Bachelor Thesis

Application of machine learning for a systematic analysis of the autonomous-vehicle

ecosystem

Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Technological Transformation

First supervisor: Prof. Dr. Dries Faems
Second supervisor: MS. Maxim Mommerency

Vallendar, May 27th, 2020

Lackmann, Carl Christian

20001540
11th November 1998 in Münster, Germany
Pleistermühlenweg 97
48155, Münster

I
 Abstract

Autonomous-vehicle (AV) technology is expected to disrupt the traditional automotive

industry. The German economy is particularly vulnerable due to its dependence on the
automotive sector and the weakness of its AV entrepreneurial ecosystem compared to the
Californian counterpart. Moreover, recent analyses of entrepreneurial ecosystems relied
frequently on databases to cluster entrepreneurial ecosystems. However, the approach is limited
in its ability to identify trends and latent patterns within ecosystems. Consequently, this study
has two research objectives.
First, I analyse the Californian ecosystem. The evaluation facilitates the identification
of implications for the German ecosystem to narrow the gap to its Californian counterpart.
Second, I apply the topic modeling algorithm CorEx to cluster entrepreneurial ecosystems. I
thereby focus on findings for entrepreneurial-ecosystem studies.
Regarding the methodology, I relied on reports of journals and academic research to
analyse the ecosystem. The findings were complemented by conducting interviews with venture
capitalists. Moreover, the applied machine-learning algorithm used data from Crunchbase and
other start-up databases to cluster the ecosystem.
The analysis reveals that the reasons for the gap between the ecosystems are manifold.
The insufficient cooperation between German AV start-ups and the automotive industry is
among the dominant causes for the difference. The insufficiency is partly a result of the
currently missing potential and relevance of German start-ups for the automotive companies.
Also, the reluctance of automotive corporations to adapt their processes to the requirements of
cooperating with start-ups is a likely cause. Concerning the second research objective, the
application of the CorEx algorithm led to insightful output. The ability to guide the model
through domain knowledge allows one to overcome limitations of unsupervised topic modeling
while facilitating a quicker implementation than is possible in a supervised approach. However,
further research is necessary to answer whether human influence in building topics interferes
with the unbiased identification of latent structures in texts.

II
III
IV
V
 Abbreviations
LIDAR: light detection and ranging v. laser detection and ranging
AV: Autonomous vehicle
VC: Venture capitalist
OEM: Original equipment manufacturer
LDA: Latent Dirichlet allocation
SWOT: Strength, weaknesses, opportunities, threats

Keywords
topic modeling, CorEx, autonomous vehicle, entrepreneurial ecosystem, entrepreneurial
studies, start-ups

VI
1. Introduction
Experts assume the development of autonomous-vehicle (AV) technology to affect various
areas significantly. Particularly influential could be the effect on the automotive industry. The
technology holds the potential to disrupt the traditional sector. Concurrently, the Californian AV
entrepreneurial ecosystem is in a pole position and has revealed an ability to use its past success
to become a leader in emerging technologies. Likewise, Germany is particularly vulnerable to
AV technology due to its dependence on the automotive sector and its weak AV ecosystem.
Furthermore, past analyses relied frequently on databases, such as Crunchbase, to cluster
entrepreneurial ecosystems. However, the approach is limited in its ability to identify trends
and latent patterns within the ecosystem.
Accordingly, this bachelor thesis addresses the application of a machine-learning
algorithm for a systematic analysis of the autonomous-vehicle ecosystem. Specifically, I
analyse the start-ups which are active in the autonomous-vehicle ecosystem by relying on the
results of applying the topic-modeling algorithm CorEx. Consequently, this thesis has two
research objectives. The first is to analyse the Californian autonomous-vehicle (AV) ecosystem
and outline its implications. This analysis of the leading Californian AV ecosystem facilitates
the drawing of insightful implications regarding the German ecosystem. Second, I aim to
contribute to research on topic modeling and thereby focus on findings for entrepreneurship
studies. Correspondingly, I reflect the methodology of applying the CorEx algorithm to identify
trends and latent patterns within the AV ecosystem.
Moreover, this thesis is relevant for policymakers, as it discusses different policies
which aim to stimulate entrepreneurial activity. Also, I seek to reveal insights for entrepreneurs
who are interested in founding a company in the AV ecosystem. Furthermore, the analysis
attempts to provide information which investors can incorporate into their investment decisions.
In addition, I aim to provide an overview for entrepreneurship scholars. Correspondingly, a
pronounced focus is placed on the methodology of the analysis. I outline the findings of
applying the CorEx algorithm to analyse an entrepreneurial ecosystem and accentuate the
differences to relying on alternative probabilistic generative models such as latent Dirichlet
allocation (LDA). Finally, further research avenues are outlined.
Moreover, a profound analysis requires clarification of an entrepreneurial ecosystem
and related concepts. Accordingly, I begin by providing a literature review to give a coherent
overview of relevant research into entrepreneurial ecosystems. I thereby outline the influential
stakeholders of the ecosystems. To provide a foundation for the subsequent analysis, I delineate
success factors and discuss methods to measure entrepreneurial activity. The literature review

1
concludes with a critical examination of existing research and an indication of possible future
research directions.
Further, to conduct the analysis, I relied on reports of journals and academic research.
Published findings were complemented with interviews with leading venture capitalists in the
AV ecosystem. To obtain data about the start-ups in the ecosystem, I used Crunchbase and
supplemented its information through further research. Moreover, the procedure of
implementing the machine-learning algorithm is outlined in the methodology Chapter.
Subsequent analyses of the categorized data were conducted using Microsoft Excel.
The findings reveal that California is among the leading AV ecosystem globally. Its
entrepreneurial activity is focused on three main hubs, namely Silicon Valley, the San Francisco
Bay area (excluding Silicon Valley) and Los Angeles. In addition, the ecosystem produced well-
funded technology leaders. The legislation by the U.S. government which ease and encourage
investments in start-ups contribute to the average funding of Californian AV start-ups of $151M.
The figure is significantly higher than the global average of $68M. Moreover, critical to the
ecosystem’s development is the Californian culture of collaboration. Leading Californian start-
ups belong to a network of companies which share resources and information with established
companies and other start-ups. Also, the expected unification of AV regulations in the United
States increases the attractiveness of Californian start-ups to investors and automotive
companies. However, the risk persists that large technology companies such as Google become
a deterrent increasingly for founders in the AV ecosystem, as they use their resources to gain a
competitive advantage.
Furthermore, the discussion of the implications for the German ecosystem revealed
insights for the ecosystem to narrow the gap to its Californian counterpart. First, unified
European rules regarding AV are essential to convince investors and automotive companies to
invest and collaborate with German AV start-ups. Concurrently, automotive corporations must
adapt their processes to the requirements of the cooperation with start-ups to stimulate
entrepreneurial activity and to stay competitive. Also, the absence of a German culture which
is characterized by cooperative entrepreneurial mindsets emerged from the discussion.
Especially freshly founded start-ups are averse to cooperation. This behaviour is limiting them
in their ability to grow. Lastly, the missing access to later-stage funding for start-ups is impeding
the emergence of German AV leaders.
The application of the CorEx algorithm led to insightful, reliable output. The ability to
guide the model through domain knowledge allows one to overcome limitations of

2
unsupervised topic modeling while facilitating a quicker implementation than is possible in a
supervised approach. Still, the involvement of human influence might interfere with one of the
ambitions of topic modeling: the unbiased identification of latent structures in texts. Also,
restrictions associated with relying on databases could be overcome by using a technique called
web scraping, which enacts additional sourcing of information from the websites of start-ups.

2. Literature Review
This literature review aims to provide a coherent overview of existing research which evaluates
the entrepreneurial ecosystem. I rely mainly on academic literature. To begin, I give an
overview of the development of the entrepreneurial ecosystem concept, followed by a review
of the definitions. Subsequently, the roles of the critical stakeholders in the ecosystem are
delineated. Thenceforth, I outline possible methods to measure the entrepreneurial ecosystem.
To conclude, the success factors and possible further research directions are accentuated.

2.1 The entrepreneurial ecosystem

The concept of an entrepreneurial ecosystem emerged in the 1980s and 1990s from the
understanding in entrepreneurship studies that entrepreneurial activity and innovation are
dependent on several factors and cannot solely rely on individualism. Hence, scholars began to
reject the notion ‘of the entrepreneur as a solitary Schumpeterian “economic superman”’ (Stam
& Spigel, 2017). Concurrently, van de Ven (1993) interprets entrepreneurship as a ‘collective
achievement’ which requires the engagement of entrepreneurs in the private and public sectors
(Van de Ven, 1993). Consequently, the focus of scholars shifted towards incorporating social,
cultural and economic factors into their studies (Spigel, 2017; Stam & van de Ven, 2019).

2.1.1 Definition of the entrepreneurial ecosystem

Nonetheless, despite its increasing importance and popularity, the concept is only vaguely
defined and measured. Hence, scholars have not agreed upon a specific definition of an
entrepreneurial ecosystem (Stam & van de Ven, 2019). However, clear patterns emerge when
the approaches to defining entrepreneurial ecosystems are compared. To begin, Ács et al. (2014)
who provide an insightful, often cited definition which states the entrepreneurial ecosystem as
the ‘dynamic, institutionally embedded interaction between entrepreneurial attitudes, ability,
and aspirations, by individuals, which drives the allocation of resources through the creation
and operation of new ventures’ (Ács et al., 2014).

3
 Many scholars perceive the definition offered by Baumol (1990) as comparatively
decisive. Baumol defines entrepreneurial ecosystems as ‘a set of interdependent actors and
factors coordinated in such a way that they enable productive entrepreneurship within a
particular territory’ (Baumol, 1990).
Furthermore, the literature about entrepreneurial ecosystems differs from established
research on industrial districts, clusters and innovation systems in the perception of start-ups.
While the latter often understand newly founded companies as smaller versions of corporations,
the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach regards them as ‘unique organisational entities with
different capabilities and resources’. Accordingly, research on entrepreneurial ecosystems
focuses less on large corporations and small and medium enterprises (SME) and preferably on
start-ups (Stam & Spigel, 2017).
The above-outlined definitions of entrepreneurial ecosystems are complemented by two
concepts which concern the attributes of entrepreneurial ecosystems. First, Isenberg (2011) has
developed the ‘six domains of the entrepreneurship ecosystem’. Subsequently, predicated on
Isenberg’s work, the World Economic Forum developed the ‘eight entrepreneurial ecosystem
pillars’. Accordingly, the two frameworks strongly overlap. The eight pillars contain the
following: ‘accessible markets, human capital/workforce, funding and finance, support system/
mentors, government and regulators framework, education and training, major universities as
catalyst and cultural support’, thus adding the two dimensions of education and training and
major universities as catalysts to the six domains of Isenberg’s entrepreneurship ecosystem
(Isenberg, 2011; World Economic Forum, n.d.)
Likewise, the separation of the entrepreneurial ecosystem into its components;
‘entrepreneurial’ and ‘ecosystem’ facilitates further analysis. Correspondingly, researchers
suggest that the entrepreneurial ecosystem shares characteristics with the biological ecosystem,
which is defined as ‘a community of living organisms (plants, animals, and microbes) existing
in conjunction with the nonliving components of their environment (air, water, and mineral
soil), interacting as a system […] linked together through nutrient cycles and energy flows’
(Lumen, n.d.). According to Stam and Spigel (2017), confirms the essence of this description
the definition of an entrepreneurial ecosystem in its dependence on the interaction of several
factors and stakeholders (Schumpeter, 1934; Stam & Spigel, 2017).
In addition, the component ‘entrepreneurial’ is defined as ‘a process in which
opportunities for creating new goods and services are explored, evaluated and exploited’
(Schumpeter, 1934; Stam & Spigel, 2017). The literature on the entrepreneurial ecosystem

4
approach, consequently, focuses on innovation and growth-oriented entrepreneurship ‘rather
than on the traditional statistical indicators of entrepreneurship, such as “self-employment” or
“small businesses”’ (Henrekson & Sanandaji, 2014a; Stam & Spigel, 2017).

