Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity Review An Updated Systematic Review of Business Accelerators: Functions, Operation, and Gaps in the Existing Literature Jaber Aljalahma * and John Slof Department of Business, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain * Correspondence: jabr.aljalahma@gmail.com Abstract: Business accelerators have emerged as an important innovation intermediary, with their primary role identified as stimulating premature startups through mentorship and training programs. However, despite significant improvement and 17 years of working history, there are still gaps in working behavior, business accelerator forms, organizational structure, operations, and outcomes. This systematic review aims to boost the understanding of seed accelerators in innovation and entrepreneurial activities. The Context, Intervention, Mechanism, and Outcome (CIMO) framework was used to collect data from the 53 articles published in the last 17 years. In this current systematic review of applying a CIMO analysis to business accelerators, we retrieved 53 articles for further detailed studies, out of which 21 articles were assessed for the risk of bias analysis. The current review highlights that by providing learning opportunities, idea validation, increased access to growth, and innovation, startup accelerators achieved their goals. Moreover, the study also identified gaps in the literature and opportunities for cohort-based, short-term mentorship programs. The outcomes of the present study will provide suggestions for policymakers, entrepreneurs, managers, and investors. Keywords: business accelerators; innovation accelerators; mechanisms; initial startups Citation: Aljalahma, J.; Slof, J. An 1. Introduction Updated Systematic Review of In today’s economy, startups are considered a major source of innovation, as they im- Business Accelerators: Functions, plement new technologies to reinvent business models and produce innovative products [1]. Operation, and Gaps in the Existing Literature. J. Open Innov. Technol. This ability has made startups very attractive in the world economy, as they are seen as Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 214. https:// major contributors to the entrepreneurial infrastructure [2], and have helped economies to doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8040214 recover from the last economic crisis [3]. A business accelerator framework is a program that provides business training and direction to startup enterprises in their early stages. Received: 2 November 2022 Startup accelerators help new firms succeed by providing them with funding, training, and Accepted: 29 November 2022 mentoring [4]. Business incubation is the most effective way of assisting entrepreneurs in Published: 7 December 2022 their new venture creation [5]. Companies who enroll in accelerator programs go through a Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral quick, comprehensive, and intense education process aimed at accelerating the lifespan of with regard to jurisdictional claims in successful companies by teaching them in a matter of months what would have taken them published maps and institutional affil- years of trial and error [3–5]. Accelerators are flourishing all over the world, from the first iations. one founded in 2005 with the founding of Y Combinator, to more than 500 in 2015 [6]. Busi- ness accelerators have grown as an important tool in the entrepreneurial ecosystem [7,8]. They are growing widely, increasing startups’ demand for acceleration programs, and drawing corporations’ and governments’ attention [8]. Goswami, Gutstein, and Brem Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. observed that the number of business accelerators that provide entrepreneurial capital Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. rather than financial investments had increased dramatically over the last 17 years [9,10]. This article is an open access article Entrepreneurial capital is a critical element, particularly for startup businesses [11,12]. distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons The emphasis on entrepreneurial capital rather than financial capital has been high- Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// lighted as a key differentiator between business accelerators and incubators [12]. Further- creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ more, accelerators often do not offer financial resources like office space or operating costs. 4.0/). Entrepreneurial capital, which includes market research, concept creation, and investor J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 214. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8040214 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/joitmc J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 214 2 of 16 connection management, is prioritized by business accelerators [13,14]. Accelerators are recognized as a different organizational form with a unique set of attributes based on the products they offer to their startup consumers [15], which is contrary to some research that views them as a specific type of incubator [15]. Additionally, accelerators differ from incubators in that their support programs last for a much shorter period [16]. They are not intended to supply companies with material assets or office space over an extended length of time, place less emphasis on investment firms [17] as the next source of funding, and promote business growth by offering intensive, time-limited assistance [18]. There are about 8000 business accelerators worldwide; more than half of them were founded between 2014 and 2020 [19], indicating a rise in interest in business accelerators [4]. Business accelerator-related investment has grown by 900 percent over the last five years [8], from less than $5 billion in 2014 to $50 billion in 2018 [8]. Y Combinator is the most well- known startup accelerator [12]. Since its inception, Y Combinator has invested in over 1800 companies, resulting in over $40 billion in investment [18]. Although the field of startup accelerators is new, there is still a lot of literature available on various aspects of accelerators [20]. In the midst of the last financial crisis, accelerators emerged and evolved to be key players in the early-stage entrepreneurial ecosystem [21]. Furthermore, understanding the different roles accelerators play and the efficiency of such programs would be of great value to practitioners and policymakers, especially considering the benefits these programs have to the entrepreneurial ecosystem and economy [22]. However, there is also a greater understanding that more systematic research is necessary to fully comprehend what accelerators are, how they function, and what role they play in assisting the growth of the startups they participate in, as well as more generally in defining the technology of the entrepreneurial terrain. Therefore, due to the importance of entrepreneurial activities for economic growth, the specific objectives of the research are to assess accelerators’ efficiency in Europe, compare the different types of accelerators, and later on investigate how accelerators are contributing to the Fintech phenomena for the reason that evidence of their efficiency and role are limited [23,24]. The current systematic review is a comprehensive study (i) to fully understand the structure, manifesto, and function of startup accelerators and to know how they operate, (ii) to assess all the studies conducted on business accelerators under the risk of biasness assessment tool, and (iii) to identify the gaps in the existing literature to fill them with reliable information. