all relevant equipment. In terms of operational costs incubators are typically dependent on charging rent or membership fees to residents, in most cases on a monthly basis (Aerts et al., 2007). The global practice shows that incubators are usually aligned with a university and often are targeted at providing support to local community. Among the key structural aspects of an incubator there are the following:
1. open-ended duration (exit usually based on the stage of the company, rather than a specific time frame);

2. typically rent or fee-based entry conditions;

3. focus on physical space over services, because it is important to provide physical ability to cooperate;

4. provision of services to tenants, including mentorship, entrepreneurial training;

5. often provide technical facilities such as laboratory equipment;

6. selective admission (but typically less so than accelerators) (NESTA, 2017).
Accelerators is a more recent phenomenon than incubator. Their history has been traced by the USA program Y Combinatorwhich was established in 2005 for digital start-ups (Miller & Bound, 2011). Since that time, numerous similar program have appeared, expanding into new geographies, sectors and institutions. These new players often have different missions, which in turn may lead to differences in selection criteria, funding model and success metrics (Pauwels et al., 2015). In comparison with incubators, accelerators ordinary provide services through a highly selective, cohort-based program, limited in time (last from 3 to 12 months). Services, distributed through acceleration program, are similar to that is distributed through incubators and often include the following: assistance in developing the business plan, investor pitching sessions, developing prototypes, setting pilots and initial market testing. Although incubators tend to charge rent or membership fees, accelerators more often base their business model on equity from the start-ups. However, some of programs are free for charge for participants. Among the key structural aspects of an accelerator there are the following:

1. fixed duration program (3-12 months)

2. growth-based partnership (payment via equity rather than fees)

3. in some cases are able to provide seed funding for its participants

4. focus on services and access to resources over physical space and tangible assets

5. provision of startup services (e.g. mentorship, entrepreneurial training)

6. highly selective (Miller & Bound, 2011; Cohen & Hochberg, 2014).
After carried analysis of key organizational features of incubators and accelerators it seems that both formats have many characteristics in common (figure 1).

Figure 1: Overlapping Features between two Formats of Open Innovations: Incubators and Accelerators

Source: adapted from Dempwolf et al.,2014

Hence, the key difference of accelerator programs from the variety of formats of academic entrepreneurship is their intensive character. Accelerators select promising entrepreneurial teams inside the university or by attracting external sources and provide them with pre-seed investment and time-limited support consisting of programmed events and intensive mentoring (Clarysse et al., 2016). This relatively new format complements traditional TTOs and university incubators. Accelerators performs as the newest generation of incubators, the focus is less on space and more on assisting the ventures through their entrepreneurial journey, and are typical for early cycle of an entity. Thus, these differences are not key in goal-setting as well as resource allocation and distribution, in the master thesis both terms are used, having the similar meaning. As it was mentioned earlier, in the master thesis the definition of accelerator is based on the resources, allocated and provided through acceleration. Thus, an acceleration could be defined as a fixed-term program for project development, offering seed investments, mentorship, networking opportunities and education in return for equity in a project. As for defining university accelerator, it covers the same aspects, but the program is affiliated with one or several universities, which effects the scope of resources, intensity of research and commitments of participants.

To sum up, the university's development, recognition and success under tough competitive pressure depend considerable on ability to implement new open innovations formats. How the university builds such mutually beneficial formats and how it further allocate resources for acceleration and distribute them are going to be explored further.

1.2 Linkage with University and Resource Distribution through Accelerator

While observing university accelerators and incubators, which are commonly mentioned in academic research like university technology business incubator (UTBI), it is important to define the framework, which lies in the basis of this format of open innovation for a university. Framework contributes to defining resource flows inside an acceleration program. Such framework should include a university's involvement in technology and business development support, the commonly accepted approaches to organizational assessment that provide the necessary building blocks for the integrative process of incubation or acceleration (Rothaermel&Thursby, 2005). Possible framework covers several assumptions, including the following:

1. University plays leading role in securing resources and provides on-going support;

2. Community and other stakeholders provide funds and volunteer in-kind support. In some initiatives there is now collaborates at all, on such cases team sources for investment sources by themselves or through contacts, provided by a university accelerator team;

3. The accelerator performance is compared against expectations for necessary feedback. Otherwise, it is impossible to track the progress. Goal-setting is crucial both for the program itself as well as for its participants. In most cases these goals are interconnected;

4. Even when an accelerator has a strong focus on certain areas of research or business and precise holistic system of entry criteria developed, the diversity lies in a basis of any accelerator (Grimaldi&Grandi, 2001). Even when it is formally stated that the program focuses only on technological projects, being at minimum viable product (MVP) stage, so they are ready to start their business right now, this means that projects may vary because one of them have already passed through other acceleration programs or put more efforts on self-education. Moreover, there is a significant difference in background even inside a single team, which only increases when we observe an accelerator as a holistic structure (Fehder&Hochberg, 2014). While all the programs have a similar basic structure with fixed project stages, acceleration could not be unified. Otherwise, it would not match with interests and expectation of its participants;

5. Graduate firms and trained entrepreneurs move within the local industrial base in order to practice their received knowledge;

6. University in most cases serves as a source of new entrepreneurs to be developed in an accelerator;

7. Entrepreneurs from the outside community seek opportunities to apply for acceleration program, since results of first alumni become visible and considerable;

8. Organizational aspect of academic accelerator varies dramatically from one program to another. In most cases in has certain connection with university's organizational structure and crates the common space, which serves as an ecosystem for boosting open innovation (Rothaermel&Thursby, 2005).

All these assumptions lie in the basis of conceptual model of a university-linked accelerator (figure 2).

Figure 2: Conceptual Model of University-linked Accelerator

Source: adapted from Rothaermel&Thursby, 2005

Attempting to measure the resource flow, which takes place in a university-linked accelerators, researchers have used a variety of methods. They include interviews and survey research, citations to academic publications and patents, collaboration patterns in academic publications and patents, as well as information on formal contracts such as licenses or sponsored research (Rothaermel&Thursby, 2005). The most comprehensive survey in this regard is the Carnegie Mellon Survey of 1478 R&D laboratories which asked R&D managers the importance to them of 10 channels of knowledge flow (patent, publications, meetings or conferences, informal channels, hires, licenses, joint ventures, contract research, consulting, and personal exchange). According to the research, public meetings and conferences, informal and personal information channels, which are commonly known as networking, and consulting contracts are among the four most important channels.

Important aspect to cover in the master thesis is the funding sources. Russian incubators and accelerators have developed business models that differ from those of their international peers in important ways. Russian programs tend to rely less on university funding than their Global and European peers. Instead, they focus to a larger degree on service fees and event revenue as sources of income (figure 3). In addition, many programs, carried in Russia, have demonstrated success approach in establishing corporate sponsorships and service fees as important sources of revenue, while reducing their reliance on government subsidies. In the master thesis both Russian and American acceleration programs are covered.

Figure 3: Incubator and Accelerator Business Models: Source of Funding, (%)

Source: RVC, Russian National Benchmark, 16/17

The literature on business incubators focuses mostly on the organizational entity rather than resources distributed though program. However, there is a set of activities and services for participants, which is widely mentioned in thesignificant number of researches on the topic. Among the following there are facility renting, coaching, training and networking (Vanderstraeten&Matthyssens, 2012). On the next level there are several other dimensions, characterizing the behavior of incubators, such as technological level and management support (Smith & Zhang, 2012), internal resources or selection strategies, business support and mediation (Bergek&Norrman, 2008). Some researches provoke that it is impossible to measure resource flows at such strictly given directions and tend to use multi-level models instead. For example, there are seven possible channels for resource distribution, including the following (Baraldi&IngemanssonHavenvid, 2014):

1. Place. Almost every definitions of incubators stress that members sharecommon environment and space. This definition covers both physical and organizational aspects (Smith & Zhang, 2012);

2. Time. Incubators tend to optimize such important resource for entrepreneurship as time. They contribute to the entrepreneurial projects by shortening its time for implementation and development (Clarysse et al., 2005).

