Mathew, is it fair to assume that regardless of the hype, we are not doing enough to identify and support the "Start-ups" in the community. A few challenges I see: 1) Ideas are cheap, executing a start-up launch requires support. 2) Start-ups are small, they lack the political influence that traditional industries may have. 3) Start-up founders are focused on their business not lobbying government. I have often heard Canadian entrepreneurs state, "If you are waiting for the Government, you are already out of business!" 4) Start-up founders are typically young (that depends on your definition of young!) a demographic notorious for low voter turnout. No "what's in it for me" for politicians. 5) There are more investments in "talk" then there are in actual "entrepreneurs". 6) "Available Wealth", is it safe to assume that in an economy like Cape Breton that the lack of jobs encourages the search for alternatives to traditional employment? Seems a bit if a catch 22, I have no job so maybe I will start my own business, but because I have no job I have no money thus starting a business is economically out of reach. 7) Adversarial History - Business versus People; We have an aging population and a rather "Proud" history of people standing up to big business, how does this translate into building a strong start-up community? Is this a fair assessment?

Chris ... your comment has more items than I can address right now, but the short answer is that I do not think there is enough being done to give the sector a strong chance at long term success. I know that some people disagree with me and do not like me saying this out loud, but it's how I feel because it is supported by my experiences over the past 20 years.

Mathew, the truth is, although I live in Cape Breton, the past 15 years of my life have been spent working with US and European businesses, thus I am re-discovering the Cape Breton landscape as I work to bring Lean MVNO to market. Perhaps you could type a paragraph or ten on what you, based on your experience, believe needs to be done? For example, do we need to invest in 20 startups with a pool of $2 Million and walk them through the start up life cycle?

What lead you to decide to return Christian? I've also spent the majority of my time from 2000 to 2014 living in the states (California, Puerto Rico, Florida). For me, the loss of my dad put things in perspective. When my first nephew was born in April 2014, I met him and made the decision to stay and make my own way here. It helped knowing that all of my previous software related projects made money predominately sourced from the United States, but none required me to be anywhere in particular beyond the key qualifying factor: Access to high speed Internet. :) If, however, I could move my entire remaining family in one fell swoop, I would take them to Tampa.

Chris, I would be happy too if and when I see a pot of money dedicated to facilitating entrepreneurship and economic development in the right way. Until then, it's a waste of time drumming up ideas that will not get implemented. But, I have written some general thoughts on the matter here: "5 things you need to know about fostering entrepreneurship" http://mediaspark.com/5-things-you-need-to-know-about-entrepreneurship.html And here: "The Epic History of the Tech Sector on Cape Breton Island!" See FORWARD on page 36 ... https://capebreton.lokol.me/the-epic-history-of-the-tech-sector-on-cape-breton-island

From your article: "Contrary to popular thinking, entrepreneurs are not created through education, startup seminars, networking events, business plan competitions, incubators, or lots of “talk”. They are created through life experience and the perfect timing of events, often beyond our control. Discovering a future entrepreneur is like finding a needle in a haystack." and: "Sure, you can try all of those common strategies and you will find a few, but the real solution is to let entrepreneurs discover themselves and each other. This is accomplished by exposing entire communities to entrepreneurship and facilitating all of the activities that contribute to the creation and success of entrepreneurs. Many of those activities may not even appear to have anything to do with entrepreneurship, but they are all part of the magic process." When you say "accomplished by exposing entire communities to entrepreneurship and facilitating all of the activities...", many would argue that stuff like "startup seminars, networking events, business plan competitions, incubators", etc, would be a large part of that process.