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Literature Examination Approach The review was carried out in accordance with the typical reporting standards for systemic reviews. All the conditions suggested by Xiao and Watson for conducting a review were followed in this study, which included planning, conducting, and reporting [22]. The search took place between July 15 to August 15, 2022. The Context, Intervention, Mechanism, and Outcome (CIMO) framework was used to collect data from the 53 articles published in the last 17 years. The data was collected from June 2004 to May 2022 through a rigorous searching process. Additionally, we considered the retrieved papers’ references while attempting to find additional possibly acceptable publications. The titles and abstracts of the results were used to filter the findings. Duplicate articles were removed. The database query utilized the keywords formulated from the preliminary search. Several keywords were utilized, including “business accelerator”, “venture accelerator”, “technology accelerator”, “start-up accelerator”, “entrepreneurial accelerator”, “seed accelerator”, “success accelerator”, and “innovation accelerator”. 2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria The Web of science categories of economics, management, interdisciplinary science, finance, planning, operations research, management science, social concerns, and develop- ment were used to concentrate the returned findings. Articles in engineering, medicine, and The Web of science categories of economics, management, interdisciplinary science, fi- nance, planning, operations research, management science, social concerns, and devel- opment were used to concentrate the returned findings. Articles in engineering, medi- cine, and physics were eliminated. A total of 169 articles were retrieved, out of which 53 J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 214 3 of 16 appropriate articles were selected for descriptive analysis (Figure 1 and Table 1). The chosen papers had to be on business accelerators and their theoretical or conceptual models. Publications physics were eliminated. presenting A total distinct of 169 articles accelerator were retrieved, concepts out of whichwere or equipment 53 appropriate found articles were selected for descriptive analysis (Figure 1 and Table 1). The chosen papers and omitted from fusion. had to beAs a result, on business the papers’ accelerators fulltheoretical and their texts were obtained. or conceptual ThePublications models. final list of studies was decided upon after presenting distinctcarefully acceleratorreviewing the papers concepts or equipment wereand foundcross-referencing and omitted from fusion. As a result, the papers’ full texts were obtained. The final list of studies was decided upon their reference lists. after carefully reviewing the papers and cross-referencing their reference lists. Figure 1. Flow diagram for1.the Figure Flowutilized search diagram for strategy. the utilized search strategy. Table 1. Details of study included in the systematic review. References Source Definition Inclusion Mechanism (Aloulou, 2021) [14] Journal ND Yes Innovation J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 214 4 of 16 Table 1. Details of study included in the systematic review. References Source Definition Inclusion Mechanism (Aloulou, 2021) [14] Journal ND Yes Innovation (Askarzadeh et al., 2021) [4] Journal OD Yes Access and growth (Bendickson, 2021) [16] Journal CD Yes Learning and validation (Blank, 2021) [1] Journal CD Yes Learning and validation (Chen & He, 2021) [18] Journal OD Yes Access and growth (Davidson, 2021) [19] Journal OD Yes Learning and validation (Ermilina et al., 2021) [4] Journal CD, OD Yes Access and growth (Gavrilenko, 2021) [20] Thesis CD Yes Innovation Learning, validation, access, (Gikabu, 2020) [21] Thesis ND Yes and growth (González-Uribe & Reyes, 2021) [11] Journal CD No Undefined (Hawari-Latter et al., 2021) [22] Journal ND Yes learning (Hirvonen et al., 2021) [23] Book chapter CD, OD Yes Learning (Alpenidze et al., 2019) [24] Journal (OD) Yes Access and growth (Aragon et al., 2017) [25] Journal ND Yes Innovation (Assudani et al., 2017) [15] Journal (CD) Yes Learning and innovation (Battistella et al., 2017) [26] Journal CD Yes Access and growth (Bauer et al., 2016) [27] Conference CD No Undefined (Bernthal, 2015) [17] Journal CD Yes Learning (Clarysse et al., 2016) [28] Report CD, OD Yes Multiple mechanisms (Clayton et al., 2018) [29] Journal CD No Undefined (Mohammadi & Sakhteh, 2022) [30] Journal CD, OD No Undefined (Del Sarto et al., 2022) [31] Journal OD Yes Innovation (Cohen et al., 2019) [32] Journal CD Yes Access and growth (Colombo et al., 2018) [2] Book chapter CD No Undefined Other source (Connolly et al., 2018) [33] Journal Yes Innovation definition OSD (Coste & Gatzke, 2017) [34] Journal ND Yes Innovation (Gligor et al., 2019) [35] Journal CD No Undefined (Pattanasak et al., 2022) [36] Journal CD Yes Access, and growth (Drori & Wright, 2018) [7] Chapter CD Yes Innovation. Access (Drover et al., 2017) [3] Journal OSD No Undefined (Dushnitsky & Sarkar, 2018) [37] Conference CD Yes Undefined (Fernandes et al., 2016) [38] Journal CD Yes Innovation (Fraiberg, 2017) [39] Journal OD Yes Access and growth (Frimodig & Torkkeli, 2017 [5]) Journal CD No Undefined (Gabrielsson et al., 2018 [6]) Journal ND Yes Innovation (Gardner & Webster, 2017 [12]) Journal ND Yes Innovation J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 214 5 of 16 Table 1. Cont. References Source Definition Inclusion Mechanism (Gliedt et al., 2018) [8] Journal ND No Undefined (Glinik, 2019) [40] Journal ND Yes Learning (Gonzalez-Uribe & Leatherbee, 2018) [41] Journal CD, OD Yes Learning (Goswami et al., 2018) [9] Journal CD Yes Access and growth (Lall et al., 2020) [42] Conference CD Yes Innovation (Gutmann, 2019) [43] Journal ND No Undefined (Gutstein & Brem, 2018) [10] Journal ND Yes Validation (Haines, 2014) [44] Conference CD Yes Innovation (Hallen et al., 2020) [13] Journal OD Yes Learning (Harima et al., 2019) [45] Journal ND Yes Access and growth (Tobiassen et al., 2018) [46] Conference CD Yes Growth (Uhm et al., 2018) [47] Journal CD Yes Access and growth (Wright et al., 2017) [48] Journal CD Yes Learning (Yang et al., 2019) [49] Journal CD No Undefined (Yin & Luo, 2018) [50] Journal CD Yes Access and growth 2.3. Data Extraction and Quality Assessment Tool The authors, title, type of work, region covered, year of publication, and journal of the article published were extracted from each study. Following data extraction, a descriptive analysis was carried out using the CIMO framework. The CIMO framework was chosen because there was a need to examine the processes used by business accelerators and the impact of their setting and interventions on the outcomes attained. Consequently, the full-text papers were retrieved. As a result, the articles with full-text were fetched. The risk of a bias assessment tool, called ROBVIS-2, was used to check the quality of each article. The categories for the judgment included high, low, and unclear. The program generated weighted bar plots showing the distribution of risk-of-bias judgments within each bias domain, as well as “traffic light” plots of the website verdicts for each study. 