2.2 Stakeholder analysis

As opposed to the preliminary view on entrepreneurial ecosystems which centred the
entrepreneurial activity solely around the entrepreneur, an entrepreneurial ecosystem is
dependent on the interactions of several further participants. Accordingly, in the following, I
outline and analyse the existing research on key stakeholders in an entrepreneurial ecosystem.

2.2.1 Entrepreneur
The entrepreneur is a vital participant in the entrepreneurial ecosystem. The characteristics of
an entrepreneur strongly influence the success of a company. In accordance therewith, Stam
and Spigel (2017) define the ambitiousness of the entrepreneur as a decisive aspect. They
conclude through empirical observation that entrepreneurs who are classified as ambitious are
more likely to internationalise and grow a company (Stam & Spigel, 2017).
Furthermore, Feldman (2014) underlines the essential role of entrepreneurs in creating
a persistent and healthy ecosystem (Feldman, 2014). Mack and Mayer (2016) supplement the
theory by arguing that the early entrepreneurial success in Phoenix, Arizona had a sustainable
positive impact on the further development of its ecosystem (Mack & Mayer, 2016). Isenberg
(2011) confirms this theory by accentuating his ‘law of small numbers’. The theory states that
the first entrepreneurial successes are relatively random but crucially influence the further
development of the ecosystem (Isenberg, 2011).
One possible primary explanation for this phenomenon is knowledge transfer.
Traditional knowledge refers to the ‘technical knowhow necessary to develop new products and
technologies and the market knowledge necessary to know which new products will succeed in
the marketplace’ (Cooke, 2001; Stam & Spigel, 2017). While some literature emphasizes that
this kind of knowledge influences the performance of ecosystems, scholars have introduced a
new type: knowledge about entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial knowledge refers to the know-
how entrepreneurs have about entrepreneurial tasks, such as how to present the business model
in front of potential investors or how to implement a new business model and overcome the
‘liability of newness’. Consequently, Lafuente (2007) stresses the importance of the role of the

5
entrepreneur as a mentor to transferring entrepreneurial knowledge (Lafuente et al., 2007; Stam
& Spigel, 2017).

2.2.2 Political decision-makers

Entrepreneurial ecosystems can contribute to the competitiveness of a region and, eventually,
to the welfare of its people through job creation and tax income. Nevertheless, as outlined
further below, misguidance can have destructive effects, thus, proving the importance of a
debate about policies concerning entrepreneurial activity.
The opinions of scholars regarding the role of policymakers share common
characteristics. First, scholars acknowledge the significant influence which institutions have on
entrepreneurial activity. Hence, destructive policies can have inhibitory effects.
Correspondingly, Sussan and Ács (2017) stress the importance of institutions in establishing a
trustworthy legal system. Without laws regulating property rights, entrepreneurs miss
incentives to innovate (Acemoglu & Johnson, 2005; Sussan & Ács, 2017). Likewise, the scholar
Baumol (1990) suggests that institutions can encourage and incentivise ‘productive activities’
like innovations, by implementing a ‘reward structure in the economy’. Otherwise, the risk
emerges that entrepreneurs will engage in ‘unproductive activities’ such as organised crime
(Baumol, 1990).
Moreover, Isenberg has developed nine principles which (public) leaders should
contemplate if they are to create an entrepreneurial ecosystem: (1) ‘stop emulating Silicon
Valley’, (2) ‘shape the ecosystem around local conditions’, (3) ‘engage the private sector from
the start’, (4) ‘favor the high potentials’, (5) ‘get a big win on the board’, (6) ‘tackle cultural
change head-on’, (7) ‘stress the Roots’, (8) ‘don’t overengineer clusters; help them grow
organically, (9) ‘reform legal, bureaucratic, and regulatory frameworks’ (Isenberg, 2010).
Furthermore, scholars conclude that the government should pursue the goal of stability
and trust. For instance, the crisis caused by the bursting of the dotcom bubble in March 2000
had substantial adverse effects on economic activity. (The Economist, 2014). Finally, in
alignment with the previous stated, Feld (2012) underlines the role of entrepreneurship policy
as a ‘feeder’ of the ecosystem rather than a ‘leader’ (Feld, 2012; Stam & Spigel, 2017).
Therefore, its role includes the creation of optimal frameworks and guidelines.

6
2.2.3 Universities
Universities provide various resources to entrepreneurial ecosystems. The institutions educate
the next generation of founders and employees. In this way, universities offer opportunities to
start-ups to inspire and recruit students. Moreover, research and cooperation with companies
help foster change and innovation (Stam & Spigel, 2017).
Also, university spin-offs, defined as ‘technological inventions developed from
university research that are likely to remain unexploited otherwise’, contribute to
entrepreneurial activity in start-up ecosystems (Shane, 2005).
The importance of universities is further highlighted by the California State University’s
annual contribution of $17 billion to economic activity (The California State University, 2019).

2.2.4 Venture capital

Generally, newly founded companies require vast quantities of capital to finance their
unprofitable early stages. However, banks perceive investments into start-ups as risky and
compensate by increasing their interest rates. Accordingly, selling equity to venture capitalists
can provide an affordable alternative financing to entrepreneurs (Samila & Sorenson, 2009).
Also, studies have revealed that the start-ups in which venture capitalists have invested
exhibit higher sales and employment growth rates than the average start-up (Jain & Kini, 1995).
Nevertheless, these findings could also result from the investment preferences of venture
capitalists.
However, ultimately, further investigations have identified a positive correlation
between an increase in venture capital and local company foundations, employment growth and
aggregate income expansion (Samila & Sorenson, 2009).

2.3 Measuring entrepreneurial activity

The direct causes of political decision-making on entrepreneurial activity have not been
sufficiently researched. However, to justify decisions, it is critical to ensure the development of
reliable measures of entrepreneurial activity. One often referred to ratio is ‘Total early-stage
Entrepreneurial Actity’ (TEA), which was developed by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
(GEM). The TEA indicates a ratio of entrepreneurial engagement among the working-age
population (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, 2020b). However, in several recent studies, the
rate is negatively correlated with growth and development (Ács et al., 2017; Henrekson &
Sanandaji, 2014).

7
 Accordingly, Ács et al. (2017) propose relying on a performance-based indicator to
measure entrepreneurial ecosystems. This proposal is in alignment with Terjesen et al., who
stress that the primary motivation for entrepreneurial ecosystems is ‘economic performance’
(Terjesen et al., 2017). In addition, Stam and Ács (2014, 2015) conclude that the primary
objective of an entrepreneurial ecosystem is the production of successful entrepreneurs and
companies (Ács et al., 2014; Stam, 2015).
Correspondingly, researchers have developed two approaches to quantify the
performance of an entrepreneurial ecosystem. First, Henrekson and Sanandaji (2014)
recommend the analysis of the 100 richest persons in the world published by Forbes Magazine.
Also, Ács et al. (2017) propose the number of newly founded companies valued at $1bn
(unicorns) as a further indicator of the performance of entrepreneurial ecosystems. However,
conversely, the absence of unicorns does not necessarily indicate the sickness of the ecosystem
(Ács et al., 2017).

2.4 Success factors of entrepreneurial ecosystems

The complexity of an entrepreneurial ecosystem impedes clear elaboration of the attributes
which influence the success of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Nevertheless, the six domains of
the entrepreneurship ecosystem listed by Isenberg (2011) provide a thorough attempt. Therefore
I structure the review predicated on that framework.
First, entrepreneurial activity requires diverse and educated talent if it is to stay
competitive. Accordingly, access to human capital predominantly influences the success of
newly founded companies. Universities, in particular, serve as relevant talent pools. Isenberg
(2011) further stresses the importance of ‘specific entrepreneurship training’, thus highlighting
the relevance of experienced entrepreneurs who are eager to educate.
Concurrently, a positive perception of entrepreneurship encourages entrepreneurial
activity. This image is, in turn, influenced by previous success stories of entrepreneurs in the
ecosystems. Furthermore, Isenberg considers societal norms such as tolerance of risk as a
success factor (Isenberg, 2011).
Moreover, access to various funding possibilities is vital to entrepreneurs. Newly
founded companies need to be fast if they are to establish a competitive advantage. This strategy
necessitates plenty of capital and mentorship. Accordingly, thriving ecosystems consist of a
network of investors, such as venture capitalists and business angels, who provide capital and
guidance (Isenberg, 2011; Stam & Spigel, 2017). Besides dependence on private funding, start-

8
ups and researchers require the availability of government subsidies. For instance, the
ecosystem in Singapore is actively assisted by government funds. Nevertheless, such payments
can contribute to the dependency of the ecosystem on state support (The Economist, 2014).
Additionally, the WHO and Isenberg stress the importance of accessibility to markets.
The latter subdivides this domain into accessibility to networks and early customers. Networks
contain, for instance, the ability to cooperate with multinational companies which can help to
scale the business. Second, accessibility to first customers refers to the ability to receive
feedback which can itself be used to adapt the minimum viable product (MVP). However, the
opinions of scholars diverge regarding the influence of this attribute on the success of
entrepreneurial ecosystems. Ács et al. (2017) underline that access to a large domestic consumer
market is neither a ‘necessary nor sufficient condition for a highly productive ecosystem’.
Dissenting researchers highlight the existence of thriving start-up ecosystems without direct
access to sizeable domestic markets such as Singapore and Israel. However, while the absence
of access to a broad local market is no limitation for an entrepreneurial ecosystem to become
successful, the lack of econometric research prevents us from drawing a conclusion about the
extent to which the absence might harm the development of the ecosystem (Ács et al., 2017;
Stam, 2015).
Also, to function, entrepreneurial ecosystems require various supports. Accordingly, the
government must ensure a reliable infrastructure. Second, newly founded companies rely on
the ability to outsource non-core activities such as legal and accounting. Consequently, the
absence of this possibility could limit the ability of start-ups to compete and eventually harm
entrepreneurial activity (Isenberg, 2010).
However, several further influences exist. For instance, Feld stresses the importance of
frequent interaction between the stakeholders. The frequency is reflected, for example, in the
density of networking events or in cooperation with more substantial companies (Feld, 2012).
Finally, the above-outlined factors contribute to the success of entrepreneurial
ecosystems; however, the extent of interaction between the elements is similarly critical (Stam,
2015).

2.5 Critical examination and concluding recommendation

The entrepreneurial ecosystem is a complex construct which is influenced by social, cultural
and economic factors. In addition, the characteristics of the ecosystems vary due to the
heterogeneity of the participants, thus preventing the application of a standardised approach in

9
literature and practice. To better understand and manipulate the existing ecosystems towards
higher performance, supplemental research is necessary. In particular, the effects of individual
political decisions need to be better examined. Currently, the recurrent inability to distinguish
between cause and effect prevents examination of the correlation between decisions and their
impacts (Bruns, et al., 2017). The role of econometric research should be reviewed, as the
research tends to treat relevant context such as the location of the ecosystem solely as a control
variable (Stam & Spigel, 2017).
Researchers should contribute to providing further evidence for the effect of
entrepreneurial ecosystems on aggregate welfare. Currently, leading researchers in the field
only vaguely note: ‘There is some evidence that entrepreneurship has positive aggregate
socioeconomic effects’ but without mentioning references (Ács et al., 2017). Accordingly,
quantifying and further elaborating evidence is a prerequisite to a justified allocation of state
assistance (Samila & Sorenson, 2009).

3. Methodology
In the literature-review chapter, I gave a coherent overview of the existing literature of
entrepreneurial ecosystems. The section serves as a foundation for the following chapters. The
next chapter discusses the methods applied in this study to conduct a thorough analysis of the
autonomous-vehicle entrepreneurial ecosystem. To clarify, I begin by reflecting the terminology
regarding autonomous vehicles. Subsequently, the research context is delineated, and its
relevance highlighted. Thenceforth, I describe the process of data collection and its analysis.
Specifically, I outline the procedure of implementing the machine-learning algorithm CorEx to
cluster and identify latent trends within the ecosystem and its differences to LDA.