Part II: However, when I attended the Web 2.0 Expo in San Francisco a few years ago, I remember having a similar feeling. Specifically, while it was fun to hit the streets of San Francisco again, I felt like there wasn't anything at that conference that couldn't have turned up somewhere on slideshare, or by paying attention to tech blogs. It was the same with my time at MIT Sloan. They actually had a session where they talked about networking strategies at meetings and gave such best practice tips as standing close to the bar to intercept people... stuff I could have (and already had) read in various sales/marketing/networking books. Despite the prestige, I was in a work group doing 100-level (if that) type activities with a Russian guy whose family controlled a multi-billion dollar military manufacturing company. I wonder if he intercepts people at the bar at networking events now and if it's impact their sales? :) Contrast with the Launch Conference in San Francisco where 100s of active entrepreneurs, VCs, tech media, etc, were on site. I was in the demo pit. There was money being awarded on site, with deals being done (angel, VC, conference awards). You could see people demo what they were working on and their passion. I left there feeling inspired and ready to work even harder. If you asked me what I might have learned there, I can recall two things off hand: > A South African VC who had a long chat with me told me that the Valley ultimately scales every startup in the same way. When the product is ready, they put major dollars into advertising. And to be competitive, you need to have VC available to make major investments in bringing people onboard. He said it was his expectation for every startup they invest in. Think: #Trivago :P > Walt Mossberg of Recode told me essentially: I like what you're building here. Call me when you have 1,000 users. I want to see traction then we can potentially give you a showcase.

Part III: My key takeaway is often: Just get to work: Create value and deliver it. ► I'm curious as to if you would recommend transitioning away from those types of strategies, adapting them, or just adding another layer? Lately, I have been thinking about whether or not organic development of a startup culture will be effective in the short-term (5-10) years. I have the feeling that rather than wait for the maturation of a new crop of developed entrepreneurs, we may need to seed that process by bringing ones in that are already developed. Spark CB has already showed signs of being effective in that regard (recruiting a young entrepreneur from Boston to Cape Breton). Would money be enough to poach away young entrepreneurs working on great concepts in other incubation environments within Canada or the United States? Let them become a (welcomed, strategically introduced) "invasive species" that dominate and adapt our ecosystem and bring our developing entrepreneurs along for the ride. Sorry Richard! ("invasive species") :P

RE: invasive species - I'm okay with that as long as none rip out of anyone else's chest and start devouring people. Seriously though, recruiting people who have no pre-existing ties to the community has always been a challenge. Although there are some who develop emotional ties or are drawn the natural beauty of the place, most tend to leave in the long run. I think it's a numbers game. We need to attract hundreds to keep a percentage who will find a home. And creating ways for newcomers to interact with the broader community is an important part of the equation.

Perhaps we should only fund *single* entrepreneurs. I mentioned this idea in the doctor recruitment discussion as well. In additional to them having greater flexibility in making the move, developing a relationship here would be something that could be a powerful force in keeping them rooted. This is especially true for Americans who would have a "barrier to departure" in that they could not bring their partner with them (if returning to the United States) easily, even if married. People have been recognizing the economic argument for leaving for many years. I think we've had something like a 75% drop off in school enrollment in 40 years (a good indicator of our trends). So it's hard to expect someone who is not from here to recognize the value of living and working here when our own people are leaving - even if reluctantly so, via economic necessity. Maybe bring *back* people who have left and made it elsewhere, considering Mathew as an example of how that might work, re: his return from Toronto to take advantage of new entrepreneurial opportunities here. Then, at the 2nd level, getting them to recruit their friends and colleagues from those regions. When I worked with the Louisbourg 1995 Commemoration Society, they had us go door to door asking people to give us the names of their family members away whom we could then invite to come home for the summer to see the "grand encampment" at the Fortress and all that events that were planned that year. I don't know how effective that was, but it was an interesting strategy. But when we get them here, our CED partners need to get equity in their initiatives. That way, even if they up and leave, there is an insurance policy in play.

