The Accelerator Conundrum: Missing Research Framework

Academic research on startup accelerators has undeniably provided valuable insights into the traditional model, largely defined by fixed-term, cohort-based, mentorship-driven programs culminating in a demo day and typically involving seed investment for equity. However, the pioneering model of 1Mby1M highlights significant gaps in this established academic framework.

The core premise of 1Mby1M — “Entrepreneurship = Customers + Revenues + Profits; Financing and Exit are optional” — challenges several implicit assumptions embedded in much of the existing research. This perspective, focusing on fundamental business viability over capital infusion, demands new avenues of inquiry and a re-evaluation of what constitutes “success” and “acceleration.”

Here’s what’s missing from the current academic research framework, brought into consideration by the 1Mby1M model:

Missing from the Academic Research Framework

1. The “Bootstrapped First” and “Capital Efficiency” Paradigms:
   • Current Research Focus: Heavily biased towards venture-backed startups. Success metrics (funding raised, valuation, unicorn status) predominantly reflect the venture capital (VC) paradigm.
   • What’s Missing: A deep understanding of how accelerators like 1Mby1M support, enable, and “accelerate” startups that prioritize bootstrapping, revenue generation, and profitability before or instead of seeking external financing. Research on bootstrapping often exists in a separate silo from accelerator studies. They need to coexist.
   • Research Questions:
     • How do non-equity, revenue-focused accelerators impact the long-term viability, profitability, and organic growth rates of startups compared to VC-backed ones?
     • What unique challenges and advantages do bootstrapped businesses face in accelerator programs, and how are these addressed (or not) by different models?
     • Are there distinct characteristics of founders who opt for revenue-first vs. funding-first approaches, and how do different accelerator models cater to these profiles?
2. The “Financing and Exit as Optional” Perspective:
   • Current Research Focus: Exits (acquisitions, IPOs) and subsequent funding rounds are often used as primary indicators of accelerator success.
   • What’s Missing: A robust framework for evaluating “success” for companies where financing and exit are not the immediate or ultimate goals. This includes:
     • Sustainable, Profitable Businesses: How do accelerators contribute to building businesses that are self-sufficient and profitable over the long term, even if they never raise significant outside capital or achieve a large exit?
     • Founder Lifestyle Businesses / Small Giants: Understanding the role of accelerators in supporting businesses that achieve financial independence for their founders and employees, rather than just maximizing shareholder value for external investors.
   • Research Questions:
     • What are appropriate metrics for evaluating the “acceleration” of profitability and cash flow generation, rather than just fundraising velocity?
     • How do accelerator curricula and mentorship differ when the primary goal is profitability versus rapid scale-up for exit?
     • What is the long-term economic impact of a greater number of sustainable, profitable businesses versus a smaller number of high-growth, often unprofitable, VC-funded ventures?
3. The “Long-Term, Continuous Engagement” Model:
   • Current Research Focus: Predominantly on the impact of short-term (3-6 month), intensive, cohort-based programs.
   • What’s Missing: Research on the effectiveness and optimal design of long-term, continuous strategic guidance models like 1Mby1M. The “sprint” model is well-studied, but “marathon” support is less so.
   • Research Questions:
     • What are the benefits and drawbacks of continuous, long-term mentorship and community support compared to short, intensive sprints?
     • How does the impact on founder resilience, strategic decision-making, and adaptation to market changes differ in long-term vs. short-term programs?
     • What specific mechanisms in a long-term, virtual model foster ongoing learning, accountability, and problem-solving?
4. The Purely Virtual, Global-First Model from Inception:
   • Current Research Focus: While virtual accelerators gained traction during the pandemic, much of the research on “virtual” still compares it to established physical models, or looks at programs that pivoted to virtual.
   • What’s Missing: A deep dive into the unique advantages and challenges of programs that were designed as purely virtual from their inception, with a global reach as a core tenet, like 1Mby1M.
   • Research Questions:
     • How does a natively virtual, global platform facilitate cross-border entrepreneurship and market entry compared to geographically tied accelerators?
     • What are the pedagogical and community-building advantages/disadvantages of a truly global, virtual program?
     • How does direct, individual-level strategic guidance from a single principal (like Sramana Mitra in 1Mby1M) compare in impact to a diverse pool of rotating mentors?
     • How does 1Mby1M’s case study based curriculum offer scalability and impact by incorporating the lessons from the trenches and success Playbooks of thousands of entrepreneurs?
5. Subjective Value and Founder Experience Beyond Quantitative Metrics:
   • Current Research Focus: Largely quantitative, relying on observable metrics like funding rounds and employee count.
   • What’s Missing: A more nuanced understanding of the subjective value and transformational impact on founders themselves, especially in programs that emphasize strategic clarity, mindset shifts, and the pursuit of a specific vision (like 1Mby1M’s emphasis on positioning, capital-efficient growth, and long-term viability).
   • Research Questions:
     • How do non-financial outcomes (e.g., founder learning, decision-making quality, resilience, satisfaction with business trajectory) get “accelerated” by different program types?
     • What is the perceived value of an unbiased, non-dilutive strategic sounding board for founders at various stages?

The academic community has done an excellent job of dissecting the traditional 3-month, cohort-based, equity-driven accelerator model. 

However, to truly understand the full spectrum of entrepreneurial support, it must broaden its scope to rigorously study pioneering models like 1Mby1M that challenge conventional wisdom and offer alternative pathways to startup success, where customers, revenues, and profits are the primary drivers, and external financing is a strategic choice, not a prerequisite. 

This expansion of the research framework will provide a more comprehensive and accurate picture of the diverse ways entrepreneurship is “accelerated” in the 21st century.

Photo Credit: Nyamdorj from Pixabay

This segment is a part in the series : The Accelerator Conundrum