3.1 Terminology of autonomous driving

While this thesis also considers start-ups which engage with autonomous vehicles such as
autonomous underwater vehicles or autonomous guided vehicles, one central part of the
ecosystem engages with the development of self-driving technology for passenger
transportation. However, inconsistencies have persisted in the terminology related to
autonomous driving, as highlighted in SAE J3016 (SAE International, 2014). Still, clarification
is essential since, according to BBC News, the confusion between ‘fully autonomous self-
driving cars and those that simply offer driver assistance technologies is leading to deaths on

10
the road’ (Leggett, 2018). Accordingly, SAE J3016 has developed an unambiguous definition
of the levels of driving automation, as depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1: SAE J3016 Levels of driving automation [Own depiction]

3.2 Research context

The development of autonomous driving technology will affect society in several dimensions.
The impact can be differentiated into three aspects.

3.2.1 Safety
First, the casualty rate of passenger transportation has decreased tremendously since the 1970s.
The introduction of seat belts and airbags, amongst other innovations, has helped to lower the
rate significantly. Currently, the development and implementation of advanced driver
assistance-systems (ADAS) further lower the rate. Equipping all traffic participants with ADAS
could reduce the total deaths from crashes involving passenger vehicles by 29% (Benson et al.,
2018). Correspondingly, experts assume reaching full vehicle autonomy (i.e., Level 5 of SAE
J3016 levels of driving automation) will have a significant positive impact on passenger safety.
However, regulatory barriers and the insufficient safety of the existing technology has
prevented the introduction of full vehicle automation to vehicles (Benson et al., 2018; Kille,
2014; SAE International, 2018).

3.2.2 Environment
Second, consider the effects on the environment. Studies have revealed a potential reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions, mainly caused by two factors. First, autonomous vehicles are
believed to reduce the car-ownership rate. Second, the autopilot setting offers the potential to

11
increase the energy efficiency of driving, thereby lowering emissions. However, the effect is
controversial among researches, as factors such as the increased convenience and security of
cars could cause a shift from greener alternatives to more frequent car use (Taiebat et al., 2018).

3.3.3 Aggregate welfare

Third, the development of AV technology is believed to influence aggregate welfare
significantly. The technology has the potential to disrupt the traditional automotive industry.
Accordingly, the development offers the potential to create new industries and jobs while posing
a threat to existing structures. Still, the effects on aggregate welfare are manifold, thereby
preventing evaluation of the impact of autonomous vehicles. However, policymakers agree it is
critical to influence the development of autonomous vehicles is vital. The U.S. government, for
instance, supports the entrepreneurial ecosystems through targeted initiatives. California has
allowed the testing of driverless light-duty trucks and cargo vans on public roads. In 2019, cars
drove 2.9 million miles autonomously in California. Consequently, the legislation has enabled
start-ups to gather data and adapt their technologies (Davies & Marshall, 2020; Descant, 2018).
Finally, researchers largely agree on the areas which are affected by autonomous
vehicles, but further research, which accounts for factors such as human behaviour, is essential
to understand the extent of the effects.

3.3 Data collection

3.3.1 Qualitative research
Due to the expected disruptive effects of autonomous driving technology, the field is thoroughly
researched. To expand my initial knowledge, I relied on academic and non-academic reports
from newspapers such as TechCrunch1. I supplemented my findings by conducting several
interviews with actors in the ecosystem.
Among them are investors from Trucks Venture Capital, Maniv Mobility and New
Enterprise Associates which were the leading venture capital companies in 2018 with respect
to deal count in the United States (Agar, 2019). Also, to incorporate a broader view, I talked to
Felix Swoboda, founder of Homebell and Liberty Ventures. Venture capitalists commonly work
together with several start-ups providing them with an expansive overview of the ecosystem.
Also, since one of the ambitions of this thesis is to apply a topic modeling approach
which allows for the clustering of start-ups in the ecosystem, I attended an online course entitled

1
https://techcrunch.com/
12
‘Introduction to Data Science in Python’2. To gain more specific knowledge about topic
modeling, I read various publications including reports published by the Information Science
Institute of the University of Southern Californian3 and a series of posts from data scientist
Patrick Van Kessel on Medium4. I outline the process in detail in Section 3.4.

Figure 2: Interview partners

3.3.2 Quantitative research

Crunchbase served as my primary source of information about start-ups in the autonomous-
vehicle ecosystem. The database allows for precise searches of start-ups by enabling filtering
for characteristics such as which industry a start-up belongs to, or its headquarter region.
Furthermore, to restrict the search result to incorporate only relevant companies, I employed an
industry filter ‘autonomous vehicles’ and set the operating status as ‘active’, which resulted in
1,042 companies.
However, the classification method of Crunchbase prevents a thorough identification of
domains and patterns in the ecosystem. The application of a semi-supervised topic modeling
approach which relies on the CorEx (correlation-explanation) algorithm allows one to

2
https://www.coursera.org/learn/python-data-analysis
3
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.10277.pdf
4
https://medium.com/@patrickvankessel
13
overcome these limitations (van Kessel, 2018b). The text-mining algorithm is applied to the
description text of each of the 1042 companies. Also, topic modeling is more reliable if applied
to a large sample size. Therefore, I added additional filters only after application of the machine-
learning algorithm. I describe the approach in detail in Section 3.4.
Moreover, further research revealed that Crunchbase also incorporates companies such
as car dealerships, which are not relevant actors. Building the topic ‘car dealership’ allowed me
to set a filter which excludes start-ups that are likely to belong to the category. Other irrelevant
start-ups had to be excluded manually. Moreover, information from journals, interviews and
other databases such as angel,5 startuptracker,6 innmind7 and CBINSIGHTS8 has shown that
relevant start-ups were excluded from the list. Accordingly, I added the respective companies
and manually assigned them to the topics. Also, 22 start-ups did not provide any geographical
data and were excluded from the analysis to avoid distortions. Furthermore, to include only
newly founded companies and exclude, for instance, traditional automotive manufacturers, I
have omitted companies that were established before 2010. Finally, a dataset with 454 start-ups
active in the AV ecosystem was created. To analyse the different ecosystems, I set location
filters in Microsoft Excel. Restricting the data to Californian AV start-ups created a list of 112
companies. The restriction to German AV start-ups resulted in 30 start-ups.

3.4 Data analysis

3.4.1 Topic modeling
Topic modeling is a machine-learning technique which facilitates the identification of abstract
topics in a text body. Specifically, the algorithm ‘examines how words and phrases co-occur’
and creates clusters of words that represent a coherent topic. The unsupervised machine-
learning method, called latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) is among the commonly applied
techniques (Singh, 2017; Li, 2018).
However, besides its advantage of fast implementation and broad applicability, the
approach is associated with several deficits. The LDA relies on probabilistic generative models.
This type of model defines the ‘mechanism for how documents are written in order to infer
latent topics’. The LDA explicitly states these mechanisms (Blei et al., 2003). Based on them,

5
https://angel.co/company/slam-labs
6
https://startuptracker.io/discover?filters%5B0%5D%5Bcc%5D%5Bq%5D=US&filters%5B1%5D%5Bmk%5D
%5Bq%5D=autonomous%20vehicle&page=0
7
https://innmind.com/startups?q=autonomous+vehicle&sort=0&countries_ids%5B%5D=3
8
https://www.cbinsights.com/research/autonomous-vehicle-startups-california-expert-research/
14
researchers further assume generalizations which ‘account for additional information, such as
the authorship document labels, or hierarchical structure’. However, according to Gallagher et
al. (2017), the generalizations are based on assumptions which ‘constrain topics to a narrower
view of what a topic can be’. Accordingly, the application of a generative model like LDA
interferes with the process of ‘learn[ing] topics without pre-existing notions of how those topics
originated’. Further, the complexity becomes more pronounced when ‘trying to generalize
generative models to incorporate human input’. Hence, the generalization hinders the
incorporation of domain knowledge, thereby creating two problems (Gallagher et al., 2017).
First, unsupervised models commonly build topics which incorporate more than one
topic, which consequently prevents one from drawing significant conclusions. As illustrated in
Figure 3,9 ‘Topic 1’ incorporates two topics: ADAS and full vehicle autonomy, thus preventing
significant statements about start-ups which are assigned to the topic. Hence, start-ups which
the algorithm would assign to the topic could be engaged with advanced driver-assistance
systems (i.e., Level 3/4 of SAE J3016 levels of driving automation) or full vehicle autonomy,
which refers to full driving automation (i.e., Level 5 of SAE J3016 levels of driving
automation). Nonetheless, increasing the number of topics the model is allowed to build could
split the topic into two unambiguous topics. Accordingly, the split could make it possible to
assign start-ups to each topic unambiguously.
However, the increase in the number of topics the algorithm is allowed to build, tends
to divide topics which would otherwise be considered coherent (Singh, 2017). Concurrently,
topics such as ‘Topic 2’ are created. The included words might refer to ‘Topic 3’. ‘Topic 2’ alone
prohibits the drawing of significant conclusions. Conclusions can only be drawn through the
creation of a coherent interpretable topic. One method to create a coherent topic involves a
merger of ‘Topic 2’ and ‘Topic 3’. However, an unsupervised approach allows for merging
topics only by reducing the number of topics the algorithm is allowed to build. A consequence
is, in turn, the problem mentioned above of topics which include more than one topic (van
Kessel, 2018a).

9
For illustration purposes the situation in Figure 3 was manually intensified
15
 Topic 1: assistance_system, ada, driver_assistance, assisting, warning, assisted,
fully_autonomous, autonomous_driving, autonomous_vehicle, autonomous,
autonomy, self_driving, autonomously
Topic 2: fly, flight, wing, glide, aviate, flies, flying, flights, flew, airborne

Topic 3: aviation, aerial, uav, unmanned_aerial, landing, vehicle_uavs, air_taxi,

aeronautical, drone, aircraft,

Figure 2: Possible topics developed by applying the LDA algorithm

Moreover, topic models tend to portray only the well-represented themes of documents.
Allowing incorporation of one’s domain knowledge enables the guidance of the model to
incorporate underrepresented topics that would otherwise have been missed. Following a
supervised approach, for instance, which requires the manual classification of a ‘sample set of
documents’ (van Kessel, 2018a) allows one to include domain knowledge in topic modeling.
However, the application is exceptionally time-consuming and inhibits the model’s ability to
identify patterns and domains.
Consequently, I relied on the CorEx algorithm, which ‘naturally’ extends to a semi-
supervised and hierarchical topic model. This technique does not assume an underlying
generative model and allows the guidance of the modeling through the provision of anchor
words (Gallagher et al., 2017; van Kessel, 2018a). To optimize the result and to complement
my findings with the method, I experimented. Specifically, I observed the outcome of the topic
modeling upon changing only one variable and controlling for any other factor. This method of
applying the CorEx algorithm is further illustrated below.

3.4.2 Text pre-processing

First of all, to apply the algorithms, text pre-processing must be applied to the description text
of the start-ups. Primarily, to read the text, the algorithm requires a machine-readable format
which can be achieved in eight steps in Python: (1) remove white spaces (2) convert text to
lowercase (3) remove numbers (4) tokenize text (split sentences into words), (5), remove
English stop words, (6) remove words with fewer than two characters, (7) Lemmatize words
(change to first-person and change past and future tenses into the present) and (8) remove
common words (words that are shared among different topics prevent the unambiguous
16
assignment of start-ups to topics). In the next step, the semi-supervised topic modeling method
is applied to the pre-processed description text (Faems, n.d.).