3. Results and Discussion 3.1. Demographic Details of the Study Despite a tremendous increase in accelerator research, it still needs to be determined how various types of accelerators function and what effects they have in various circum- stances. The CIMO analysis detected 169 articles on business accelerators over 17 years from 2004 to 2022. After excluding the duplicates and using exclusion criteria, a total of 53 full-text articles were included in this review. The chosen time range facilitated assessment of the evolution of business accelerators in terms of definition, contexts, inter- ventions, methods, and outcomes. Schätzlein and his colleagues also assessed 204 research articles between 1998 and 2021 to bridge the knowledge gaps. In our study, most of the retrieved articles (n = 132) were peer-reviewed academic articles, followed by conference papers (7) (n = 14), dissertations (n = 10), books (n = 8), and business reports (n = 5). The findings reported in this part include: (i) recommended definitions of business analysis; (ii) CIMO analysis; and (iii) knowledge gaps identified through review investigations. The literature revealed an enormous increase in the number of publications about growing interest in business accelerators and their differentiation from incubators over the last ten years. Crisan retrieved 98 peer review research publications accepted between 2004 to 2019 [51,52]. His review identified four mechanisms to explain how accelerators work and the part they play in fostering innovation and entrepreneurship. The outcomes also ark. Complex. 2022, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 16 J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 214 6 of 16 were conducted in 2018 [53]. A variation was observed in the sources from which the lit- erature was gathered. The highest observed percentage that 42 articles of 75.5% were published in thewas reported last two years, andfor thejournals, followed peak studies (n = 29) were conducted in 2018 [53]. A variation was observed in the by conference papers (9.4%), and the lowest data was collected from dissertations (3.8%)sources from which the litera- ture was gathered. The highest percentage of 75.5% was reported for journals, followed (Figure 2). A few literature reviews and systematic papers were also identified during the by conference papers (9.4%), and the lowest data was collected from dissertations (3.8%) literature collection(Figure and validation process. 2). A few literature These reviews results were and systematic papersinwere linealso with the previously identified during the literature collection and validation process. These results were published review articles, which also observed that most of the published articles were in line with the previously published review articles, which also observed that most of the published articles were research articles, followed by reports [54–56]. research articles, followed by reports [54–56]. 3.8% Journal Thesis 9.4% Book Conference Report 7.5% 3.8% 75.5% Figure 2. DistributionFigure of the2. identified sources. Distribution of the identified sources. 3.2. Context-Intervention-Mechanism-Outcome Framework 3.2. Context-Intervention-Mechanism-Outcome Framework The internal and external environmental elements that affect behavioral decisions The internal and are external referred toenvironmental as the context [29]. elements that affect The discovered articlesbehavioral were analyzed decisions are in this part using the CIMO framework as previously defined in the methodology. By linking the referred to as the context [29]. The discovered articles were analyzed in this part using the environment of accelerators with their desired treatments, the CIMO framework makes CIMO framework as previously it easier defined to identify in the the produced methodology. outcomes By linking [26] and facilitates the environment identifying the produced of accelerators with their desired treatments, the CIMO framework makes it easier outcomes [30]. This analysis aims to provide a better understanding of the to iden- functions of business accelerators. Startup accelerators are the primary tool to boost the development of tify the produced outcomes [26] and facilitates identifying the produced outcomes [30]. alliances with technology [57]. Accelerators connect start-ups with companies by acting as This analysis aims to provide a bridge a better between understanding them and of the functions offering them multifaceted ofcare, assistance, business acceler- and knowledge. ators. Startup accelerators are As a result, theassist they primary startupstool to boost novel in developing the development of alliances and creative solutions with by providing them with clients [13]. Accelerators are referred to as “a new incubation model” [32], “a technology [57]. Accelerators connect start-ups with companies by acting as a bridge be- new form of rapid business incubation” [33], “a type of entrepreneurial context that are tween them and offering involvedthem multifaceted with enticing, assisting,assistance, and introducingcare, newand knowledge. ventures” Asemerging ([34], and “an a result, they assist startups in developing novel and creative solutions by providing them with incubation-like model” in studies that classify them as an incubation model”). clients [13]. Accelerators are referred 3.3. Accelerator Context to as “a new incubation model” [32], “a new form of rapid business incubation” All the[33], “a and internal type of entrepreneurial external context environmental factors thatbehavioral that affect are involvedchangewith are enticing, assisting, known and introducing as context. Basednew on ventures” the descriptive([34], and19“an analysis, emerging studies had multipleincubation- locations, like model” in studies that classify them as an incubation model”). 