Joe ... first, thanks for reading my stuff. The answer to your question is YES, those types of activities are indeed part of that process. My argument is not that those things are not useful or important - they are. The red flag that I try to raise is that we need BOLD and COHESIVE action to create sustainable CED. I want to see us SOLVE our economic problems once and for all. Rearranging the lawn chairs on the Titanic may make us feel like we are making progress, but the ship is still sinking. Let's not let anything distract us from fixing the ship. The most important part of that Foreward I wrote is this: "For instance, we hear frequent calls for more and better educated people, or more research and development, more entrepreneurial start ups, more incubators, more clusters, etc. Efforts are then undertaken to develop one, or another, of these pillars with no regard for how it fits into the larger picture. As a result, we end up training people for jobs that don’t exist, performing research and development that can’t be locally commercialized, supporting start up that can’t find financing after the seed stage, building incubators without companies to foster, and promoting clusters without a workforce ready to support their business operations or a market ready to support the kind of competition which leads to industry leadership. Pursuing such an approach is like building the individual gears of a machine, but installing them so that the teeth do not engage. Viewed individually, each gear might look like it is spinning and moving well, but the overall machine isn’t going anywhere and, eventually, it runs out of fuel, or burns itself out. Focusing on pillars in isolation is one of the key reasons that economic development efforts continue to fail – and will continue to fail."

It sounds like the UIT program might be something that makes the gears fit better for those participating. I'm very bullish based on what I know of that program. At the risk of sounding a bit like taking a Ron Paul approach to CED here's a thought experiment: What would be the total funding that could be had if we took the operating budgets and investment capital pools of all CED related groups operational here, abolished them, and then divided the total spoils by $50k. How many entrepreneurs could be employed for 1 year toward a startup product/service? Or divide by $150k, to see how many could be given up to 3 years of runway based on milestone achievement?

Doesn't matter. It's not going to happen. Better to focus time and energy on what's possible.

It just gives pause to consider the ROI of CED-related orgs, and to begin building the case for an ecosystem-wide adaptation of strategy. As Bob said: "The metrics were based on a program that was done 20 years ago leading to the formation of the afore mentioned companies. I believe they were started with approximately $40,000 to cover the founder salary. Of course they were able to raise more funds to continue the ball rolling but it was essentially the founder wage thing that got it rolling." You also noted in your critique of the CBGF how millions were spent on redundant, frustratingly slow consultation, and "Open for Business" wasn't really open for business unless you were a call center. If Bob's analysis holds true, and there is continued wastefulness of programs that you don't think are all that effective, repurposing those resources for something like: an expanded scale, free-tuition, UIT program with it feeding directly into the secondary phase of Spark Cape Breton "Startup Apprentice" program, with in-house capital raising specialists available to service the apprentices, we might have something turnkey develop. I'm thinking funnels. It's going to bear itself out organically now anyway, but should be formalized: I'll go on record of predicting that one of the UIT Startup teams from the inaugural class is going to win an award of a minimum of $25k, and more likely $50k in the current Spark Cape Breton III (currently in phase 1 evaluation). The particular team of 2 I'm referencing would be valuable to award a prize even without reading their business plan *if* we can keep them operating here and trying things out. They seem to have complementary skillsets, drive, and are integrating within the CED-related ecosystem as it exists now. In my previous long winded brainstorming video, ramping up UIT with 100 students a year with free tuition was one of my recommendations.

Oh, I see what you are trying to do here Joe ... you are trying to add rationale thinking to economic development in Cape Breton .... that's where you are going wrong :-) It doesn't matter what rationale business case can be built because that's not what gets the big money flowing around here ... and we need big money to implement the full solution, otherwise depending on organic growth is like buying a lottery ticket. That's why I gave up trying to come up with rational business cases and plans years ago. Now, I only spend time on implementing local economic development solutions (like goCB.com) that I have control over and know cannot get hijacked by local politics and bureaucracy. Of course, some rationale stuff does happen in Cape Breton, like SPARK. But, it takes years to develop even something small like that (when it shouldn't). And, it's not enough. It's one cog in the machine.

So maybe one small step, achievable, with predictable outcomes... and no prefeasibility required... might be getting the CBRM to match Spark CB's $250k budget and immediately expand that program by 2X. That would be less than the liquidation discount they gave the Archibald Wharf buyers in that intense and grueling negotiation. :P I'm attempting to think of it as an analyst, as though I had the power to put some of these strategies in place myself. But rationally, I know the only inkling of influence I have is jumping into the right networks (e.g. goCB) and repeating myself until a few earworms latch on to the right people. And, yes, I will continually abuse the use of metaphor in so doing. :) I'll be surviving on a month's salary this year. So, I'm nothing if not persistent! #bootstrap

Mathew, may I ask a question? Make that two questions. If a person has the cure for cancer is it not incumbent upon them to share that knowledge? Obviously I am putting you on the spot here. But if there's a better way, then we can explore opportunities to make it work. Just a thought.