3.4.3 Semi-supervised topic modeling

The first step follows an unsupervised topic modeling approach. Implementing the algorithm
produces a predefined number of topics which the algorithm identified as coherent. As opposed
to following an unsupervised topic modeling approach, the semi-supervised technique allows
one to guide ‘the model in the right direction’ (van Kessel, 2019). The guidance is implemented
through anchor words which represent potential topics. Prior research about the ecosystem and
a preliminary analysis of the start-ups allowed for the identification and interpretation of
possible topics indicated by the model. In essence, the addition of anchor words subsequently
helps to strengthen the non-ambiguity of the topics. Also, the degree to which the algorithm
relies on anchor words can be adapted according to one’s confidence in the anchor words. This
process allows for continuous optimisation and adaption.
The term correlation explanation refers to the likelihood that a word belongs to a topic.
A high correlation implies that companies whose descriptions incorporate the word will be
included in the topic the word refers to. Accordingly, the determination of the domain name of
the respective topic depends on the words with the highest correlation explanation (Ver Steeg,
n.d.).
Eventually, the CorEx algorithm calculates the likelihood of a start-up belonging to a
topic. From observations, I concluded that if the probability is below 0.05, it is probable that
the company does not belong to the topic. These cases of start-ups with a low, non-zero
probability of belonging to a topic occur when their descriptions incorporate words which are
applicable in a broader context such as ‘demand’. However, if I continued following the
approach of Step 8 in Section 3.4.2 and also deleted these words, I would interfere at some
point too strongly with the development of topics. Alternatively, to avoid incorporating
companies which do not belong to the respective cluster, I set a minimum required correlation
explanation value of 0.05 by using Excel’s if(correlation explanation value>0.05; 1;0)
function.10 I thereby transformed the values into binary data, which allows for further analysis,
as illustrated in Figure 5. However, since the topic ‘full vehicle autonomy’ is particularly
vulnerable to incorporating start-ups which do not belong, I set a cut-off threshold of 0.5 to
ensure incorporating only those companies which are developing self-driving technology (i.e.,

10
https://support.office.com/en-us/article/countif-function-e0de10c6-f885-4e71-abb4-1f464816df34
17
Level 5 of SAE J3016 levels of driving automation). The optimal value was determined through
manual analysis of data.

Aviation Data-Analytics
4th Law, LLC 0.045333 0
Aero Systems West 0.103607 0
Figure 4: Likelihood of start-ups to belong to a topic
Aviation Data-Analytics
4th Law, LLC 0 0
Aero Systems West 1 0
Figure 5: After applying Excel’s if(correlation explanation value>0.05; 1;0) function

Finally, the implementation of the algorithm allowed me to produce 31 topics, of which 22 were
unambiguous and related to a domain within the AV ecosystem. They are depicted in the
following:
Topic #1 (‘Mobility as a Service’): mobility_service, ride, shared, sharing, ride_hailing, sched
ule, maas, mobility_demand, cab, licensed, carsharing, matching, demand, intersection, move,
urban, safely, passenger, increasingly, fun, push, travel_time, travel, good, looking, enhanced,
manages, aurora, modal, terminal, privately, proliferation, theme, realized, coverage
Topic #2 (‘Aviation’): flight, aerial, uav, unmanned_aerial, landing, vehicle_uavs, air_taxi, fly
ing, aeronautical, wing, drone, aircraft, airspace, imagery, can_take, agriculture, unmanned, fl
y, achievement, ceo, aviation, package, avoid, minute, limit, featured, whose, summit, centrali
zed, altitude, direct, paris, air, affordable, land
Topic #3 (‘Data-Analytics’): data, big_data, analytics, analysis, predictive, collecting, privacy
, data_processing, data_scientist, terabyte, data_stream, insight, gdpr, collect, driven, point, en
ormous, introducing, labeling, extract, utilizing, decision, raw, rating, technique, html, crowds
ourcing, rich, ultimately, simultaneously, entrepreneurship, performing, socially, stress, struct
ure
Topic #4 (‘Security’): security, safer, monitoring, protection, risk, defense, surveillance, data_
analytics, cyber, attack, cybersecurity, anomaly, status, commercial, video, pattern, actionable
, improving, profitability, health, wireless, various, emergency, record, asset, enhance, monito
r, logging, visualization, maintaining, serf, data_collection, ranging, ass, license
Topic #5 (‘Car-Dealership’): dealership, used_car, retail, car_dealership, sale_service, buy_se
ll, auction, warranty, authorized_dealer, second_hand, showroom, dealer, buyer, brand, sale, f
inancing, selling, new_used, became, export, chevrolet, sell, online, buying, seller, accessory,
premium, wide, gone, harley, cash, compete, skoda, chevy, vintage
Topic #6 (‘Computer Vision’): computer_vision, lidar, image, sensing, map, imaging, recogni
tion, solid_state, sensing_technology, detecting, obstacle, lidar_sensor, machine_vision, cogni
tion, algorithm, detection, scanner, perception, proprietary, crowdsourced, scene, classificatio
n, modality, world_top, stack, training_data, backed, scalable, hazardous, semantic, utilize, he
ad_display, paradigm, geo, adaptive
Topic #7 (‘Logistics’): transport, logistics, freight, delivered, shipping, agvs, warehouse, supp
ly_chain, logistic, mile_delivery, pallet, every_day, commission, mean, seamlessly, rail, ship

18
ment, exported, pod, authority, truck, sustained, participating, organically, word, middle, ltda,
jam, actor, yard, agv, brazil, collaborates, ecommerce, internal
Topic #8 (‘Platform’): platform, open, ecosystem, modular, platform_enables, software_platfo
rm, platform_allows, platform_designed, networked, unified, multiple, source, deploy, traffic
_management, agnostic, apps, delivery, self, apis, photography, customizable, optimize, conn
ection, configuration, customized, fair, integrator, transact, teleoperation, seeking, synergy, el
ectricity, institutional, hearst, hamerkaz
Topic #9 (‘Research’): research, lab, science, university, research_development, mit, spin, res
earcher, institute, cambridge, campus, spinoff, cooperation, leadership, darpa, acquisition, pio
neering, innovate, age, assure, interdisciplinary, assured, originally, breakthrough, department
, massachusetts, lead, report, government_agency, naver, twenty, cyngn, fielding, samsung, pa
ving
Topic #10 (‘Electric Vehicle Manufacturing’): manufacturing, engineer, electric_car, automak
er, prototype, chassis, designer, producer, launch_vehicle, another, already, launch, laboratory
, mass, education, workplace, meeting, catalyst, material, foundation, propulsion, solar, extens
ive, effectively, tooling, tag, study, sometimes, refining, quality_assurance, bearing, minimize
, edit, larger, vegetation
Topic #11 (‘Mobility Infrastructure’): infrastructure, power, charging, charge, power_manage
ment, charger, charging_station, charging_solution, new_energy, grid, network, operator, stati
on, lightweight, assessment, diesel, energy, thermal, communicate, bluetooth, recent, residenc
e, representing, property, brilliant, candidate, oregon, epc, nlp, dominant, lighter, implement,
perfectly, wire, conversion
Topic #12 (‘AI’): artificial_intelligence, machine_learning, intelligence, deep_learning, chip,
simulation, semiconductor, neural_network, language, intel, simulated, nvidia, complex, full_
stack, architecture, segmentation, leverage, input, composed, embedded, baidu, mem, technol
ogist, putting, fault, veteran, mature, generation, leading_provider, inspired, learning, layout, r
econstruction, allocation, datasets
Topic #13 (‘Sustainability’): sustainable, clean, green, pollution, planet, zero_emission, renew
able, eco, electrification, solar_powered, sustainability, changing, take, capital, fast, connectiv
ity, future_mobility, daily, easier, final, protected, complexity, pace, believe, potential, growth
, personalized, creating, opportunity, bring, food, idea, however, landscape, host
Topic #14 (‘Localization and Mapping’): navigation, mapping, gps, tracking, localization, pos
itioning, satellite, gnss, navigation_system, high_precision, dimensional, map_data, geospatial
, mining, accurate, centimeter, surveying, pipeline, construction, precise, observation, visibilit
y, definition, harsh, inertial, floor, high_accuracy, boat, precision, possible, spatial, uavs, parti
cular, temporary, paper
Topic #15 (‘Urban Mobility Development’): bus, smart_city, park, train, urban_mobility, publ
ic_transportation, traffic_light, rider, consultation, nature, give, change, free, selected, guarant
ee, partnered, else, simple, enjoy, within, fee, making, exclusive, check, replacing, chat, manu
ally, period, phd, priority, charter, irrespective, invited, stream, saw
Topic #16 (‘ADAS’): ada, assistance_system, advanced_driver, steering, guided_vehicle, prev
ention, warning, assisted, steer, driver_assistance, different, israeli, electronics, dangerous, lan
e, later, ever, high_tech, set, know, inside, effective, spectrum, sight, liquid, direction, invest,
rooted, intuition, collaborating, respective, telecom, force, especially, chinese
Topic #17 (‘Camera-Vision’): camera, object, weather, see, high_resolution, detects, surround
ing, traffic_signal, photogrammetry, surroundings, condition, predict, processing, emerging_t
echnology, compared, capture, traded, crop, backup, reliability, sense, phone, motion, size, pa
tented_technology, processor, typical, recognize, night, affect, identification, ada_autonomous
, orientation, mich, output

19
Topic #18 (‘Micromobility’): bike, rental, cycle, scooter, hybrid, smartphone, point_point, bic
ycle, electric_scooter, tourist, therefore, commuter, term, dream, show, travelling, equally, pol
and, previous, arrive, commute, door, indian, mainly, vtol, polish, streamlines, pound, literacy
, proposition, subscription_service, italian, swedish, picked, rest
Topic #19 (‘Connected Car’): connected, communication, connected_vehicle, connected_car,
connecting, networking, cellular, transaction, trend, operating_system, code, acceleration, inte
rnet, chain, gen, ledger, tell, purchased, grant, realize, safer_smarter, municipal, focused, servi
ce_provider, uniquely, centric, implemented, municipality, non, optimization, software_devel
opment, party, norway, portland, topic
Topic #20 (‘Full Vehicle Autonomy’): autonomous, autonomous_vehicle, self_driving, auton
omous_driving, autonomy, autonomously, fully_autonomous, autopilot, environment, brain, g
round, difficult, last_mile, fusion, applying, natural, operate, radar, safe_reliable, capable, wor
ld_first, trucking, startup_focused, traveling, similar, automating, everywhere
Topic #21 (‘Robotics’): robotics, robot, robotic, mobile_robot, autonomous_robot, industrial_
automation, picking, indoor, farmer, machine, advantage, pittsburgh, farm, california, scientist
, kit, labor, unstructured, synthetic, ultrasonic, pruning, ultrasound, acceptance, greenhouse, fi
ghting, builder, advancement, multidisciplinary, automation, fulfillment, stakeholder, water, i
ncorporated, standalone, configurable
Topic #22 (‘Marine’): marine, ocean, autonomous_underwater, auv, sea, auvs, vessel, maritim
e, subsea, oceanography, surface, survey, acoustic, coastal, glider, oil_gas, interest, collaborati
on, award_winning, operated, cinematography, plc, fixture, fusing, wave, patrol, pas, trustwor
thy, involves, towing, super

4. Findings
The previous chapter reflected the methods I used to collect and analyse the data. In the
following chapter, I provide an objective overview of the results of the data analysis regarding
the Californian AV. Also, I compare the Californian ecosystem to the global ecosystem
(excluding California), as this allows me to draw unbiased conclusions. To begin, I explain the
topics of the AV ecosystem and outline their relevance in the Californian ecosystem.
Thenceforth I accentuate the findings which result from applying topic modeling to the full
sample. Afterwards, I delineate the development of the main hubs of the Californian AV
ecosystem and illustrate its current situation. Lastly, I conduct a SWOT analysis, to examine
the strengths [S], weaknesses [W], opportunities [O], and threats [T] of the ecosystem.