3.3. Accelerator Context Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16 J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 214 7 of 16 market success. The lowest frequency was reported for access to business investors, which followed by Western Europe, which had 12 articles, Asia (7), Latin America (4), and was 2. While all environments had the same fundamental purpose of encouraging inno- New Zealand (3) studies(Figure 3). This systematic review indicated a lack of African- vation, each type based of business studies asaccelerator hadofits a potential cause own setgaps knowledge of characteristics and expected in the identified literature and a goals [58]. Furtherpotential research linked target accelerator for future interventions research. Business acceleratorsto have the idea of to resorted product screen- implementing prolonged interventions (n = 53) due to an increased requirement to encourage startup ing and validation. Idea validation was strongly linked to business accelerators that pro- success. Figure 4 disclosed that 15 startups had to produce funding, followed by validation vided specific services, and marketsuch as virtual success. coaching The lowest frequency and wasintensive, reported for time-limited access to business boot camps investors, and seminars [59,60]. whichThewas participant has the highest 2. While all environments had the samefrequency fundamentalof 13, followed purpose by appli- of encouraging innovation, each type of business accelerator had its own set of characteristics and expected cants, jobs, and Investments, which were each at 7, respectively (Figure 5). This means goals [58]. Further research linked accelerator interventions to the idea of product screening business accelerators were found and validation. Idea to improve validation was access strongly to networking linked possibilities to business accelerators that for partic- provided ipating startups. Accelerators specific services,were such aslinked virtualto enhanced coaching network and intensive, access toboot time-limited bothcampsdomestic and seminars [59,60]. The participant has the highest frequency of 13, followed by applicants, and foreign partners, which predisposed companies to capital funding and cross-industry jobs, and Investments, which were each at 7, respectively (Figure 5). This means business mentorship. Results from the accelerators studies were found conducted to improve accessby Shao et al., (2018) to networking and Shankar possibilities & Shep- for participating herd 2019 were also in line startups. with our Accelerators wereresults linked about to enhancedspecific networknetworking access to bothresults, domestic such and as foreign partners, which predisposed companies to capital greater access to corporate clients, suppliers, and advisors [50,37]. The effects of network-funding and cross-industry mentorship. Results from the studies conducted by Shao et al., (2018) and Shankar & ing with international Shepherdcorporate 2019 were clients and also in line withinvestors werespecific our results about critical to startups’ networking results,develop- such as ment into global markets [27,61]. greater access to corporate clients, suppliers, and advisors [37,50]. The effects of networking As mentioned with in international the contextcorporate section, clients and investors community andwere critical to startups’ governmental developmentare accelerators into global markets [27,61]. meant to affect changeAsatmentioned the ecosystem level. in the context Business section, communityaccelerators at the ecosystem and governmental level accelerators are were associated with meantincreased network to affect change building at the ecosystem in Business level. 12 studies, followed accelerators by innovation at the ecosystem level were associated with increased network building in bubble and development in 8 studies (Figure 6). The minimum ecosystem outcomes were 12 studies, followed by innovation bubble and development in 8 studies (Figure 6). The minimum ecosystem outcomes were reported in employment reported inopportunities having three employment opportunities havingarticles. three articles. Regions 4 3 19 7 3 5 12 Multiple Western Europe Unspecified America Asia Newzeland Latin America Figure 3. Descriptive analysis Figure based analysis 3. Descriptive on the based area on ofthe focus. area of focus. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 214 J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16 8 of 16 J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16 J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16 Startup outcomes Startup outcomes Startup outcomes 16 16 16 Frequency 12 Frequency 12 Frequency 12 88 8 44 4 00 0 Outcomes Outcomes Outcomes Figure 4. Graphical representation representation of startup-level outcomes. Figure4.4. Graphical Figure ofstartup-level Graphical representation of startup-leveloutcomes. outcomes. Figure 4. Graphical representation of startup-level outcomes. Accelators outcomes Accelators outcomes Accelators outcomes Applicants Applicants Applicants Participants Participants Participants Startup survival Startup survival Startup to survival Funds to startups Funds startups Funds to startups Jobs Jobs Jobs Exits Exits Exits Funded startups startups Funded Funded startups Investment return Investment return Investment return Graduating startups startups Graduating Graduating startups 00 22 44 66 88 10 10 12 12 14 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Figure 5. Outcomes at the accelerator level. Figure5.5. Outcomes Outcomes at the accelerator acceleratorlevel. Figure 5. Outcomes at the accelerator Figure level. level. 15 Ecosystem level Ecosystem level outcomes 15 15 Ecosystem level outcomes outcomes 12 12 Frequency 12 Frequency Frequency 99 9 66 6 33 3 00 0 Outcomes Outcomes Outcomes Figure 6. Outcomes at the ecosystem level. Figure 6. Outcomes at the ecosystem level. Figure 6. Outcomes at the ecosystem level. Figure 6. Outcomes at the ecosystem level. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 214 9 of 16 3.4. Accelerators Intervention Accelerators have become a popular and distinctive new type of intermediary orga- nization during the past 15 years by promoting entrepreneurial and innovative activities in crucial ways [2]. It may be because of the lack of agreement on a detailed definition of a business accelerator that it continues to be difficult to separate them from incuba- tors [38]. A total of 53 studies were included in the table from 169 retrieved articles. The articles assessed were based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The articles which passed the criteria were included in the study. The studies related the word accelera- tion to the brief incubation of business ideas, and to the clustering of teams who also supported the observation of accelerated incubators. Zuquetto et al., (2021) stated that seven years after its founding, Y Combinator made the first attempt to define business accelerators [24]. Business accelerators and incubators served similar purposes, but the organizations differed in five ways. According to the authors, the following criteria must be met: (a) an open and competitive registration procedure [62]; (b) a focus on teams rather than individuals [39]; (c) the supply of pre-seed funding [23]; (d) intense, time-limited mentoring [40]; and (e) the grouping of chosen teams into cohorts. [27]. Out of 53 studies, 12 articles have an unidentified mechanism, while the majority of the studies have access and growth experiences in their methodology. Accelerators are described in studies as an “incubation model [1]”, “a new form of quick business incubation [16]”, a type of incubation program that is concerned with attracting, nurturing, and growing new companies”, and “an emerging incubation-like paradigm [41]”, and