Chris ... time spent on a cure wasted if the patient won't ever take the medicine.

What if we want the medicine but can't find a family doctor to write the prescription? :P

Mathew, by nature I am opportunistic, you have identified a problem which sounds to me like an opportunity to create a business around that problem. So what are the pillars? What defines the wider approach. It can always be taken in house.

Entrepreneurs in Cape Breton each have two core businesses: 1. Their startup, 2. Their Macgyver project. If you are among the best in your field, or have a great startup concept, the rational move is not to stay here in adverse conditions. Would a frog stay sitting in a puddle of muddy water, or would he skip over to the pond? Anyone that starts a business should be focused on #1. That is their startup itself. Product/service, business model, finance, team recruitment, development, etc. However, when you stay in a non-ideal environment for doing so, you end up inheriting #2: The Macgyver project. Essentially, not only do you have to be outstanding, you also have to do outstanding things with the limitations of what is around you at the time. An additional layer of challenge that we need to accept with our entire ecosystem from startup founders to employees to business development groups to our academics is: We are not the best of the best. Just as the frog moved from puddle to pond, it is only appropriate that the best among us will make the rational move to go work or build businesses (or lives) wherever the environment is most supportive of their objectives and has more to reward them for their achievements.

Now, at the risk of offending a whole bunch of people in our startup ecosystem, I'll add the following: For those of us who actually are at the upper echelon of talent in our respective career or expertise niches, we are most likely here primarily *only* because we are somehow culturally, but more likely rooted here by family - some *barrier to rational departure*. It's sort of like putting the frog into an aquarium with a suitable mate to distract him/her from the lure of the pond. When that happens, it's a win for our local ecosystem. And we do have brilliant people here and some success stories. However, I'd be very surprised if it measured up to other locations where you would expect rational decision makers to set up shop. How do you expand the aquarium? Can you turn the puddle into a pond? And how do we make those transformations when the people trying to do so may not be the best of the best either - when it comes to doing what is required to get us there? Everyone here at every layer of the economic ecosystem has to do some Macgyvering. But we aren't all Macgyvers. We need to call in the A-Team, and start innovating the entire ecosystem itself. As two simple examples: 1. The pulling teeth and costly process of incorporating just so that I could get access to some micro-seed capital. Incorporating takes more than 15 minutes online? 2. The discussion we're engaging in on this site about the immensity of the task of trying to navigate all the different CED-related groups and programs that are overlapping and competing against one another in the region? (Lending tree / FindtheBest adaptation of process) https://capebreton.lokol.me/the-whos-who-and-what-they-really-do There are some small advances we could start with.

Hi Joe, I respect your opinions regarding Cape Breton as a place to live. Is it an easy life? Probably not, but personally I believe the right people with the right mindset can succeed. As I pointed out above, there are people creating opportunities, they are succeeding, simply not at the rate it could be. I have relationships with companies around the world, they don't care that I live in Cape Breton (until they fly here!). If this is the mud puddle? Then the planet is the pond and I can jump in when ever I want. I am not bound by geography simply challenged by obstacles that need to be overcome. I believe we know what the challenges are, we simply need to come up with ways to over come them. Game of Thrones strategies without cutting off too many heads!

IT is fantastic. That's the only reason I think I have a shot at making it here (in a desirable way) long term. Either I'm successful with my business or I join somewhere locally that already is. But imagine one of us landed $2 Million in VC money to for a new software startup. Let's say we need to hire a team of 10 people (database, servers, software, design, testing, etc). How likely are we able to get a team of 10 highly skilled developers to come work for us? How long will it take, and how much would we have to offer in salary to pull them away from other markets that are paying high salaries and more metropolitan lifestyles? Would 80% or more of our team have to work remotely? Would we be forced to start poaching employees from our fellow software companies here? I have no choice but to bootstrap it with a tiny bit of funding winding down. In my previous business, we had a transition from actually running out of *all* money to ramping things up to $60k a month in software licensing fees with very low overhead. So it's par for the course and gives me a feeling of less risk aversion as I already know what the path is like and the outcome when you make it. However, if I had that $2 Million offer, it would be challenging to avoid considering if the rational business move is to take the entire company to a market where I can access human resources more expediently. Side note: I'm very curious about the Techlink employees. Are they sticking it out relying on shared income, getting by with EI and hoping a new opportunity will arise, landing remote working positions, or have any of them simply taken job offers and left?

