{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02546570238877931, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0072759149682226605, 'mean_word_length': 5.38388360380526, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Evaluating Business Accelerator Participants’ Experiences: Effectuation at Play?

Responding to the new phenomena in entrepreneurship ecosystems in Poland, the author undertakes the study that aims to explore experiences of the participants of (pre)accelerator programme for start-ups. Clipster is a business acceleration and incubation programme, where participants have a unique co-living opportunity and work on their new venture ideas. With phenomenological interviews with six nascent entrepreneurs – participants working on their new venture ideas and employment of inductive research approach, the author uses grounded theory analysis methods. The results provide 4 key categories that reflect effectuation heuristics. The findings contribute to acceleration and incubation literature by providing insights into the interactive and dynamic nature on the micro level of individual and interpersonal behaviours and processes among the programme participants.


Introduction
Over the past couple of decades, different supportive measures and mechanisms for business incubation and start-up support have been implemented as part of entrepreneurial ecosystem, introduced by policy makers, universities, corporations, creating a friendly environment for small business and entrepreneurship development [Skowronek-Mielczarek, 2013]. All these aimed at support and acceleration of entrepreneurial ventures ideas. In 2005, the first Y Combinator (USA) [Kowalik, 2014] business incubation solution emerged, focusing on the intensive process of new venture idea incubation, such as an accelerator. Whereas incubators have offered rather hard infrastructure, accelerators provide an opportunity for knowledge intensive processes based on mentoring, education, and networking, during a limited time period [Miller, Bound, 2011]. Such initiatives are novelty in Polish entrepreneurship ecosystem landscape. Yet, the literature offers a limited theoretical framework for analysing incubator models and their internal processes [Hackett, Dilts, 2004] among existing and nascent entrepreneurs involved. The literature mainly focuses on the macro or mezo i.e. organizational level of incubator models. However, little is known about processes among their participants: beneficiaries and supporters in the business incubation process within these models, and related processes and behaviours. The findings from the inductive study presented in this paper are the result of an attempt to explore and provide insights into the experiences of the participants of the Clipster business accelerator programme, run in Gdańsk city.
The paper is structured as follows: in the first part an overview and comparison of different incubation and acceleration initiatives are presented, including their origins. Following that, the author provides the background of the Clipster pre-accelerator programme. In the fourth part, the research methods employed are presented and in the further part the data is analysed and conclusions follow.

