Level 3 - Cross-cutting Variables
These variables apply to any venture builder regardless of top-level category. Use them for mapping (characterising individual builders) and for policy analysis. The table shows how each variable manifests differently across the three categories.
| Variable | Independent | Corporate | University / Research-linked |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venture origin | Internal ideation, external founder recruitment, or IP scouting - all are valid variants of the same independent model | Internal corporate ideation or open innovation from external founders/startups - determined by the parent's strategic agenda | Research IP, faculty knowledge, or student ideas originating from the linked institution - venture origin and governing entity are the same |
| Funding model | Fund model (management fees + carry), balance-sheet model (equity returns reinvested), bootstrapped, or hybrid combination | Corporate parent budget; may raise external co-investment but the parent sets the financial mandate | University budget, institutional funds, grants, TTO royalties, endowment. Key: IP contribution by researchers replaces the financial investor role |
| Value capture / equity | Direct equity (30–80% typical); sometimes revenue share or licensing; return measured against fund or balance-sheet performance | Equity stake, IP retention, licensing to parent, or spin-out valuation at transfer - return measured against parent's strategic objectives | Licensing arrangements, equity kept low (<20% total to keep cap table VC-ready), royalty share, or revenue share. Non-standard by design. |
| Team model | Permanent in-house operator team + recruited entrepreneurs-in-residence; external specialists as needed; fully commercial HR terms | Internal corporate team; may include EIRs recruited externally; often constrained by parent HR frameworks and compensation structures | Faculty as IP source and technical advisor; EIRs as operational founders; studio team as operators. Three distinct roles rarely held by one person. |
| Governance | Private board; founders or fund LPs control; often dual-entity (operating studio + investment fund); fast decision-making by design | Corporate governance hierarchy; studio is a subsidiary or business unit; strategic decisions routed through parent structures | 3A: full institutional governance. 3B: separate legal entity, institution as owner, professional board. 3C: multiple institutions as joint stakeholders. |
| Geographic scope | City/national to global; no geographic mandate; follows market opportunity | Aligned to parent company's geographic footprint and markets; increasingly global as corporates internationalise | Typically single-institution or regional; multi-institution (3C) models are cross-border by design; geography follows research strength not market opportunity |
| Stage of entry | Idea / pre-formation; typically exits active involvement at Series A–B when venture can stand independently | Idea to pilot; corporate parent may stay actively involved beyond formal spin-out if strategic dependency continues | Pre-IP-disclosure to venture formation; longer runway than commercial builders; deep-tech and life sciences require extended involvement (3–7 years typical). |
| Sub-types |
|
|
|
Additional cross-cutting variables - apply to all categories
Sector focus: horizontal (generalist) or vertical (sector-specialist - health, climate, fintech, defence, deep tech)Team model: permanent in-house operators / EIRs / rotating external specialists / mixedGovernance model: private board / corporate hierarchy / hybrid institutional board / multi-stakeholderPortfolio size & pace: number of ventures built per year; simultaneous vs sequential buildingVenture origin (Level 3 detail): internal ideation / external founder / research IP / commissioned briefSource quality: confidence level in classification during mapping (high / medium / low / boundary case)