business incubators are where many of the qualities of accelerators come from [42]. Following the classifications presented in earlier articles, further research differentiated business accelerators based on their con- text [15,29]. The selected papers in this systematic review addressed business accelerators grouped into four contexts: university, start-up, government, and industry. According to the following logic, CIMO analysis effectively produces prescriptive knowledge: if you wish to accomplish consequence O in context C, employ intervention type I. Some of the investigations carried out after 2015 [2,29,63] revealed the emergence of new terminologies associated with business accelerator contexts, including social, prescriptive, virtual, and ecosystem builder accelerators among the new terms. Only eight years ago, Miller and Bound (2011) published the first in-depth study on the development, advantages, and business models of accelerators and their programs [30]. This was the first attempt to define the term “accelerator”. As scholars identified accelerators as a new type of organization that is different from incubators, this signaled the beginning of a new age for accelerator research [33,43,64]. An intervention may be described as an intentional effort aimed at achieving the desired result. There was no direct reference to deploy methods as interventions in the analyzed literature. The descriptive analysis classified interventions into three categories: narrow, typical, and extended business accelerator inputs [44,45]. Only a small number of the examined publications were business accelerators with limited interventions. According to the synthesized publications, narrow treatments included virtual mentoring programs, online lectures, case studies, legal services, seminars, and short-term boot camps [45]. Some business accelerators may also offer access to capital, where the innovators may be required to relinquish a portion of their ownership. Often, business accelerators that implement specific interventions provide similar services to a significant group of participants who may be organized into cohorts [31,65]. On the other hand, some business accelerators may customize these standard interventions to the needs of their members. In compari- son to startups in other industries, engineering advances may necessitate more access to funding [46]. 3.5. Accelerators Intervention Types and Examples Crisan et al., (2021) stated the associated narrow interventions, such as workshops, boot camps, and coaching with soft outcomes, such as idea validation and improved entrepreneurial culture [66]. Similarly, long-term interventions, including product develop- J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 214 10 of 16 ment, legal and financial support, brand development, and media exposure, were linked to hard outcomes like exits, company valuation, and market access. Analyzing the executed interventions (narrow, typical, and extended) and the achieved outcomes (soft and hard) revealed four separate pathways. The discovered mechanisms interacted with the applied treatments, either directly or indirectly, to create the results. For example, limited and extended interventions are linked to higher levels of knowledge and innovation, respec- tively [31]. However, after a learning intervention is implemented, participating companies may engage in more excellent idea development and validation, leading to innovation. In this situation, the learning mechanism will have prompted validation and access, which will result in more innovation [32]. 4. Outcomes In the context of an intervention, outcomes might be characterized as quantitative changes. When analyzing results, we distinguish between their nature and the stages at which they relate (participating firms, accelerators as an organization, and the broader ecosystem level). Increased network building at the ecosystem level was linked to business accelerators in 12 research studies, followed by the innovation bubble and development in 8 studies(Figure 6). The minimum system effects were given in three publications about employment opportunities. Different hard and soft outcomes were determined, such as funding, market access, better facilities for conducting research, as well as exits, key abilities, expertise, and validation. According to Wise & Valliere (2014), soft outcomes are non-economic outcomes that may be useful as a step toward reaching hard outcomes. Soft outcomes are non-economic results that may be significant as a preliminary step before obtaining hard outcomes, whereas hard outcomes are defined as economic advantages and results. The positive results of business accelerators were significantly represented in the assessed papers (n = 53). Negative consequences were substantially more prevalent at the startup level when compared to the accelerator and ecosystem levels. Validation, which refers to the approval of a product or business idea, is an implied outcome of participation in traditional accelerators. Still, it can also result from joining a virtual accelerator or attending a workshop [67–69]. The startup stage accounts for a sizable proportion of direct outcomes. The advantages include both soft and hard results. Funding, networking opportunities, and survival are examples of hard outcomes at the startup stage. Startups that participated in business accelerators had more access to capital funding, which contributed to their success. In terms of soft outcomes, the impact of business accelerators at the startup level included idea validation, access to expertise, and increased management abilities [69,70]. Figure 7 comprehensively highlights the organizational and industrial context with complete intervention and outcomes. By considering the situations in which they function, the intervention accelerators provide a range of services to their beginning users and their results in terms of their impact on pioneering activities. CIMO- causing economic factors that explain an occurrence in this case of how business incubators operate. Figure 8 shows how business accelerators work in the community. The whole life cycle from assurance to growth and outcomes was sketched. Our research suggests that accelerators serve as network builders by encouraging other organizations to develop the ecosystem, by ensuring new business relationships between startups and established corporations, and by improving the survival rate of startups. Based on our outcomes, we clearly state that accelerators foster an innovation culture, speed up the invention process, assist businesses in coming up with new ideas, test those ideas, and share the results. As a result, there is potential for research to focus on understudied industries, niche contexts like ecologically responsible industries, or specific application areas (like innovation management or technology for nice), as well as to analyze the incubator process in other contexts outside of the western world. J. J. Open OpenJ.Innov. Technol. Open Innov. Innov. Mark. Technol. Technol. Mark. Complex. Mark. 2022, Complex. Complex. 8, 8, xx8,FOR 2022, 2022, 214 PEER FOR PEER REVIEW REVIEW 11 of 11 11 of 16 of 16 16 Figure Figure 7. 