4.1 Clustering of entrepreneurial activity

The application of the machine learning algorithm allowed the clustering of the AV start-ups
into 21 topics. In Figure 6., the proportion of start-ups which work on the respective topics are
illustrated. I further subdivided the topics into technology (blue), industry (grey) and
characteristic (green). In the following, I briefly delineate the concept behind every topic and
outline its relevance to the AV ecosystem. Comparison to the clustering of start-ups worldwide,

20
depicted in Figure 7 facilitates unbiasedness. However, 22 start-ups did not indicate the location
of their headquarters. Thus, they are not incorporated in the illustration.

P roport i on of st art -ups act i ve i n t he respect i ve t opi c

- C al i forni an ecosyst em
38%

29%

27%

26%
17%

17%
16%

16%

16%
13%

13%

13%
9%
8%

8%

8%
7%

6%

5%
4%

1%

Figure 6: Proportion of start-ups active in the respective topic - Californian ecosystem

4.1.1 Technology
To clarify, the start-ups included in this analysis share the characteristic of acting within the
Californian AV ecosystem. However, only a minority (38%) of the start-ups focus on
developing full vehicle autonomy technology. For instance, start-ups which concentrate solely
on ADAS are not incorporated in this ‘technology’, as they concentrate only on Level 3/4 of
driving automation.
Furthermore, the second most pronounced technology is ‘platform’ (29%). Platform
models have become increasingly dominant due to the possible reduction of transaction costs
and the creation of network effects which allow one to establish a sustainable competitive
advantage (Ward, n.d.). Moreover, ‘computer vision’ (27%) refers to companies which are
active in the development of technologies responsible for enabling the recording and processing

21
of the surrounding of autonomous vehicles. The process of recording is achieved through a
digital sensorium, while artificial intelligence (16%) facilitates the processing of data (Chen,
2017; Gadam, 2018).
Moreover, ‘localization and mapping’ (17%) is a central proposition of the ecosystem,
as the reliability of self-driving technology is highly dependent on the accurate localization of
the vehicle. Furthermore, the development of deep-learning technology serves as a fundament
to other vital autonomous-driving technologies such as computer vision. Hence, artificial
intelligence (16%) is a relevant technology in the AV ecosystem. According to Gadam (2018),
the relevance of artificial intelligence emerges from the recent availability of vast amounts of
data (Gadam, 2018). Coherently, the machine-learning algorithm reveals that data analytics are
similarly relevant (13%).
Moreover, the technology ‘camera vision’ is incorporated in the digital sensorium. The
analysis reveals that 8% of the start-ups engage with cameras as a way to enact computer vision.
Also, 7% of start-ups engage with the technology of a connected car. The technology is believed
to increase the safety of AVs via communication with other cars and the infrastructure, though
full vehicle autonomy must be capable of driving independently of the technology (Duvall et
al., 2019; Murtha, 2015). Moreover, advanced driver-assistance systems (6%) compromise a
relevant technology. The technology already contributes to passenger safety and is built in
approximately 60 million vehicles in the United States (I-car, 2019).

4.1.2 Industry
‘Robotics’ (26%) is the most relevant industry of the start-ups active in this field. In addition,
the topic ‘mobility as a service’ (17%) is similarly significant. Experts assume that the effects
of reaching Level 5 of driving automation will be particularly pronounced on mobility-as-a-
service (MaaS) companies such as Uber (Bowman, 2018). Also, mobility infrastructure (16%)
is a meaningful topic of the AV ecosystem. A study by McKinsey concludes that, due to
autonomous vehicles, cities could become more ‘gridlocked’. The outcome depends, however,
mainly on the implementation of valid mobility infrastructures like technology which facilitate
communication between traffic lights and AVs (Duvall et al., 2019).
Moreover, the algorithm reveals the importance of logistics (16%) within the AV
ecosystem. Experts assume that the cost-cutting possibility of self-driving technology will
disrupt the industry. Furthermore, the industry is a pioneer with the implementation of
technologies such as automated guided vehicles (AGVE, 2020). Another pioneer is the aviation

22
industry (13%) as flying is already largely automated. However, the difference to autonomous
driving is a result of the significantly lower complexity of autonomous flying (Nicas & Wichter,
2019).
Also relevant is the urban-mobility industry (9%), as the development and
commercialization of AVs offer the potential to re-design urban areas. In addition, 8% of the
start-ups participate in the electric-vehicle industry. Lastly, significantly fewer start-ups engage
in the micro-mobility11 (4%) and marine (1%) industries. The former refers to the ‘use of
electronic scooters and bikes to travel shorter distances around cities, often to or from another
mode of transportation (bus, train, or car)’ (Dictionary.com, 2020). The marine industry relates
to, for instance, the development of autonomous underwater vehicles.

4.1.3 Characteristic
‘Security’ (13%) is the most relevant topic of the AV ecosystem. Increasing the security of the
driver is one of the missions of the technology. Besides ensuring safe driving, cybersecurity
poses a steady challenge upon the technology. Among the largest concerns is the fear that
connected vehicles could be manipulated by hackers (Bird, 2019). Moreover, ‘research’ (8%)
is a relevant topic. The $3.5bn R&D expenditure of one of the industry leaders, Waymo,
underlines the research intensity of the industry (Baldwin, 2020). Coherently, entrepreneurial
activity peaks around leading universities. Lastly, 5% of companies engage with themes which
are related to sustainability.

4.1.4. Comparison of the Californian and the global ecosystem (excluding California)
In the following, I illustrate the eight leading ecosystems in terms of the number of AV start-
ups headquartered in their country, depicted in Figure 712. Furthermore, to give a concise
overview of the primary focus of the ecosystems, I outline the leading ecosystems’ three most
relevant topics. Moreover, to put the Californian figures into relation, the proportion of start-
ups active globally in the respective topic (excluding California) are displayed and significant
differences accentuated.

11
‘Micromobility refers to the use of electronic scooters and bikes to travel shorter distances around cities, often
to or from another mode of transportation (bus, train, or car)’ (Dictionary.com, 2020)
12
Microsoft Excel Power Map relies on Bing to generate the graphic. Microsoft states that due to a technical
defect Spain (4) could not be displayed.
23
Figure 3: Global distribution of AV start-ups (depicted are the leading eight ecosystems in
terms of number of AV start-ups)

As depicted in Figure 7, the United States is the leading AV ecosystem in terms of the
number of autonomous-vehicle start-ups. Altogether, approximately 44% of AV start-ups are
headquartered in the United States (199). Also, more than half of U.S. start-ups have their main
office in California. The ecosystem’s 112 start-ups are close to the number of the European
Union (115).
Furthermore, the U.S. ecosystem is followed by that of Israel (44), where 36% of the
start-ups engage each with computer vision, full vehicle autonomy and platforms. The third-
largest ecosystem is the United Kingdom (32), where full vehicle autonomy (47%), platforms
(28%) and AI (25%) comprise its leading topics. The British ecosystem is chased by Germany
(30) with data-analytics (57%) localization and mapping (40%) and computer vision (37%) as
the ecosystem’s primary focus. Subsequently, Chinese (27) start-ups concentrate on ADAS
(37%), computer vision (33%) and AI (33%). India (15) is the sixth-largest ecosystem with data
analytics (33%), platforms (33%) and connected vehicle (33%) as its most relevant topics. It is
followed by Canada (12), whose start-ups focus on localization and mapping (42%), ADAS

24
(33%) and data-analytics (25%). Lastly, the most relevant topics of Swedish (11) start-ups are
data analytics (18%), computer vision (18%) and research (18%).

P roport i on of st art -ups act i ve i n t he respect i ve t opi c -

gl obal ecosyst em
30%

25%

25%

23%

21%

20%
18%

15%

14%
14%
13%

12%

11%

11%

11%

10%

8%

7%

6%
4%

2%

Figure 8: Proportion of start-ups active in the respective topic - Global ecosystem

As depicted in Figure 8, full vehicle autonomy similar to that of the Californian AV

ecosystem is the most relevant technology for start-ups globally (excluding California). Still,
the Californian figure is 8% higher than the global average. Accordingly, a larger fraction of
start-ups in California engages with Level 5 of driving automation. Correspondingly, the share
of start-ups which focus on ADAS (i.e., Level 3/4 of SAE J3016 levels of driving automation)
is slightly higher globally.
A similar difference in technology-focus exists for computer vision. Camera vision
refers to a specific type of computer vision. The techniques allow the vehicle to see its
environment. While 27% of Californian start-ups engage with computer vision, less than a third
of them focus on camera vision. Consequently, Californian start-ups focus on other computer-
vision solutions which could, for instance, include light detection and ranging (LIDAR).
Contrarily, fewer start-ups engage with computer vision (23%) globally. Still, more than half of
the start-ups which engage with the vision of vehicles focus on a camera solution.
25
4.2 Geographical clusters
The Californian ecosystem can be subdivided into three main hubs: (1) Silicon Valley, (2) the
Greater Francisco Bay area (excluding Silicon Valley) and (3) the greater Los Angeles area. As
depicted in Figure 9, the absolute majority (83%) of the start-ups are located in the greater San
Francisco Bay area (including Silicon Valley). The hub is followed by the greater Los Angeles
area (14%). The greater San Diego area includes 3% of the start-ups and San Luis Obispo
contains 1% of the start-ups.
In the following, I delineate the characteristics of the main hubs of the Californian
ecosystem. A more in-depth focus is placed on the development of Silicon Valley. Its ability to
use its former technological strength to take the lead in emerging technologies might allow one
to draw insightful conclusions for the German AV ecosystem.

Proportion of start-ups active in the respective region - California

3% 1%

14%
46%

37%

Silicon Valley Francisco Bay Greater Los Angeles Area

Greater San Diego Area San Luis Obispo

Figure 9: Proportion of start-ups active in the respective region - California

4.2.1 Silicon Valley and greater Francisco Bay area

The strongly correlated development of Silicon Valley and the San Francisco Bay area prevents
an utterly separate analysis. Accordingly, in the following, I delineate the development of the
entrepreneurial ecosystem and outline the current situation. Thereby I accentuate the relevant
topics of each hub.
The first impulse that aroused entrepreneurial activity came from Stanford University.
Its former dean of engineering Frederik E. Terman aligned the research focus of the university
with relevant emerging technologies, thereby securing government research funds. Moreover,
the establishment of the Stanford Industrial Park (now Stanford Research Park) encouraged
high-technology companies such as General Electric and Eastman Kodak to settle around the
campus. The proximity created strong bonds with the industry. Stanford professors consulted

26
young companies while Stanford graduates became a vital source of talent. The industry experts
gave lectures at Stanford University. Moreover, the foundation of Fairchild Semiconductor
Corporation had a significant effect on the entrepreneurial ecosystem. Its employees created
several further start-ups, thus establishing Silicon Valley as the leading semiconductor
ecosystem. The growing industry attracted VCs to the area and substituted government funds
as primary funding type (Dennis, 2019; Saxenian, 2000).
During the emergence of new technologies in the 1990s, Stanford students founded
approximately 100 start-ups each year. Among them were, for instance, Yahoo!. Moreover,
according to scholar Michael Dennis, personal contact was crucial for entrepreneurial activity,
as personal impressions influence the investment decisions of VCs, thereby indicating the cause
for the clustering of entrepreneurial activity. Simultaneously, the success of start-ups
accelerated the development of the region. Many successful entrepreneurs became venture
capitalists, thus supporting the ecosystem with funding, industry-specific and entrepreneurial
knowledge. Also, their success created a culture of entrepreneurship, which was reinforced
through the close ties of the entrepreneurs and the region’s students (Dennis, 2019). Moreover,
the business models of start-ups relied preferably on ‘components and services’ which were
already on the market, focusing on key strengths instead of depending on slow inhouse-
development (Watkins, n.d.).
Furthermore, scholar Thayer Watkins underlines the vital role of the community to adapt
to new technological developments. As opposed to ecosystems such as ‘Route 128’ around
Boston, the Francisco Bay area was characterized by information exchange and cooperation.
Shared backgrounds in education and the willingness to frequently change jobs were among the
backbones that created an ecosystem characterized by cooperation. Furthermore, the often-cited
saying of the former executive of the manufacturer of semiconductor equipment, Tom Hayes:
‘Our aim is to build a comparative advantage for the Silicon Valley by building a collaborative
advantage...to transform Silicon Valley from a valley of entrepreneurs into an entrepreneurial
valley’ underlines the importance of ‘competitive rivalries and the initiative of individual
entrepreneurs’ to Silicon Valley’s entrepreneurial activity (Saxenian, 2000; Watkins, n.d.).
Finally, researcher Manuel Castells summarizes the success of the San Francisco Bay
area in five factors: a skilled labour force educated by local universities, the convergence of
new technological knowledge, state funding, a network of venture capitalists and the
‘institutional leadership of Stanford University’ (Castells, 2010).