3. Sources. This important component of incubators are the sources which aliment this process (Grimaldi&Grandi, 2005). To start with, incubators have screening practices (Aerts et al., 2007) applied to select the venues to be incubated.Moreover, incubators apply these selection rules to different potential sources of venues, ranging from strictly scientific ideas originating from a university to any entrepreneurial idea (Mian, 1996; Smith & Zhang, 2012). During some programs universities choose projects to invest in.

4. Resources. According to Aaboen (2009) incubators provide, mobilize and adjust such resources as office space, competence, finance and relationships to tenant firms. They moreover contribute to transferring and connecting the knowledge resources of universities to start-ups. In order to achieve this, incubators need to cover both tangible and intangible resources, such as business development expertise and reputation, networking, legitimacy and knowledge, especially via university linkages (Rothaermel&Thursby, 2005). The access to knowledge-based assets that are often needed for start-ups, especially for technology based (Rothaermel&Thursby, 2005).

5. Control and governance. These aspects are crucial to define how the goals of an incubator are set, including the choice between for-profit or non-profit, which is in turn related to the private, public or mixed ownership/sponsorship of the incubator (Grimaldi&Grandi, 2005). The incubator forms a “controlled environment” and experts control over its incubatees via its monitoring function and tracking tools (Vanderstraeten&Matthyssens, 2012).

6. Activities and services.Bergek&Norrman (2008) summarize these activities into selection, business support and mediation, which can be performed in different ways thereby defining different typologies and generations of incubators. Business support may go far beyond standard space rent and include several other activities, ranging from counseling and coaching to education and access to financing (Aernoudt, 2004). Finally, mediation and networking contributes to the incubator's intermediary role in connecting incubatees to other organizations.

7. Outcomes. Results correspond to the values created internally by the incubator. Some outcomes concern the early end of this process, such as occupancy rates, others concern the performance of incubated firms (capitalization, patents etc.). While other outcomes cannot be directly measured and become significantly perceived only for the long term.

All the mentioned levels are essential for incubator analysis and includes more metrics inside (Baraldi&IngemanssonHavenvid, 2015) (table 2).

Table 2: Key Components of Incubation across Three Analytical Levels

Source: adapted from Baraldi&IngemanssonHavenvid, 2015

Moving to correlation, existing between a program and a university, researchers share different opinion on how the level of intensity of this correlation contributes to overall contribution, gained within a university accelerator. There is some scientific evidence that performance of participants of an accelerator or incubator relies strongly on the strength of their linkages to the research university, holding or sponsoring the program(Rothaermel&Thursby, 2005). In addition, participants' of an accelerator university linkages to other universities than the one sponsoring the program increasing the possibility of successful graduation.

Some acceleration programs provide special resources that are no so widely spread among other programs. One of such goals is the possibility of foreign market entry for the firm. For project this project is often a complex process, which can often benefit from re-contextualising and extension in order to retain their explanatory power( Blackburne&Buckley, 2019). The use of business incubation to support international entrepreneurship is a recent phenomenon (Li, 2009). Li (2009) distinguishes between two kinds of incubator that support international entrepreneurship at the national level, namely Inward International Business Development (IIBD) incubators, where the objective of stakeholders such as local government is to create working places, stimulate technology transfer and attract inward foreign direct investment, and Outward International Business Development(OIBD) incubators, where the home country establishes an incubator abroad in order to encourage outward direct investment intoa foreign country.

A balanced approach combining the necessary university link for some start-ups with professional managers might ameliorate some of possible challenges, which participants face during acceleration (Franklin et al., 2001).

1.3 Value and Contribution of University Accelerators

As a part of analysis of the contribution and accumulated value of acceleration programs, it is important to think beyond the scope of a certain accelerator. There are much more stakeholders to be considered, who influence the acceleration process and receive particular benefits from university accelerators. AUTM developed “Technology Transfer Lifecycle”in 2017 to demonstrate the variety of directions, which are contributed by collaboration between organizations and academia (figure 4).