Business incubation and acceleration initiatives
Business incubators, technology parks, have for long served as supportive measures for start-ups and business incubation. 2 Recently, reflecting the new tendencies in the global landscape, the North America in particular, new means for supporting start-ups have emerged, such as business accelerators and co-working spaces. The USA and in Europe the UK, as well as Israel show leadership in numbers of accelerators [Kowalik, 2014;Gutkowski, 2016]. As for Poland, there are still few of them, there is no official register, these vary in type and 2 In Poland incubators have grown in significant numbers since  approach. The nominal numbers appear to seem high, as many incubators claim themselves to be called 'accelerators' , financed from EU funds or founded by local governments, but these mainly focus on letting out office spaces for entrepreneurial ventures or redistribute financial support for the applicants [Gutkowski, 2011]. Therefore, it seems they do not do more than regular incubators. There are very few that offer intensive training, mentoring support, financing for enthusiastic people and/or their ideas. The earliest and most recognized are: Y Combinator accelerator started in 2005 (USA), followed by TechStars with VC funding (USA), Dreamlt Ventures that have spread from the USA to Israel and other countries, or Seedcamp or Oxygen Accelerator (UK) [Kowalik, 2014]. 3 The most recognized from Poland are Startup School, Smart Space, 4 Business Accelerator. 5 There are also other accelerators 'imported' from the Silicon Valley, such as Founder Institute, Innovation Nest Fund or the ones founded by large enterprises, such as Orange Fab previously founded in France and the USA, Idea Bank Business Incubator, as well as Hub: raum T-mobile by Deutsche Bank.
As accelerators are a young phenomenon in entrepreneurship ecosystems in Poland, these vary in foundations, types, support schemes, and constitute quite a heterogeneous group. Therefore, some conceptual confusion exists when differentiating between incubators, accelerators, and related co-working spaces. All these are designed for supporting start-ups and their founders but accelerators aim at higher speed processes. Start-ups begin to recognize the importance of connecting, collaborating and networking, as essential to success. All of the three incubation models: accelerators, incubators, co-working spaces aim to facilitate interaction between entrepreneurs and their environment. But accelerators offer knowledge and some minor capital (such as seed capital), transmitted through interactions and training with mentors, experts. Accelerators do not have formal procedures regarding project recruitment. They focus mostly on younger and/or nascent entrepreneurs, university graduates, entrepreneurs with limited professional experience. They offer insightful feedback and support for idea development, and at the end of the programme choose most interesting projects for further VC or business angel financing. The natural process is that the idea or project is intensively developed, may receive accelerator capital or may reach a pivotal point, where it is significantly modified or rejected. Accelerators are compared to business schools, where the learning and reflecting process runs at a faster speed [Gutkowski, 2011]. Accelerators are more dynamic and intense measures for business incubation. In the next part, the main features and ensuing differences between business incubators, accelerators and co-working spaces are summarised [Stengel, 2016] (Table 1). In accelerators, there is an application process required, applicants accepted in cohorts and participants work in their venture idea for approximately 3-6 months. Small office workspace is offered for teams, and ventures can expect minor seed 3 Currently there are approx. 213 accelerators recognized all over the world. See more: C. Pauwels, B. Clarysse, M. Wright, J. Van Hove, 2016. Understanding a new generation incubation model: The accelerator. Technovation, vol. 50-51, pp. 13-24. 4 Founded by Toruń Technological Park. 5 Founded by Cracow University of Economics. capital in exchange for the equity. The venture founders can rely on mentoring from experienced experts, entrepreneurs and investors, and this varies in response to the accelerator programme participants. They can benefit from both formal and informal networking processes. They are also introduced to a variety of resources such as aforementioned investors or mentors. Although business incubators offer working space, they also provide infrastructure, and some business development services such as legal, accountancy, marketing, intellectual property training and advice, these services are stationary and can be used on an ad-hoc basis. The mentorship for business ideas and ventures is minimal if not non-existent. They usually host residents for longer periods, between 1-5 years and recruit them on an ongoing basis. Incubators may expect small equity in exchange or a low or no fee for their benefits [Stengel, 2016]. Co-working spaces offer a shared workspace for those entrepreneurs who cannot predict the length of their tenancy or make any long-term commitments. They offer access to basic office infrastructure such as printers & scanners, Internet access, conference rooms, some leisure facilities. Implicitly, they provide networking opportunities that can end up in collaboration or mentoring. 6 All these incubation models are similar in a sense that they provide working space, training and mentoring for venture founders and their new ideas, and also to a limited extent, they provide some financial capital. The networking and collaboration opportunities arise, thanks to the common space, where participants and entrepreneurs work. But in the accelerator, this process is more intensified, and what the author shows in the case of pre-accelerator -the Clipster programme description in further parts of the paper, the co-living aspect provides grounds for community development. In this way, the Clipster environment is a unique example of the entrepreneurship ecosystem element with a potential of organic development.