7. CIMO Figure CIMO complete complete 7. CIMO analysis completeanalysis with outcomes withoutcomes analysis with (Source: outcomes(Source: (Source: Constructed Constructed Constructed in in Illustrator Illustrator in Illustrator ver. ver. 26.4). ver. 26.4). 26.4). Figure Figure 8. 8. The The complete complete cycle cycle of of startup startup accelerators accelerators (Source: (Source: Constructed Constructed in in Illustrator Illustrator ver. ver. 26.4). 26.4). Figure 8. The complete cycle of startup accelerators (Source: Constructed in Illustrator ver. 26.4). 5. 5. Risk Risk of of Bias Bias Assessment Assessment To To check the quality, check the quality, accuracy, accuracy, randomization randomization process, process, intended intended intervention, intervention, and and outcomes of the articles, a total of 21 articles out of 52 were retrieved for the ROBVIS outcomes of the articles, a total of 21 articles out of 52 were retrieved for the ROBVIS tool.tool. The The 21 21 peer peer review review articles articles were were selected selected based based on on their their novelty, novelty, whether whether they they were were up- up- J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 214 12 of 16 5. Risk of Bias Assessment To check the quality, accuracy, randomization process, intended intervention, and J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. outcomes of the2022, 8, x FOR articles, a PEER total REVIEW of 21 articles out of 52 were retrieved for the ROBVIS tool. The 21 peer review articles were selected based on their novelty, whether they were up-to-date, and data availability (Figure 9). A total of 13 articles had a low risk of biasness in their methodology, meansresults, and outcomes. their studies Five studies did not have proper had and aaccurate high riskoutcomes. of biasness, which Three studies lay means their studies did not have proper and accurate outcomes. middle, and we did not have a proper conclusion. Three studies lay in the middle, and we did not have a proper conclusion. Figure 9. Risk of assessment for the articles published in journals (Source: ROBV Figure 9. Risk of assessment for the articles published in journals (Source: ROBVIS tool, https: https://www.riskofbias.info/welcome/robvis-visualization-tool) (URL accessed on 15 Sep //www.riskofbias.info/welcome/robvis-visualization-tool) (URL accessed on 15 September 2022). 2022). Mentioned references: [1,4,4,14,16–19,24–26,29,30,32–34,36,41,57,71,72]. Mentioned references: [1,4,14,16–19,24–26,29,30,32–34,36,41,57,71,72]. 6. Conclusions This is the first comprehensive systematic review of CIMO analysis and busin celerators in which 53 articles were retrieved for further detailed studies, out of wh articles were assessed for the risk of bias analysis. All the articles were retrieved rigorous selection process. The review helps innovative practices by giving people to resources, including connections, training, and coaching. Several research gaps J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 214 13 of 16 6. Conclusions This is the first comprehensive systematic review of CIMO analysis and business accelerators in which 53 articles were retrieved for further detailed studies, out of which 21 articles were assessed for the risk of bias analysis. All the articles were retrieved after a rigorous selection process. The review helps innovative practices by giving people access to resources, including connections, training, and coaching. Several research gaps in the literature were filled through this review, especially gaps in the information available on the working behaviors of business accelerators in communities. Since the introduction of the first business accelerator, Y Combinator, there has been an immediate increase in the number of innovation intermediates other than incubators. The impact of business accelerators on the ecosystem has been demonstrated by a one- hundred percent growth in the number of registered intermediaries over the last five years. The publications included in this systematic review highlight progress in distinguishing between business accelerators and incubators. Initially, business accelerators were thought to be a subset of incubators. However, as this study emphasized, an increase in the number of studies that examined business accelerators gave sufficient literature to compare the two types of innovation intermediates. The use of CIMO analysis aided in evaluating business accelerators based on context, services provided, methods, and outcomes. As this analysis has indicated, a substantial portion of business accelerators resides in one of five contexts: university, startup, corporate, government, or community. The managerial implications of this study highlight the different context business accelerators operate in, the identification and differentiation of hard and soft outcomes, and what the outcomes are on a startup level, accelerator level, and ecosystem level, which can be of assistance in making managerial decisions. Finally, this systematic review aided in identifying knowledge gaps in the existing literature. We found gaps in the impact of organizational characteristics on the effectiveness of business accelerators. Accelerators in the same context using identical treatments must achieve different results. According to the CIMO analysis, the interplay of two mechanisms might result in unexpected consequences linked to organizational structure and strategy. As a result, the assessment of business accelerators was recognized as a knowledge gap that should be addressed in future research. Further investigation is required to clarify the specifics of incubation and acceleration structures and how they can influence success. There is a definite need for more research on the topic of business incubator specialization because the body of literature is so limited. 7. Limitations The study was limited to the last 17 years only, and no reports were included in the research articles that were included. Another limitation is that the data covers several European countries where the European Union members share a continent and a market, but each country has a unique startup ecosystem. Europe is a unique market; hence running this on a different continent might have different results. Moreover, the EU is a developed economy with a healthy startup scene. The outcomes of this research cannot represent the case of emerging economies that have different startup scenes. Furthermore, another limitation of this research is that it does not differentiate between profit, non-profit accelerator, privately funded, or publicly funded accelerators. Moreover, there are several mislabeled or differently operating accelerators and incubators, which stress the fact of having certain conditions be met so each will be labeled in the right way that they should. Author Contributions: J.A. wrote the manuscript and performed the analysis while J.S. supervised the work. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: The article did not receive any funding from private or public organizations. Data Availability Statement: All the data are available in the manuscript. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declared that they have no conflict of interest. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 214 14 of 16 References 1. Blank, T.H. When incubator resources are crucial: Survival chances of student startups operating in an academic incubator. J. Technol. Transf. 2021, 46, 1845–1868. [CrossRef] 2. Colombo, M.G.; Rossi-Lamastra, C.; Wright, M. Accelerators: Insights for a research agenda. Accelerators 2018, 188–204. [CrossRef] 3. Drover, W.; Busenitz, L.; Matusik, S.; Townsend, D.; Anglin, A.; Dushnitsky, G. A review and road map of entrepreneurial equity financing research: Venture capital, corporate venture capital, angel investment, crowdfunding, and accelerators. J. Manag. 2017, 43, 1820–1853. [CrossRef] 4. Ermilina, V.; Farrell, M.; Askarzadeh, F.; Zhang, J. Business owners’ features and access to entrepreneurial resources: New insights for accelerator acceptance. Rev. Int. Bus. Strategy 2021, 32, 246–266. [CrossRef] 5. Frimodig, L.; Torkkeli, M. Sources for success-new venture creation in seed and business accelerators. Int. J. Bus. Excell. 2017, 12, 489–507. [CrossRef] 6. Gabrielsson, J.; Politis, D.; Persson, K.M.; Kronholm, J. Promoting water-related innovation through networked acceleration: Insights from the Water Innovation Accelerator. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 17, S130–S139. [CrossRef] 7. Drori, I.; Wright, A.M. Accelerators: Characteristics, trends and the new entrepreneurial ecosystem. In Accelerators; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2018. 8. Gliedt, T.; Hoicka, C.E.; Jackson, N. Innovation intermediaries accelerating environmental sustainability transitions. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 174, 1247–1261. [CrossRef] 9. Goswami, K.; Mitchell, J.R.; Bhagavatula, S. Accelerator expertise: U nderstanding the intermediary role of accelerators in the development of the B angalore entrepreneurial ecosystem. Strateg. Entrep. J. 2018, 12, 117–150. [CrossRef] 10. Gutstein, A.; Brem, A. Lead user projects in practice—Results from an analysis of an open innovation accelerator. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Manag. 2018, 15, 1850015. [CrossRef] 11. González-Uribe, J.; Reyes, S. Identifying and boosting “Gazelles”: Evidence from business accelerators. J. Financ. Econ. 2021, 139, 260–287. [CrossRef] 12. Gardner, J.; Webster, A. Accelerating innovation in the creation of biovalue: The cell and gene therapy catapult. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2017, 42, 925–946. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 13. Hallen, B.L.; Cohen, S.L.; Bingham, C.B. Do accelerators work? If so, how? Organ. Sci. 2020, 31, 378–414. [CrossRef] 14. Aloulou, W.J. Mapping incubation mechanisms in Saudi Arabia: The state of the art and challenges for the future. In Handbook of Research on Business and Technology Incubation and Acceleration; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2021; pp. 351–366. 15. Assudani, R.; Mroczkowski, T.; Muñoz-Fernández, A.; Khilji, S.E. Entrepreneurial support systems: Role of the Czech accelerator. Int. J. Entrep. Innov. Manag. 2017, 21, 530–552. [CrossRef] 16. Bendickson, J. Building entrepreneurship research for impact: Scope, phenomenon, and translation. Taylor Francis. 2021, 59, 535–543. [CrossRef] 17. Bernthal, B. Investment accelerators. Stan. JL Bus. Fin. 2015, 21139. Available online: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/faculty- articles/354 (accessed on 1 November 2022). 18. Chen, C.; He, J. Teaching Them How to Fish: The Makings of Business Accelerators. Acad. Manag. Proc. 2022, 2022. [CrossRef] 19. Davidson, H. The Incubator Investment in Network Events: Does the Business Incubator’s Quality of Programming and Founder Personality Traits Influence Startup Performance? Doctoral Dissertation, Pace University, New York, NY, USA, 2021. 20. Gavrilenko, Z. Corporate Accelerators: How can companies utilize corporate accelerators to strengthen strategic market advantage? Master’s Thesis, The University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, 2021. 21. Gikabu, L.M. Influence of Accelerator Programs to the Growth of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (Msmes) Supported by Tony Elumelu Foundation-Kenya. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya, 2020. 22. Hawari-Latter, S.; Bruce, F.; McNicoll, B. The Design for Business Initiative: A Systematic Approach to Embedding Entrepreneur- ship in Design Education. In Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Lisbon, Portugal, 16–17 September 2021; Academic Conferences International Limited; pp. 1301–1309. 23. Hirvonen, J.; Nieminen, M.; Javanainen, N. Good Practices in Universities: Business Cooperation, Entrepreneurial Support Services and Sustainable Development; South-Eastern Finland University of Applied Sciences: Kouvola, Finland, 2021. 24. Alpenidze, O.; Pauceanu, A.M.; Sanyal, S. Key success factors for business incubators in Europe: An empirical study. Acad. Entrep. J. 2019, 25, 1–13. 25. Aragon, A.A.; Schoenfeld, B.J.; Wildman, R.; Kleiner, S.; VanDusseldorp, T.; Taylor, L.; Antonio, J. International society of sports nutrition position stand: Diets and body composition. J. Int. Soc. Sport. Nutr. 2017, 14, 16. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 26. Battistella, C.; De Toni, A.F.; De Zan, G.; Pessot, E. Cultivating business model agility through focused capabilities: A multiple case study. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 73, 65–82. [CrossRef] 27. Bauer, S.; Obwegeser, N.; Avdagic, Z. Corporate accelerators: Transferring technology innovation to incumbent. In Proceedings of the MCIS 2016, Paphos, Cyprus, 4–6 September 2016. 28. Clarysse, B.; Wright, M.; Hove, J.V. A look inside accelerators in the United Kingdom: Building technology businesses. Technol. Entrep. Bus. Incubation Theory Pract. Lessons Learn. 2016, 28, 57–86. [CrossRef] 29. Clayton, P.; Feldman, M.; Lowe, N. Behind the scenes: Intermediary organizations that facilitate science commercialization through entrepreneurship. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2018, 32, 104–124. [CrossRef] J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 214 15 of 16 30. Mohammadi, N.; Sakhteh, S. Start-up accelerator value chain: A systematic literature review. Manag. Rev. Q. 2022, 1–34. [CrossRef] 31. Del Sarto, N.; Isabelle, D.A.; Di Minin, A. The role of accelerators in firm survival: An fsQCA analysis of Italian startups. Technovation 2020, 90, 102102. [CrossRef] 32. Cohen, S.; Fehder, D.C.; Hochberg, Y.V.; Murray, F. The design of startup accelerators. Res. Policy 2019, 48, 1781–1797. [CrossRef] 33. Connolly, A.J.; Turner, J.; Potocki, A.D. IGNITE your corporate innovation: Insights from setting up an ag-tech start-up accelerator. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2018, 21, 833–846. [CrossRef] 34. Coste, J.