We're going to have to create a filter which applies a 3-metaphor-limit per post or comment. 8^)

So, if I can summarize what I'm hearing .... minus the metaphors ... here it is ... "It's hard to make a business case to have an export-oriented tech business in Cape Breton. So, the people who are here and doing it are doing so for some other reason(s)."

It's hard to make a case for a business in Boston too, according to the article. Perhaps we should all come together, reach out to some VCs in California and say, "Hello, we have X number of businesses and Y number of start-ups and we want to move them all to California, want to invest in the whole lot?

Sarcasm by the way!

For my part, I'll try to condense it: Top tier professionals in any sector will be drawn to the most prominent markets for what they do and Cape Breton isn't one of them. Ergo, top tier professionals that are here likely have some other cultural or family reason for making the career sacrifice. This may introduce challenges for building a team, and may lead to a disadvantaged position versus our startup competitors in leading markets. But startups are not the only ones potentially impacted. Every single organization type (CED, academic, other) will have the same challenges. It's not that business is not possible here. We have case studies that it is. Thank goodness the shipping rates are great for SaaS products! ;)

What would life be without metaphors? For the metaphor establishes a fountain of literary prose designed to tease the meaning out of the sea of potential meaning filling the void that is the tapestry of life.

Consider yourself filtered!

If I don't use them, it'll end up being 10-part posts. :P

Bob, is that report available for us to check out? Online? 40% success rate seems quite high. What was the qualifying metric? I really would love to dig into that report! :) Of the 6 companies, one similar success metric may be the level of funding achieved as well. Majority have had significant funding, though I'm not sure at what point in the startup lifecycle it came about. Regarding the GoInstant exit, I think your suggestion is right on the mark. In fact, I've been thinking about how it would be great for Innovacorp or any CED-related funding body have equity in these companies (including for Spark CB). If they ever get to the stage where they get significant VC capital from a larger market or reach an exit, if we ever did produce a "unicorn", the proceeds from that exit would really open the door for amazing things. Imagine increasing the Spark budget by 10x each year. As the fund grows, Spark CB would probably start being massively effective at bringing in entrepreneurs from other provinces, the USA, or beyond.

Here's the link to the main study: http://capebretonpartnership.com/documents/13_Prosperity%20Gap%20Study%20Update%202011.pdf The metrics were based on a program that was done 20 years ago leading to the formation of the afore mentioned companies. I believe they were started with approximately $40,000 to cover the founder salary. Of course they were able to raise more funds to continue the ball rolling but it was essentially the founder wage thing that got it rolling. The success rate of the companies started in that program was amazing - they all survived (with Dynagen moving to Halifax and TechLink only failing recently). In the model, a more conservative approach was taken where the majority failed and only one saw substantial growth like the companies mentioned. In year three now with Spark, it's interesting to see the impact on positive attitude alone. Still early to be measuring impact, but as the Demo Day showed, there's great things happening quickly.

Very cool. Thank you for the link, Bob. Definitely will check it out. Side note: Has there been more than 3 rounds of Spark CB?

Only 3 rounds of Spark so far (round 3 in process now). There is also the I-3 Technology Start-Up Competition, it's every two years with 2 winners per year. It's great, but not able to close that prosperity gap on its own.

Just read the report. Was there another report where Doug Lionais goes into the analysis of prior startup success, and describes the analysis on closing the gap with the startup development? I'd like to see that as well. It wasn't covered in the "Cape Breton Prosperity Gap" study. *** I see that Christian is asking similarly.