Clipster Business Accelerator: the background and guidelines
Clipster was founded in June 2015, by entrepreneurs from the Gdańsk area, who worked and operated in different enterprise development organizations and networks, and who also had significant own business development experience. Clipster calls itself interchangeably as pre-accelerator or accelerator, as the programme prepares the participants and their venture ideas to the actual acceleration, which involves further significant funding and idea development. However, the former -pre-accelerator seems more adequate, as it does not reflect the whole acceleration process. Clipster is founded by Alfabeat accelerator, but is co-run by "Starter" Business Incubator established by the City of Gdańsk Foundation. The entrepreneurs from Alfabeat had been involved in entrepreneurship ecosystem development in Gdańsk for a long time. The initial assumption for Clipster was to run it as a non-profit venture, supported by the vast network of private investors and the local authorities of Gdańsk.
Clipster is set in the premises of a former military garrison called Garnizon, which for the last couple of years has been transformed in a high-end living estate, surrounded by a friendly environment of cafes, restaurants, clubs. The venue is located in one of the central spots in Gdańsk city, linked to a transport hub and big shopping centres. On the infrastructure side, Clipster itself consists of 16 micro-apartments for 1-2 people, and the rate of 400 Euro per month, and the participants of Clipster accelerator programme can stay up for a 3-month period (subject to extension to 6 or even 9 months altogether). Clipster is the only co-working and co-living space in Poland of this kind at the moment, 7 therefore, it serves as a unique mechanism for entrepreneurship development, as it includes co-living facilities. There are around 11 co-working spaces in the Gdańsk city area (O4 business centre, Business Inkubator "Starter") but none of the spaces country wide offers co-living opportunities. The idea is based on four CO-s: co-living, co-working, co-habiting and co-development. The distinguishing feature is that the participants of the Clipster accelerator programme live in the same place at the same time.
The potential participants and residents in Clipster apply through the website, where they need to provide some personal contact details and explain their interest. The Clipster team invites the selected people for a short 15-20 minute interview, on a face-to-face or on-line basis. Applicants from all over the world are welcome to apply, based on the number of available apartments between 16-18 people are chosen for the programme altogether. Though, Clipster programme participants are not obliged to reside in Clipster, and can be involved in the whole programme without the residence in Clipster micro-apartments. The participants of the programme may be experienced entrepreneurs, or people looking for a business idea, or people with some undefined business idea. The selection criteria are not strict, and the potential residents need to express their interest in joining the Clipster programme. It is natural that with time some ideas are given up in the programme, while others are taken on. Clipster residents happen to decide to join other teams and other people in their venture idea projects.
The Clipster accelerator programme participants are given an opportunity to select a mentor, from a group of experienced entrepreneurs, who guides them throughout the whole programme upon recruitment. Another important element of the programme is a range of workshops and training offered to the participants. 8 These include different soft and hard skills education and training. The 3-month programme is structured between two events, where at the first one, there is an official opening of the programme for a batch of new Clipster programme participants, and the final event, where they present their progress and final Clipster show, where the participants make their pitches and compete for the Clipster grant of 20.000 PLN.
Some selected venture ideas are also invited to further acceleration process and support by Alfabeat accelerator, which has received a public grant from the National Centre for Research and Development programme called "Bridge" for accelerating measures, and also for giving small grants to Clipster winners. So far (as of January 2018) approximately more than one hundred people participated in the Clipster programme, three ventures have received further significant funding for their development.

Research design
The discussed research is part of a larger research project, which aimed to identify the Clipster pre-accelerator programme participants' opinions and experiences. Five in-depth, open interviews took place between June and November 2016. The author used an inductive approach to data collection and analysis. The selection of the Clipster programme participants was non-random, based on the snow-ball recommendation, which in the end covered the participants from the first, second and third batch of the Clipster programme. The planned IDIs turned to become phenomenological interviews [Kvale, Brinkmann, 2011], as the interviewees openly and eagerly shared their lived experiences, and made sense of their working and living experiences in Clipster. Therefore, the main aim of the presented research is to provide insights into the Clipster programme participants' experiences. Altogether, based on the interviews, 83 standardised pages of Interview transcripts were prepared and are used in the data analysis process. The data is analysed with the application of the Grounded Theory procedures [Glaser, Strauss, 1967]. The author employed open coding in the first stages of data analysis, then these codes were allocated to the second order codes and the 4 key categories were generated and proposed as the outcome of the analysis.