27
 Today, the region exhibits the highest density of technology companies worldwide
(Amadeo, 2019). Its founders benefit from the support of the leading global accelerators which
are present in the region. Among them are 500 Startups, Plug and Play, The Founder Institute
and Y Combinator (Egusa, 2019).

Silicon Valley - most relevant topics

11
22
12

14 15

Full Vehicle Autonomy Robotics Computer Vision AI Platform

Figure 10: Silicon Valley - most relevant topics

Furthermore, most start-ups of the AV ecosystem in California are located in Silicon

Valley (51). As depicted in Figure 10, out of the 51 start-ups, 22 engage with full vehicle
autonomy technology, 15 with robotics, 14 with computer vision, 12 with AI and 11 with
platform technology.

Greater Francisco Bay area (excl. Silicon Valley) - most relevant topics

10
16

10

13
12

Full Vehicle Autonomy Platform Computer Vision Robotics Logistics

Figure 11: Greater Francisco Bay area (excluding Silicon Valley) - most relevant topics

Moreover, the greater Francisco Bay area (excluding Silicon Valley) is second in terms
of the number of start-ups headquartered in the AV ecosystem (41). Also, full vehicle autonomy
is the most relevant technology (16), as illustrated in Figure 11. However, platform (13) is
relatively more important in the greater Francisco Bay area than in Silicon Valley with 13 start-

28
ups engaging with this technology. Computer vision is similarly relevant (12), followed by
robotics (10) and mobility as a service (10).
Lastly, the ecosystem faces several far-reaching threats, which I elaborate on further in
the SWOT analysis.

4.2.2 Greater Los Angeles area

The entertainment and creative industry dominate the economy of Los Angeles. Also, start-up
activity has risen sharply in recent years. A significant share of the development can be
attributed to its ‘supportive environment for technology innovation’, which experts perceive to
be among the leading globally. Moreover, as a result of Los Angeles’ 70 engineering schools,
more software-engineer graduates live in Los Angeles than in any other U.S. metropolitan area
(Startup Genome, 2018). The universities in Los Angeles, such as the Californian Institute of
Technology or the University of Southern California, provide degree programs in artificial
intelligence, thereby orienting themselves strongly towards the demands the economy places
on their graduates. Their alumni are an essential source of human capital for the AV ecosystem.

Greater Los Angeles area - most relevant topics

3
7
3

5 5

Platform Mobillity as a Service Full Vehicle Autonomy Data-Analytics Computer Vision

Figure 12: Greater Los Angeles area - most relevant topics

Moreover, the greater Los Angeles area is the third-largest hub in the Californian AV
ecosystem in terms of the number of start-ups. Also, its proportional distribution of relevant
topics differs from the hubs mentioned above, as depicted in Figure 12. Furthermore, seven out
of 16 start-ups engage with the platform technology followed by mobility as a service and full
vehicle autonomy. Three start-ups engage each with the technologies data analytics and
computer vision.

29
4.3 Role of venture capital
The primary task of venture capitalists is the allocation of venture capital. This type of financing
often serves as the sole source of capital for start-ups despite ‘friends and family financing’13.
Banks commonly have regulatory restrictions as a result of the high risk included in start-up
investments, thus decreasing the relevance of bank loans for early-stage start-up financing
(Smialek & Flitter, 2020; Zider, 1998). In the United States and California in particular, vast
amounts of capital are available to invest. The enormity of the investments in the AV ecosystem
become apparent if set into relation. Until 2018 in the United States, $8bn was invested in its
AV ecosystem. FiveAi founder Ben Peters expects the invested capital in the European
ecosystem to be below $100M (Lunden, 2018). The difference can partially be traced back to
the investment focus of pension funds, which make up 20% of total VC funds raised compared
to only 8% in Europe. Particularly in Germany, pension funds tend to be invested in ‘low-
yielding sovereign debt’ (Atomico & Slush, 2017; McGee & Chazan, 2020). Furthermore, in
the U.S., the share of venture capital allocated to growth-stage start-ups is more than 50%
compared to less than a third in Germany (Russo, 2018).
Also notably, start-ups which engage with autonomous-vehicle technology received on
average funding of approximately $68M worldwide (excluding California), while the average
financing received for a Californian start-up is approximately $151M.14 Furthermore, according
to Crunchbase, 435 venture capitalists are investing in the Californian AV ecosystem. Thus,
venture capitalists lead in terms of the number of investors active in the Californian ecosystem.
Angel investors (131), private equity15 (68) and accelerators (57) rank second, third and fourth,
respectively.16
Moreover, to differentiate, VCs took on further tasks, thereby increasing their relevance
to the autonomous-vehicle ecosystem. In our interview, investor Puneeth Meruva says that the
AV ecosystem is extremely research-intensive. An analysis of the average number of patents
per start-up in the AV ecosystem comes to a similar conclusion. On average, the start-ups for
which information is available registered 12.72 patents. The first three—Zoox, Veniam and
Luminar—have 146, 113 and 90 patents, respectively. To reduce costs and create synergies,

13
Friends and family financing refers to ‘a form of startup funding in which the entrepreneur asks friends and
family members for investments in an early-stage business.’ (Invstor, n.d.)
14
Data only refers to start-ups about which Crunchbase lists funding information
15
Venture Capital belongs to the investment type Private Equity. Crunchbase distinguishes Private Equity
investors and VCs in their investment focus. While VCs mainly invest in start-ups, Private Equity investors
focus on investing in more established companies (Kunthara, 2019)
16
https://www.crunchbase.com/discover/principal.investors/299408542e0070cea53eb1775621100d
30
venture capitalists act as an intermediary between the start-ups and contribute to information
exchange.
Moreover, my interviewees Meir Dardashti and Puneeth Meruva argue that, as
regulatory burdens characterize the AV ecosystem, the VCs achieve synergies by helping
freshly founded companies to overcome these barriers, thus enabling them to focus on operating
the companies. Also, as opposed to other ecosystems, venture capitalists in the AV ecosystem
are specialists rather than generalists. The difference is a result of the complexity of the
technology and the unique requirements of the automotive industry in fields such as quality
assurance.

4.4 SWOT analysis

4.4.1 Strengths
Puneeth Meruva outlines in our interview that the reason for the strengths of the AV ecosystem
is the pre-existing leading position of the Californian ecosystem in other areas. Many of the
leading tech companies, such as Google and Apple, are headquartered in California. Also,
Californian universities lead in relevant fields such as computer science (Times Higher
Education, 2019). In alignment with the result of the application of topic modeling, complex
technologies such as artificial intelligence are a critical component of the AV ecosystem, thus
creating a dependence of entrepreneurial activity on talent educated in these fields.
Correspondingly, Meruva stresses the importance of a unique path of education in
California. First, Californian universities attract talent and educate their students in fields such
as computer science. Then their graduates commonly join a Californian tech company. There
the employees receive more specific training to become world-leading in their fields. Hence,
they become a vital pool of talent for the ecosystem, as they provide an essential recruitment
source for start-ups and represent a significant portion of founders (Lee, 2017).
Correspondingly, in my interview with Meir Dardashti, he identifies the absence of required
capabilities as the reason for the inability of OEMs to develop the technology themselves and
underlines: ‘an engineer who builds car engines won’t be able to write code for autonomous
vehicles […] BMW is not going to develop its own digital products. Innovation will happen
through working with start-ups’. Specifically, the development of AV technology demands
different know-how than traditional automotive manufacturing. Many founders and employees
in California have the needed know-how, thereby creating the necessity for OEMs to cooperate
with these start-ups.

31
 Moreover, the ecosystem is supported by thoughtful measures of the government. In
1872, the Californian Civil Code was supplemented by a law which prohibited non-compete
clauses (DeVore, 2016). Accordingly, employees are allowed to leave companies, join a
competitor or start their own business in the same industry. Also, within the United States, the
ecosystem profits from talent inflow as a result of this legislation. For instance, employees of
Microsoft in Washington might be forbidden to found their own company in Washington.
Therefore, they would leave and found the company in a state such as California, where non-
compete claims are unenforceable.
Hence, the legislation creates a constant flow of information and human capital, thereby
producing new rivalries and eventually strengthening the overall competitiveness of the
Californian ecosystem (BonaLaw, n.d.). The following examples illustrate the significant
impact of this legislation on the ecosystem. In 2016, several engineers at Waymo left the
company to found the self-driving technology start-up Otto, which was bought by Uber a few
months later for $680M. Also, in the same year, the head of Waymo left the company to found
Aurora, which is considered to be among the leading developers of AV technology today.
Likewise, in 2016, two engineers of Waymo left the company and founded another relevant
actor in the AV ecosystem, Nuro.ai (Lee, 2017). In accordance therewith, an often-cited study
‘Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128’ concludes that
Silicon Valley’s entrepreneurial success can be traced back to a culture of encouraging
information exchange and entrepreneurship as opposed to a more ‘inward-looking and
secretive’ culture in ecosystems such as Boston, Massachusetts (also called ‘Route 128’)
(Saxenian, 2000).
Furthermore, until recently, the state of California supported strong immigration and
recognized it as a supportive measure with which to contribute to aggregate welfare. For
instance, the influx of skilled Asian immigrants to Silicon Valley in the 1990s helped lower the
labour costs and increase the number of company foundations. However, this liberty is at risk
from a harsher stance on immigration, which I delineate in more detail in Section 4.4.4
(Castells, 2010).
Moreover, the Californian ecosystem’s entrepreneurial culture is associated with the
reason for its prosperity. One guiding principle for its actors is ‘fail fast, fail often’. The motto
is in accordance with findings of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, which reveals a
significantly lower fear of failure in the population (35%, excluding ‘individuals involved in

32
any stage of entrepreneurial activity’) than the global average of 42% (Global Entrepreneurship
Monitor, n.d.).
Also, as mentioned above, the vast amounts of funding available to invest in start-ups
provide a strong competitive advantage for the Californian ecosystem. The encouragement of
investing in newly founded companies through the U.S. government’s ‘Jumpstart Our Business
Startups’ (JOBS) is a central element of the Californian ecosystem’s financial prosperity. The
legislation introduced three laws. The first is legalisation regarding equity crowdfunding. The
loosening of the restriction allows entrepreneurs the online issuance of securities of up to $1M.
per year, thereby addressing a broad pool of investors. The second and third initiatives of the
act focus on the procedure of an initial public offering (IPO). The laws ease the compliance
emerging-growth companies face when going public. A study by Pennsylvania State University
and the University of New York at Buffalo revealed an increase of 21 IPOs per year through the
establishment of JOBS (Teach, 2014).
Moreover, the American legislation could prove to be crucial to the AV ecosystem. The
start-ups active in this field are particularly dependent on growth-stage funding, as the current
state of the technology prevents a large fraction of AV start-ups from becoming self-sustaining.
IPOs serve next to the sale to OEMs or tech companies as important financing for growth-stage
start-ups. Furthermore, the amount of funding of earlier stages is also affected according to
Franzke and Theissen. The scholars emphasize the positive effect of the possibility of exiting
through an IPO on the investment decision of venture capitalists (Franzke & Theissen, 2005;
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, n.d.; Kanies, 2017).