Great input Bob, is the recommendations section available where Dr. Doug Lionias made the case for investing in 5 start up businesses a year to close the prosperity gap? Or did this report frame the basis for that number? Simply curious as I would truly enjoy understanding the logic that supports the 2 in 5 success ratio.

That analysis was done separately to help build the case for what eventually became Spark. I'd have to search the archive. I'm with Mathew on these discussions guys. We've been there before and to try to make the rational business case doesn't seem to work. Spark is a great example of this. Sorry for delayed response as I couldn't reply via my BB and was out of office all day.

Hi Bob, I will accept that both you and Mathew have been there and done that. I will not accept that we can't identify the pillars and privately make it happen. To your previous point Bob, Spark has created a new level of awareness and seeding the field (sorry Richard, more metaphors!) we do however have to buy more seeds and fertilize the field. (I fear using the word fertilize has opened me up to Richard's metaphoric wrath). We simply need a few anchor businesses.

Without having much knowledge about the process for other programs, I'm very bullish on Spark Cape Breton. Having been through the process, its key highlight is that's a very low friction way of getting access to funding. If you can present your concept of business (at an early phase) as being a real opportunity (as it should be if capital is being invested), the process is very straight forward. And isn't that how it should be? Winning Spark Cape Breton was *far* easier and hassle free than actually incorporating my business. That was a pain in the ***. Inefficiente, wasteful process. Tangent: IMO, basic incorp should be completed online within 15 minutes. Recap: Spark CB funding was easier than incorporating. Present your opportunity in written form (lean canvas type of model), and then follow it up with a short pitch where the judges can hear your overview and question/probe some of your assumptions to see if it holds up. We can't ask for a much better format than that. I would only say that other CED-related entities including the CBRM need to start embracing the program fully and injecting more capital into it. We need to make more bets, to keep a pipeline of startup opportunities flowing, creating the potential for success stories but always having new options close behind. Look at this very platform as an example. goCapeBreton has already hired. Hey CBRM - that's job creation! Let's have an additional $250k per year matching Innovacorp's investment in our startup ecosystem. Rational/strategic business cases will ultimately prevail. Regardless of the potential lack of alignment between groups (or whatever the sense of discord I'm detecting), every stakeholder needs to continue pushing for more efficient/effective systems. We're in the era of digital marketing, and platforms like goCapeBreton are creating environments where (I believe) strong discussions and hashing out ideas *can* have real influence.

Recently discovered that you can incorporate online via Staples. I've mentioned it to a few people but don't have any feedback yet on the process. Here's the link: http://staples.corporation.ca/docen/pinc/home.asp

Not sure if this is something your team would do, Bob. But it would be cool for you guys to actually go through the process and see how streamlined it actually is, as a test case. I'll give you a business name you can use for the test. Kidding. :P When I started out, I fully expected I would be able to incorp myself. Then I searched for some online options. But I felt it was too much to risk if I was using the wrong service and that it would be a better idea to just ask for help from Venture Solutions to get me there. Process was still slow. To me, it boils down to ultimately being a forms template that you should be able to put your name and address on, give yourself all the shares, and whatever other filler declarations you have to make and submit (in the case of single founder incorporations). Though it shouldn't be much more complex for multiple founder incorporations either.

That's an amazing resource if it actually works well. Thanks for sharing. I'm going to add as a separate post under Startups.

I'd love to read the analysis about the startup criteria to close the prosperity gap. I'd like to know the economic model for the entire concept, but also be very curious as to the *profile* of a successful startup to see where I would have to line up with my own to be on that path (according to the model).

3 - Finally, while there are a number of funding pots around (and some new ones - the Island Future Fund announced yesterday), there are few formal funds that pool money from the community to invest in innovation companies. There have been some earlier attempts - Matt profiled the case of GENA in his history of the tech sector. The New Dawn Innovation Fund (disclosure - I am the chair, Bob sits on the board) does pool local money from local investors to reinvest in innovative local companies. It makes use of the CEDIF program from the NS gov; a great tool for reinvesting capital within the community.

How much capital is available in the New Dawn Innovation Fund, and how much is being distributed on an annual basis? Curious as to how pervasive that fund is within the startup community.