Empirical findings
The four key categories that emerged as the result of data analysis were: community-building and doing business at the same time, making do with what is at hand, benefiting from the unexpected and from the challenging, and risking the acceptable.
The first category -community building and doing business at the same time -displays the nature of the Clipster participants' behaviours and activities. They do not only work on their venture ideas in the incubator setting. They experience the community spirit and business professionalism at the same time. This is displayed in interpersonal relationships, mutual support and advice between the participants and experts, mentors and also among the participants themselves. They also acknowledge and construct the business community themselves. The social capital is transformed into business value, and also the experience of Clipster produces outcomes at the close-knit community level. This category shows how strong and positive was the participants' experience. The emerging alliances and networks resulted in feedback, transformation of venture ideas, easier resource available partners, greater flexibility in entrepreneurial actions. This has allowed the author to juxtapose this category with the effectuation heuristic [Sarasvathy, 2008;Chandler et al., 2011] such as pre-commitments and alliances.
Another category that emerged throughout the analysis is related to making do with what is at hand. This category strongly converges with the concept of bricolage, as the author used this analytical-theoretical code to encompass a variety of resources: be it human, physical, knowledge, symbolic ones, to progress with venture idea acceleration, revision, or to turn on the pivotal point to start the venture idea from scratch again, based on what resources are at hand. This category reflects commitments in the participants' networks, and also encompasses the opportunity for short-time experimentation [Sarasvathy, 2008;Chandler et al., 2011], which is another key heuristic in the effectuation approach.
Another key category emphasizes the developing venture idea with the approach that makes efforts to take advantage of the unexpected, at times challenging situations. The participants are aware how little time they have to work on their idea, and want to "squeeze as much as they can" out of the circumstances. Clipster infrastructure is designed to make them work together, and despite some level of dissatisfaction with training and workshops, they make most of them by talking to trainers and collaborating with them, for example.  [Sarasvathy, 2001].
The fourth category risking the acceptable. It seems that the researched participants secure their backs by doing some part-time jobs, and they do not entirely commit themselves to the venture idea development. At the same time, they risk only what they can afford and to do so, they experiment in a close environment -where they can receive negative feedback, do not purchase necessary equipment, use what is at hand. Therefore, this category coincides with the effectuation heuristic such as taking the affordable risk [Sarasvathy, 2008;Chandler et al., 2011] -choosing scenarios and solutions that are affordable -where the loss is the least possible. It is natural that at the nascent stage of entrepreneurial process, when a venture idea is developed, risks are relatively and significantly lower. Many decisions are made at a faster pace, there is no time for looking for most profitable options, there is a pressure to experiment with different alternatives, and choose the ones that do least harm and work out.
The findings on the experiences of the participants of the Clipster programme show that their experiences are not only an outcome of the deliberately and externally designed acceleration process. It is vivid that many of these processes emerge organically, as a result of embeddedness in the small community, responding to the call for further insights on the contextual nature of entrepreneurship [Anderson, Starnawska, 2008]. These vary: from networking, via making alliances between the inhabitants and programme participants, from devoting individual time and knowledge to supporting others in the community as well as the need of giving back to the community by the Clipster participants. The initial main purpose of the study, aimed at the evaluation of the Clipster accelerator programme through the eyes of its participants, naturally employed a phenomenological approach. The participants experienced their stay in Clipster as joining, and most of all building and giving back the community. At the same time, the similarities between the processes in Clipster to the effectuation heuristics provide the insights into micro level experiences of the programme participants, their activities and behaviours in understanding the process of new venture development. The incubating environment of the accelerator allows for sped up processes of idea development, through multiple experimentation, undertaking affordable risks, facing contingencies, in a friendly and conducive community. The natural outcome of the acceleration can equally be: further acceleration after leaving the programme, a pivotal turn of giving up the preliminary business ideas, joining other members of the community. This is possible thanks to the effectual heuristics used in the entrepreneurial process of new venture idea development. A closer look at the incubated and accelerated context allows understanding the roots and antecedents of new ventures or start-ups, i.e. how the entrepreneurial teams emerge, how resources are gathered, how business ideas develop.

Summary
Previous studies on business incubation models have focused mainly on the organizational, incubator model level. However, the nature of the undertaken research is exploratory, and shows deeper insights in the individual and interaction level in the Clipster community. The study shows that such acceleration programmes supporting start-ups employ a scheme that allows for effectual approaches, based on experimentation, collaboration, flexibility and risk taking, as these recognize the bounded rationality of entrepreneurs, the uncertainty in the environment. Yet, the (nascent) entrepreneurs themselves, can afford to do so in a friendly and supportive accelerator environment, such as the Clipster community, where effectuation is "at play", although it deals with serious business. Clipster, with the co-living function, helps to strengthen the community spirit, and facilitates the social capital development. The recommendations for the business and entrepreneurship community are linked to the importance of social capital and community spirit in strengthening entrepreneurship ecosystems. Also, business support and government agencies should recognize the natural and valuable process of experimentation approaches, manifested in effectual frameworks.
The author acknowledges the limited scope of the study, based on phenomenological insights into the experiences of the Clipster accelerator programme participants and residents. In further research, with the current and forthcoming programme participants securing differentiation in the sample in terms of their background, experience, venture ideas is required to increase the level of rigor. It should be noted that this programme was researched in the first two years upon the launch. Additional in-depth studies can serve as a long-term approach to the study of the Clipster accelerator programme and the Clipster community.