4.4.2 Weaknesses
The Californian entrepreneurial ecosystem is world-leading in many aspects. However, in
particular, the AV ecosystem seems to be vulnerable to crisis. Figure 13 depicts the number of
companies founded per region overtime in California. After the financial crisis of 2007-2009,17
the number of company foundations was relatively low. For instance, in 2011, the data reveals
that no company was founded in the AV ecosystem. One potential explanation involves the
dependence of AV start-ups on external financing as their business models tend to be not
profitable yet. A decrease in available funding could have deterred founders from setting up a
business which will not be self-sustaining for an unforeseeable time. The findings of Block and
Sandner indicate a 20% decline in the average amount of funding ‘raised per funding round’ as

17
I provide a possible explanation for the sincere drop in company foundations in 2018-2019 in Section 5.4
33
a result of the financial crisis (Block & Sandner, 2009). Also, The Economist states that VC
funding in 2007-2009 declined in America by nearly 30% (The Economist, 2020e).

Number of AV start-ups founded per region over time - California

30

25

20

15

10

0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Silicon Valley Francisco Bay Greater Los Angeles Area Greater San Diego Area

Figure 13: Number of AV start-ups founded per region over time - California

Furthermore, California, despite Tesla, has no significant automotive manufacturing. In

2018, the share of cars produced in California was only 2.3% of the United States’ total
production (Kane, 2020). Sascha Fritz stresses in our interview that the absence of automotive
companies leads to less available talent with relevant expertise in the automotive industry
compared to countries such as Germany. He continues by outlining the need for start-ups to
cooperate with OEMs for the commercialization of autonomous-vehicle technology. Only they
provide the critical scale and relevant expertise required in the complex automotive sector.
Correspondingly, leading AV start-ups are commonly part of whole networks which consist
commonly of OEMs, automotive suppliers and semiconductor manufacturers. Also, the pull-
effect of California appears to be strong enough to convince automotive companies to set up
accelerators and research labs in the state, such as the BMW Group Technology Office in
Mountain View or Porsche Digital in Santa Clara (Coren, 2017). Nonetheless, the Californian
ecosystem has a shortage of talent with traditional automotive knowledge which is educated in
fields such as computer science. Correspondingly, the absence of potential intermediaries
between the tech companies and the automotive industry can lead to a ‘culture clash’18 between
the traditional automotive industry and Californian AV start-ups. (Bakunin & Kuznetsov, 2020).

18
Culture clash refers to ‘a conflict arising from the interaction of people with different cultural values’ (Collins
English Dictionary, 2014)
34
 Moreover, the Californian ecosystem is characterized by further weaknesses. According
to a report by Silicon Valley Bank, only 28% of start-ups have female founders. Also, in 2013,
only 18% of American graduates in computer science were women, which indicates that the
problem begins earlier (The Economist, 2017). But the following argumentation stresses the
contribution of the ecosystem to the problem. In 2016, only 2% of the invested venture capital
flowed into start-ups founded by females.
Moreover, two-thirds of women in Silicon Valley ‘felt excluded from important social
and networking opportunities’, and 60% had experienced ‘unwanted sexual advances’. Experts
trace the discrimination back to the ‘bro culture’ of the tech-ecosystem (The Economist, 2017).
Bro culture refers to a culture which systematically discriminates against women and favours
men (Gjording, 2017). The culture of the young Californian, cab-hailing company Uber is often
referred to as an example of a company culture which is characterized by discrimination and
harassment. Eventually, allegations led to the resignation of Uber’s CEO, Travis Kalanick (DW,
2017).
Besides its harmful influence on humans, the uniformity of the ecosystem Californian
ecosystem leads to competitive disadvantages. A study of the Boston Consulting Group reveals
that the start-ups which were founded or co-founded by women generated higher returns.
Reasons could involve the diversity of customer groups with women responsible for 75% of
consumer purchasing decisions. Also, innovation-prevention characteristics, such as group
thinking, can be overcome by increasing diversity to enhance decision making (Wang, 2018).

4.4.3 Opportunity
Moreover, the leading position of the Californian AV ecosystem offers a unique chance for
setting rules and industry-standards. In 1973, in California, Bob Kahn and Vint Cerf established
the Internet protocol (IP) as the principal communications protocol, subsequently enabling
Californian companies to develop a leading position on the Internet. Also, the importance of a
timely establishment of rules and standards is illustrated by the recent example of Audi AG.
The company renounced activating Level 3 ADAS in its new car, the Audi A8, and attributes
this abandonment to missing unified international rules (Holzer, 2020).
Accordingly, California has the chance to use its leading position to set standards and
rules for AV technology. While all actors first profit from clarification, California can strengthen
the ecosystem’s position by setting regulations and standards in consultation with the
ecosystem’s start-ups. Currently, the legislation of AV technology in the United States is

35
regulated by state-centric laws. Hence, California could work towards unified American
legislation. Unification can be achieved, for instance, through organisations such as the 5G
Automotive Association (5GAA) (The Economist, 2020a). The size of the American market
prevents other countries and companies from ignoring the law. Also, adapting to different rules
across regions is expensive and thus could convince other countries to adopt the American rules
(Dentons, 2020).
Moreover, start-ups will encounter difficulties in competing with established tech-
companies and OEMs in large markets such as LIDAR. However, the complexity of
autonomous driving technology creates many smaller markets such as one in logistics, which
develops software for autonomously guided vehicles (AGV). According to Puneeth, focusing
solely on one of these niche markets decreases the relevance of capital as a competitive
advantage, due to limited capital requirements to become a market leader. Consequently,
newcomers have a chance to compete despite their lower financial resources.
Also, the longevity of the investment horizon required when investing in autonomous-
vehicle technology offers an opportunity for founders. Traditionally, the automotive industry
has been dominated by large OEMs. These companies are mostly publicly listed enterprises,
which are characterized by short-term profit pressure at the cost of forgoing long-term
investments. For instance, this behaviour is reflected in the recent decision of Continental, an
automotive supplier, to postpone investments in Levels 3-5 of self-driving technology, as the
technology ‘will not be profitable in the near future’ (Tyborski & Demling, 2020). Start-ups are
in turn usually privately financed. This characteristic is generally combined with a lower short-
term orientation that allows a long-term orientation, thus providing the start-ups with an edge
over their listed competitors in the development of autonomous-vehicle technology (Firstmile
VC, 2019; Starvish, 2013).

4.4.4 Threats
The AV ecosystem is characterized by uncertainty, which is reflected in three main aspects.
While the technology has shown great improvements in recent years, the point in time when
the technology will be reliable enough to encourage policymakers to introduce autonomous
vehicles is still unpredictable. Correspondingly, many start-ups will be unprofitable for a long
time. In addition, as mentioned above, the regulatory framework for ‘vehicle construction,
safety, cybersecurity, data and liability’ is not yet sufficiently defined. Lastly, it remains

36
questionable whether customers will adopt the technology and, if so, how quickly (Dentons,
2020; Heineke et al., 2019, The Economist, 2020d).
Moreover, entrepreneurial activity within the AV ecosystem is highly reliant on the
inflow of human capital. Nearly 11 million immigrants live in the state of California, and 27%
of the population is foreign-born (Johnson & Sanchez, 2019). However, under the current
government, the United States policies towards immigration have become harsher. The H-1B
is one of the two ‘largest sources of temporary, highly educated immigrant workers’ (Connor &
Ruiz, 2019). The program is popular among skilled immigrants, as it serves as a work permit
for up to seven years and allows the simultaneous application for a permanent green card
(Alcorn, 2019). Also, immigrants are an essential source of employees for self-driving start-ups
such as Zoox, which alone filed 216 labour-condition applications for H1B visas from 2017 to
2019 (My Visa Jobs, n.d.).
Nonetheless, data collected by the National Foundation for American Policy reveals an
increase in H-1B denials as a consequence of policies included in the U.S. government’s
executive order to ‘Buy American, Hire American’. Also, The Economist views U.S. politics as
a primary reason for the decline in foreign applications at American Business Schools (The
Economist, 2020e). The potentially devastating long-term effects have already become
apparent, as more than half of the founders of leading American tech-companies have a
migration background. Sergey Brin, the founder of Google, for instance, founded the company
in the San Francisco Bay area after immigrating to California from Moscow (Biography, 2019).
Eventually, entrepreneurial activity within the AV ecosystem might suffer from reductions in
available skilled immigrants and increased competition through ecosystems which benefit from
this U.S. policy (Connor & Ruiz, 2019; Semotiuk, 2019).
Furthermore, the interviewee Felix Swoboda has stressed that investors require a
personal conversation with founders before investing, which cannot be replaced by a virtual
meeting. Since the Covid-19 virus increases the risk of in-person meetings, it poses the threat
of declining investments into start-ups. The effects on newly founded companies will be
especially pronounced, as they are not usually well connected; investors, therefore, would
require a first personal meeting before investing.
Also, venture capitalists are often engaged in advising their investments and
partnerships. David Paffenholz stressed in our interview that the impact of the virus on start-
ups requires a lot of management time from the VCs, thereby limiting investors from evaluating
start-ups and investing further. The argumentation is in alignment with the findings of

37
TechCrunch, which observed a significant decline in venture capitalist activity in Silicon Valley
in March 2020 (Wilhelm, 2020).
Also, the virus could prove to have several further effects on the AV ecosystem. First,
‘road-passenger numbers in China are still 57% below their pre-covid’ levels. In addition, oil-
price decreases could indicate fear among investors of a profound reduction in travelling, which
in turn could deter investors in autonomous-vehicle technology. Also, fears of infection could
harm the idea of a shared economy that some of the start-ups in the ecosystem build upon (The
Economist, 2020b).
Furthermore, the traditional automotive industry is suffering from declines in sales and
concurrently from lower profitability during this crisis. The contraction could lead to less
available capital to invest in AV start-ups. An early indicator could be the lay-offs at Cruise, an
AV start-up acquired by General Motors (Tyborski & Demling, 2020).

Figure 14: Distribution of start-ups - subdivided into counties

Moreover, the entrepreneurial activity in California is highly dependent on three hubs,

as can be seen in Figure 14. Besides the positive effects associated with the density, it poses
existential threats to the ecosystem, which loom in Silicon Valley. In 2017, 46% of the
inhabitants said they would leave Silicon Valley within the next few years. This is an increase
of 34% from a year earlier. Also, residential investors’ share of investments in other regions is
growing. While the reasons for this ‘off Silicon Valleying’, as the trend is called, are diverse,
The Economist has singled out increases in the cost of living as the leading cause. According to

38
a founder, the operating costs are at least four times higher than in other American cities (The
Economist, 2018a).
Besides geographical consolidation, economic concentration poses another threat to the
AV entrepreneurial ecosystem. The financial patience required to develop commercially viable
solutions is especially pronounced for the AV entrepreneurial ecosystem (Shulman, 2019), thus
increasing the weight of funding as a competitive factor. The increase, in turn, lowers the ability
of start-ups to compete with established tech companies such as Google and its subsidiary
Waymo, which have secured financing and know-how. Oryx, a start-up which developed
LIDAR technology, closed its operations despite having a cash balance of approximately $40M.
The founder, Wellingstein, gave the following reason: ‘We saw that LIDAR was becoming a
game of giants’ (Shulman, 2019). Also, the opportunity costs for founders increase because
working for a tech company, with median compensation of $240,000 at Facebook, can be as
lucrative monetarily as founding (The Economist, 2018b, The Economist 2020c).
Thus, fears persist that tech-companies are increasingly becoming deterrents for
founders and that they threaten entrepreneurial activity, as they use their financial resources,
expertise and data to obtain a competitive advantage (Lohr & Griffith, 2019; The Economist,
2020b). My interview partner Puneeth Meruva confirms: ‘It is difficult for start-ups to compete
with some of the larger players [i.e. Google] and the automotive manufacturers, as they have a
lot more money to invest.’ However, the prohibition of non-compete clauses, as outlined in
Section 4.4.1, could soften the threat from the established tech companies for the Californian
AV ecosystem, as it creates a constant outflow of human capital and information from the
technology companies into the ecosystem.
Lastly, Meir Dardashti confirms in our interview the threats identified above. However,
he stresses that the most severe risks are the outdated procedures of the AV start-ups’ vital
partners and customers - the OEMs. The cause is their resistance to change. Dardashti
underlines that automotive companies ‘still operate in the same product cycles, in the same
processes they used in the pre-digital area’19. Especially ‘deadly’ to entrepreneurial activity is
the standard duration until a new technology is commercialized in the automotive industry. The
development period of a new car model usually amounts to around four years. Accordingly, the
technology in the newly released models is mostly four years old. Thus, start-ups which sell a
new technology to an automotive company wait four years to receive the greater part of their

19
Notably, he refers to Tesla as an exception and an example that procedures which allow better cooperation
with start-ups are possible.
39
earnings. The interviewee Puneeth Meruva confirms the severity of the challenge and adds: ‘in
some cases, it can take up to ten years’. The duration creates an existential threat for start-ups,
which have only limited resources. Also, consolidation is a consequence from which more
financially sound companies benefit from, as they are in a bargaining position vis-à-vis
vulnerable start-ups. Furthermore, technologies might be left unexploited when they become
economically unrealizable for start-ups. Hence, the long duration until commercialization could
prove to have harmful effects on innovation. Also, Sascha Fritz confirms the sincerity of the
threat on entrepreneurial activity in our interview.