-D.; Gatzke, S. A novel approach to innovation platforms: Symbiotic on/off spaces, cross-industry sponsor. New Space 2017, 5, 155–162. [CrossRef] 35. Gligor, O.; Mocan, A.; Moldovan, C.; Locatelli, M.; Cris, an, G.; Ferreira, I.C. Enzyme-assisted extractions of polyphenols–A comprehensive review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 88, 302–315. [CrossRef] 36. Pattanasak, P.; Anantana, T.; Paphawasit, B.; Wudhikarn, R. Critical Factors and Performance Measurement of Business Incubators: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4610. [CrossRef] 37. Dushnitsky, G.; Sarkar, S. Variance decomposing of accelerator and cohort effects among London startups. In Academy of Management Proceedings; Academy of Management: Briarcliff Manor, NY, USA, 2018; Volume 2018, p. 10522. 38. Fernandes, E.; Jung, J.; Prakash, A. Security analysis of emerging smart home applications. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), San Jose, CA, USA, 22–26 May 2016; IEEE: Piscataway, PA, USA; pp. 636–654. 39. Fraiberg, S. Start-up nation: Studying transnational entrepreneurial practices in Israel’s start-up ecosystem. J. Bus. Tech. Commun. 2017, 31, 350–388. [CrossRef] 40. Glinik, M. Gruendungsgarage—A Best-Practice Example of an Academic Start-up Accelerator. Int. J. Eng. Pedagog. 2019, 9, 33–43. [CrossRef] 41. PattanasakLall, S.A.; Chen, L.W.; Roberts, P.W. Are we accelerating equity investment into impact-oriented ventures? World Dev. 2020, 131, 104952. 42. Gutmann, T.; Kanbach, D.; Seltman, S. Exploring the benefits of corporate accelerators: Investigating the SAP Industry 4.0 Startup Program. Probl. Perspect. Manag. 2019, 17, 218. [CrossRef] 43. Haines, J.K. Iterating an innovation model: Challenges and opportunities in adapting accelerator practices in evolving ecosystems. In Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference Proceedings; Wiley Online Library: New York, NY, USA, 2014; Volume 2014, pp. 282–295. 44. Harima, A.; Freudenberg, J.; Halberstadt, J. Functional domains of business incubators for refugee entrepreneurs. J. Enterprising Communities People Places Glob. Econ. 2019, 14, 687–711. [CrossRef] 45. Tobiassen, A.E.; Elvekrok, I.; Jahnsen, E.L.; Løtvedt, A.S. The value of accelerator programmes in the internationalization of Norwegian international new ventures. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Washington DC, USA, 5–6 March 2018; Academic Conferences International Limited: Reading, UK, 2018; pp. 1064–1072. 46. Uhm, C.H.; Sung, C.S.; Park, J.Y. Understanding the accelerator from resources-based perspective. Asia Pac. J. Innov. Entrep. 2018, 12, 258–278. [CrossRef] 47. Wright, M.; Siegel, D.S.; Mustar, P. An emerging ecosystem for student start-ups. J. Technol. Transf. 2017, 42, 909–922. [CrossRef] 48. Yang, S.; Kher, R.; Newbert, S. What signals matter for social startups? It depends: The influence of gender role congruity on social impact accelerator selection decisions. J. Bus. Ventur. Forthcom. Baruch Coll. Zicklin Sch. Bus. Res. Pap. 2019, 35, 105932. [CrossRef] 49. Yin, B.; Luo, J. How do accelerators select startups? Shifting decision criteria across stages. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2018, 65, 574–589. [CrossRef] 50. Xiao, Y.; Watson, M. Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2019, 39, 93–112. [CrossRef] 51. Cris, an, E.L.; Salant, ă, I.I.; Beleiu, I.N.; Bordean, O.N.; Bunduchi, R. A systematic literature review on accelerators. J. Technol. Transf. 2021, 46, 62–89. [CrossRef] 52. Zuquetto, R.D.; Martins, B.V.; Santini, M.A.F.; Facchin, K.; Balestrin, A. Business Accelerators: A Systematic Literature Review. In Proceedings of the ISPIM Conference Proceedings, Berlin, Germany, 20–23 June 2021. 53. Miller, P.; Bound, K. The Startup Factories. NESTA. 2011. Available online: http://www.nesta.org.uk/library/documents/ StartupFactories.pdf (accessed on 21 September 2022). 54. Breznitz, S.M.; Zhang, Q.J.I.; Change, C. Fostering the growth of student start-ups from university accelerators: An entrepreneurial ecosystem perspective. Ind. Corp. Chang. 2019, 28, 855–873. [CrossRef] 55. Mitra, S.; Euchner, J. Business Acceleration at Scale: An Interview with Sramana Mitra: Sramana Mitra talks with Jim Euchner about democratizing innovation through education and mentoring. Res. -Technol. Manag. 2016, 59, 12–20. [CrossRef] 56. Clarysse, B.; Wright, M.; VanHove, J. A Look Inside Accelerators; Nesta: London, UK, 2015. 57. Jackson, P.; Richter, N. Situational logic: An analysis of open innovation using corporate accelerators. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2017, 21, 1750062. [CrossRef] 58. Malek, K.; Maine, E.; McCarthy, I.P. A typology of clean technology commercialization accelerators. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 2014, 32, 26–39. [CrossRef] 59. Yang, S.; Kher, R.; Lyons, T.S. Where do accelerators fit in the venture creation pipeline? Different values brought by different types of accelerators. Entrep. Res. J. 2018, 8, 1–3. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 214 16 of 16 60. Denyer, D.; Tranfield, D.; Van Aken, J.E. Developing design propositions through research synthesis. Organ. Stud. 2008, 29, 393–413. [CrossRef] 61. Andriushchenko, K.; Liezina, A.; Kuchai, O.; Petukhova, H. Corporate University as a Business Accelerator in the Field of Education. World 2022, 3, 657–671. [CrossRef] 62. Leitão, J.; Pereira, D.; Gonçalves, Â. Business Incubators, Accelerators, and Performance of Technology-Based Ventures: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 46. [CrossRef] 63. Anastasiei, B.; Dospinescu, N.; Dospinescu, O. The impact of social media peer communication on customer behaviour—Evidence from Romania. Argum. Oeconomica 2022, 2022, 247–264. 64. Newell, R.; Newman, L.; Mendly-Zambo, Z. The Role of Incubators and Accelerators in the Fourth Agricultural Revolution: A Case Study of Canada. Agriculture 2021, 11, 1066. [CrossRef] 65. Bergmann, T.; Utikal, H. How to Support Start-Ups in Developing a Sustainable Business Model: The Case of an European Social Impact Accelerator. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3337. [CrossRef] 66. Pittaway, L.; Robertson, M.; Munir, K.; Denyer, D.; Neely, A. Networking and innovation: A systematic review of the evidence. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2004, 5, 137–168. [CrossRef] 67. Cao, Z.; Shi, X. A systematic literature review of entrepreneurial ecosystems in advanced and emerging economies. Small Bus. Econ. 2021, 57, 75–110. [CrossRef] 68. Mian, S.A. University’s involvement in technology business incubation: What theory and practice tell us? Int. J. Entrep. Innov. Manag. 2011, 13, 113–121. [CrossRef] 69. Centobelli, P.; Cerchione, R.; Esposito, E. Knowledge management in startups: Systematic literature review and future research agenda. Sustainability 2017, 9, 361. [CrossRef] 70. Cohen, B.; Muñoz, P. Toward a theory of purpose-driven urban entrepreneurship. Organ. Environ. 2015, 28, 264–285. [CrossRef] 71. Cohen, S.; Hochberg, Y.V. Accelerating Startups: The Seed Accelerator Phenomenon. 2014. Available online: https://papers.ssrn. com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2418000 (accessed on 1 November 2022). 72. Cohen, S.L. How to Accelerate Learning: Entrepreneurial Ventures Participating in Accelerator Programs. Doctoral Dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA, 2013.