We (New Dawn) have been raising and distributing around 1.2M to 1.5M annually. That is targeted to a broad category of 'innovation'. In the last two years we have begun to look at the start-up community, but the fund is more geared towards established innovation firms, so the total raise has not and is unlikely to mostly go to startups - we simply are not at the scale (yet) where we can take on significant amounts of risk with local investor's money.

It would be interesting to make smaller investments for equity that might lead Stage 0 startups into later financing rounds from other sources.

Thank you very much for joining us, Doug. :) Are social and life factors recruitment enough to get to a pipeline of 5 per year with 40% success rate? Hiring 5 per year employees also implies either significant VC or rapid acceleration to revenue. At first glance, I'm not sure we have enough entrepreneurially minded people here to keep the pipeline full, nor the capital to hit those kinds of growth targets. *** Unless we un-dredge the harbor and get a refund. Kidding. :P Can you give some insight into what the "unique advantages" of the community are, or what the locational advantage might be? I'm here to stay, but I'm rooted by my family being here, not necessarily any strong belief that it's a great place to raise a family or provides significant advantages in so doing. I've been digging to try to get to the meat of this question. Do you believe that a lack of aggressive drive towards making their career a top priority in markets with a better business case would lead to a (on average) weakened pool of professionals? Or would there be no correlation?

All economic projections are based on a set of assumptions. The ones we chose were based on past performance of tech start ups in the area adjusted to be conservative. That, however, does not mean that those assumptions can extend into the future for the time period we project. So that is a weakness of the projection in that sense. The exercise was not to show exactly how many jobs could be created or exactly when entrepreneurial growth could close the prosperity gap on its own. The point is to demonstrate that within some relatively little investment and attention, start-ups could have a significant (even transformational) impact on the community. The evidence from I3 and Spark seem to show that we do have the entrepreneurial potential to keep the pipeline full. There is much more that needs to be done beyond just those programs, but the do show that there is a constant supply of decent entrepreneurs in CB.

Seems like the sample space might be too small there to be statistically meaningful in a predictive sense, but I'm not sure the method used. Perhaps, as in the prosperity gap report, you pulled in data from other similar communities within Canada to get more data on how startups might perform. Some of the early startups didn't get small investment defined by a local scale (Techlink as an example), but compared to United State's VC markets, definitely. But compared to Spark or I3, there are lots of reports of greater scale funding than those programs. I'm also curious about profitability and how many in the sample were actually self-sustainable without reliance on our various gov-sourced funding organizations. I think Spark is creating a tremendous kick off opportunity that some will take advantage of and survive - making it to the next phase of the biz life cycle. But I'm not sure the current volume is enough to keep the pipeline full in terms of startups that will perform like the case studies used, even if looked at conservatively. TBD. But I think it would be wise to put some insurance on that bet: Double/Triple/Quadruple that program, stat.

(cont'd) Idea: The New Dawn Innovation Fund should commit $50k to each Spark round. From the successful entries, the NDIF agrees to take an equity position in one standout in the group. That decision is entirely up to NDIF. Spark might pick company A for $50k and NDIF agree and offer and additional $50k for equity, or they could pick someone Spark offers a lower tier award, but they see additional value in. I saw the above done at the Launch Conference in San Francisco. Though there were cash prizes for the top pitchers at that conference, there were multiple deals done there by angels/VCs that were in attendance and liked what they saw. It's also kinda sorta similar to how AngelList creates syndicates or mirrored investments. If Jason Calacanis or Sequoia Capital thinks company B is a good bet, then I'm willing to risk some capital as well (some might reason). To hit the model numbers, I think we're going to need more capital flowing. Spark does its job for seed, but even at top awards we (i.e. individual startups) could not hire 5 people a year without additional funding, finance, revenue. A top award of $50k would sustain one founder comfortably enough for the year, but that's presuming the money was only needed for salary (very unlikely). That's essentially why it is and likely has to be a part-time or split focus initiative for many of the award recipients who can't do it full time and must maintain their jobs concurrently, or are already sustained by other active businesses.