Figure 4: How Open Innovations of a University Influence Various Stakeholders

Source: AUTM, 2018

The term `knowledge filter' is used to highlight the gap, existing between knowledge and economic knowledge, being faced due to several constraints (Acs et al., 2008). Knowledge filter creates hurdle for R&D activities and further its commercialization to society as ultimate beneficiaries. Accelerator seems to be a tool to overcome such obstacles and to bridge the gap. University incubators along with other formats of open innovation influence firm research productivity. The firms associated with university-linked incubators are more productive than those not so affiliated (Siegel et al., 2003).

From a macro perspective, it is widely acknowledged that university incubation models within a region are important stimulants of economic development through innovation and job creation. With the emergence of quadruple helix innovation ecosystems, universities have had re-evaluate their university incubation activity and models to engage more fully with industry.In order to measures this impact RVC has developed a number of criteria, including: jobs created, sales revenue, international sponsors, international partners, self-generated revenue. Incubators and accelerators from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and Asia Pacific (APAC) regions outperform programs from the other regions with regard to Economic Enhancement (figure 5).

Figure 5: Subcategory - Economy Enhancement

Source: RVC, Russian National Benchmark, 16/17

Moreover, accelerators contribute talent retention. This metric defines the incubators contribution to talent (work force) in the region. There are several aspects to be measured: non-locals that remain inthe region, applications accepted and non-local applications. European programs lead in Talent Retention, again followed bythe APAC sample (figure 6).

Figure 6: Subcategory - Talent Retention

Source: RVC, Russian National Benchmark, 16/17

The master thesis is focused on resource-based approach. Therefore, it is relevant to explore three other metrics of acceleration programs - competence development, access to fund, access to network (figures 7, 8, 9). The first metric consist of several aspects, targeted at measuring incubators ability toimpart relevant skills to its participating start-ups. Competence development could be measured through a number of criteria, including the following: coaching hours, mentoring hours, clients utilizing coaching, clients utilizing mentoring, coaches, mentors and training modules. The next metric access to funds allows to measures incubators ability to provide relevant access to funds to its participating start-ups. Among observed criteria under the metric there are the following: total investment attracted, average size of investment, investors invested, investors, clients who need funding, seed capital firms and contacts with investors. Access to network metric measures incubators ability to provide its client startups with

quality access to the market place. The metric consist of several aspects: contacts with corporations, events, national sponsors, national partners, alumni network, government contacts and research centers.In all three subcategories, the Russian average is lower than the global average. The MENA and North America regions achieved the highest average scores with regard to Competence Development. The gap between the average performance scores of top programs and the entire sample in this subcategory is comparatively small for all regions.

Figure 7: Subcategory - Competence Development

Source: RVC, Russian National Benchmark, 16/17

Figure 8: Subcategory - Access to Fund

Source: RVC, Russian National Benchmark, 16/17

Figure 9: Subcategory - Access to Network

Source: RVC, Russian National Benchmark, 16/17

Incubators and accelerators enable knowledge transfer and provide services and resources for companies or individuals. They contribute to raising levels of innovation environment creating by creating efficient connection between firms, research institutions and entrepreneurs (Porter & Kramer, 2011) and correcting for the shortage of resources that start-ups often have to deal with. Hence, incubators ensure business stability, economic growth, and long-term project survival (Schwartz &Hornych, 2008). At the same time, some researchers outlines that accelerators' mission and declared aim may differ significantly from the real conditions of accelerator (Linder, 2003). A supernetwork for knowledge interaction among heterogeneous agents is proposed. Knowledge increases faster when incubators have stronger knowledge service capacities.Regarding which knowledge services should be offered, Kazanjian (1988) believes that the knowledge that an incubating firm needs can be divided into categories based on ten functional areas, including general management, financial management and market research. Further, the knowledge bearers is divided into three types (i.e., technological knowledge bearers, market knowledge bearers and financial resource bearers) and show that incubating firms can provide valuable advice to one another with minor mediation through the incubator's management (Rubin et al., 2015).