5. Discussion
The previous Chapter outlined the findings of the analysis of the Californian ecosystem. I begin
the following Chapter by summarizing the main results of the preceding analysis. Also, to draw
implications from the analysis of the Californian ecosystem for Germany, it is necessary to
provide a brief overview of the German AV ecosystem. Accordingly, the results of applying
topic modeling to the German start-ups are delineated and complemented by further research.
Subsequently, I discuss the implications of the results of analysing the Californian AV
ecosystem on the German ecosystem. The ensuing discussion is subdivided into sections on
regulations, human capital, partnership and finance. The implications of the results for the
German AV lead to the need for further research, which I elaborate on during the discussion.
Furthermore, the limitations of the methodology are highlighted. Lastly, I reflect on the
application of the CorEx algorithm. I thereby outline its limitations and identify avenues for
further research.

5.1 Main findings of the Californian ecosystem

The Californian ecosystem is among the leading autonomous-vehicle ecosystems globally.
Nearly a quarter (112) of global AV start-ups are headquartered in California. Furthermore, the
ecosystem’s entrepreneurial activity is concentrated on three hubs, namely Silicon Valley, the
greater Francisco Bay area (excluding Silicon Valley) and the greater Los Angeles area. The
most relevant technology for the start-ups in the Californian ecosystem is full vehicle autonomy
(38%). The figure is exceptionally high in comparison to the global average of 30%.
Moreover, the availability of highly-skilled human capital has emerged from the
analysis as a fundament for the success of the Californian AV ecosystem. The ecosystem’s tech
companies and universities educate world-leading talent, which is a vital source of talent for

40
the ecosystem. Their expertise is relevant to AV technology and differs from the expertise
previously required in the automotive sector, thus creating the necessity for the automotive
industry to cooperate with Californian tech-start-ups. However, the lack of talent with
technology and automotive backgrounds in California creates the risk of a culture clash between
the start-ups and the automotive industry. Also, policies directed at attracting foreign talent are
increasingly threatened by the more hostile approach towards immigration currently adopted
by the U.S. government.
Furthermore, the unique characteristics of the automotive industry pose a challenge to
entrepreneurial activity. The long duration until commercialization requires financial patience,
which is rare among start-ups. Moreover, the long-term thinking necessary to develop
autonomous-vehicle technology serves as a competitive advantage for the start-ups over short-
term, profit-oriented, publicly listed OEMs and automotive suppliers. Yet, concurrently,
autonomous-vehicle start-ups commonly show a high dependence on external financing, as
their business models rely on technology which is not yet mature. The entrepreneurial activity
of the AV ecosystem is further threatened by the dominance of tech companies such as Google.
Their resources serve as a competitive advantage over start-ups. Hence, they could increasingly
become a deterrent for founders.
Moreover, the ecosystem includes a strong funding landscape. Californian AV start-ups
have average funding of $151M. The figure is significantly higher than the global average of
$68M. Its strength is a result of thoughtful measures which encourage investments in
entrepreneurial activities. Legislations such as ‘JOBS’ encourage investing in start-ups by
easing compliance and increasing accessibility to investing in start-ups. Also, American pension
funds invest heavily in venture capital as opposed to pension funds in Europe.
Furthermore, the Californian culture is characterized by a tolerance of risk. One guiding
principle is ‘fail fast, fail often’. Likewise, cooperation has emerged from the analysis as a
fundament to the Californian entrepreneurial culture among other factors which contribute
shared backgrounds to the willingness to cooperate. The attribute is essential in the AV
ecosystem, whose leading start-ups have networks of partners. Also, the Californian law
contributes to information exchange. The prohibition of non-compete clauses encourages
individuals to switch jobs more frequently and thereby creates a continuous flow of information
between the actors. However, discrimination against women is a major component of the
Californian ecosystem culture which threatens the innovativeness of the ecosystem.

41
 Legislation regarding autonomous vehicles will significantly influence the development
of entrepreneurial ecosystems. The leading position of California allows it to shape the rules in
the United States according to the strengths of its start-ups, thereby influencing global
legislation. Moreover, the AV ecosystem includes several niche markets which have limited
capital requirements, thus lowering the competitive advantage of well-funded technology
companies such as Google.

5.2 German AV ecosystem

5.2.1 Relevance of the AV development for Germany
Germany is particularly vulnerable to the potential consequences of developing AV technology.
In 2019, 832,841 employees worked in the automotive industry, and the sector contributes a
significant share to Germany’s economy (Statista, 2020). Besides causing potential job losses
due to the automation of transportation, the technology holds the potential to disrupt the
producing automotive industry. Among other factors, experts perceive the following two as
most influential. First, ownership of cars will be questioned. Several start-ups such as Turo20
work on the idea of a shared economy, thereby relying on a business model called cars-as-a-
service.21 Its implementation could eventually lower total car sales. McKinsey and Company,
however, predicts that car sales will be constant despite self-driving technology (Kaas, 2016).
Moreover, as the plans of Waymo reveal, reaching Level 5 could disrupt the automotive value
chain, and original equipment manufacturers (OEM) could become suppliers of mobility
providers (Abuelsamid, 2017).

5.2.2 German ecosystem analysis

An indicator of the severity of the industries’ expected implications is the willingness of
competitors like Ford and Volkswagen for intensive cooperation in autonomous-vehicle
technology (Firstmile VC, 2019). Despite the significant anticipated impact, no German start-
up is among the leading AV start-ups in the world in terms of funding volume. Also, no German
company is outstanding with respect to autonomous miles driven per disengagement, which is
a principal indicator of ‘technological advancement for autonomous driving companies’
(Firstmile VC, 2019).

20
https://turo.com/de/de
21
https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/10/the-future-of-car-ownership-cars-as-a-service/
42
 Number of AV start-ups founded per region over time - Germany
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

North Rhine-Westphalia Berlin Saxony Hesse Bavaria Schleswig-Holstein Baden-Wurttemberg

Figure 15: Number of AV start-ups founded per region over time - Germany

Nonetheless, in our interview, Meir Dardashti stressed that his venture-capital company
has seen ‘in the last couple of years [we have seen] a dramatic increase in the quantity and the
quality of [AV and mobility in general] start-ups from Germany’. Also, analysis of the number
of AV companies founded in Germany over time indicates a similar development. As opposed
to the Californian ecosystem, which peaked in 2016, the number of German start-up
foundations peaked in 2017. As I discuss in Section 5.4, insufficient data about companies only
a few months old is a likely cause of the sincere decline in 2018-2020. Accordingly, the positive
development of AV start-up foundations may not have halted.

Figure 16: Distribution of German AV start-ups - subdivided into federal states

43
 In comparison to the Californian ecosystem, the German AV ecosystem is more
scattered. In Germany, AV start-ups are headquartered in 11 different cities. California, on the
other hand, shows a much higher density. 83% of Californian AV start-ups are headquartered in
the San Francisco Bay area.
Germany has two main AV hubs, namely Bavaria (11) and Berlin (9). Furthermore,
Munich (9) is Bavaria’s leading AV city. Correspondingly, leading automotive companies and
universities such as BMW and Technische Universtität München are headquartered in Munich.
In recent years, Berlin (9) has emerged as another relevant German AV hub. No German OEM
is headquartered in Berlin, still experienced venture capitalists and business angels such as
Earlybird and Michael Brehm are located in the ecosystem. Moreover, Berlin’s networking
events such as Disrupt Berlin and coworking spaces like Betahaus contribute to a culture of
collaboration (Trajkovska, 2018).

P roport i on of st art -u p s act i v e i n t h e res p ect i v e t o p i c -

Germ an ecosyst em
57%

40%

37%

37%

33%

30%

27%

27%

20%

20%

17%
10%

10%

10%

7%

7%

7%
3%
3%

3%

0%

Figure 17: Proportion of start-ups active in the respective topic - German ecosystem

The German ecosystem distinguishes itself from the Californian and the global ecosystems
through a strong focus on data-analytics (57%) and localization and mapping (40%). The share

44
of start-ups which engage with full vehicle autonomy (27%) is slightly less than the global
figure (excluding California) and is 11% lower than the Californian portion. Also, like the actors
of the Californian ecosystem, German start-ups concentrate on computer vision (37%), and only
a fraction engage with camera-vision (10%) as a way to provide vehicles with sight.
Furthermore, the average number of technologies and industries that start-ups are
engaged with reveals insights. The figure indicates whether the ecosystem’s start-ups have a
narrow focus or engage concurrently with several industries and technologies. For instance, the
number of a start-up which focuses only on mobility as a service and full vehicle autonomy
equals two. Moreover, the average for the German ecosystem is 3.7. Accordingly, German AV
start-ups are engaged on average with 3.7 different industries and technologies. Contrarily, the
figure for the Californian and Global ecosystem (excluding California and Germany) is 2.7 and
2.5, respectively.
Finally, I agree with Isenberg (2010) that the prosperity of the Californian ecosystem,
and particularly Silicon Valley, depends on several interdependent factors which impede the
differentiation of causality and correlation. Still, the analysis has made it possible to examine
diverse distinguishing characteristics and has revealed potentially insightful further research
directions. Accordingly, in the following, I discuss the applicable results of my analysis and its
implications for the German AV ecosystem (Isenberg, 2010).

45
5.3 Implications for the German AV ecosystem
Derived from the six domains of the entrepreneurship ecosystem by Isenberg (2011), I divide
the discussion of the implications of my analysis on the German AV ecosystem in regulations,
human capital, partnership and finance.

Figure 18: Summary of the main implications for the German AV ecosystem22

5.3.1 Regulations
The consequences of California’s establishment of fundamental Internet standards (i.e., the
Internet protocol) emphasize the positive effects of an entrepreneurial ecosystem taking a
leading position in standard-setting and defining regulations for new technologies. The need for
setting standards and establishing rules is especially pronounced for the AV ecosystem.
According to an often-cited report by Dentons (2020), AV regulations should address
‘vehicle construction, safety, cybersecurity, data and liability’. Companies stress the adverse
effects of having to ‘navigate a new set of regulations every time their vehicles cross state lines’.
Different country-specific requirements increase the obstacles to expanding start-ups. Still, in
the United States, as in Europe, regulations differ from state to state. However, in our interview,

22
‘Potential of implication’ is based on my assessment of the extent of the implication on the German AV
ecosystem. The figures are approximations and provide solely a tendency.
46
Sascha Fritz accentuates that investors expect standardization of the rules in the United States
(Dentons, 2020).
In contrast, in Europe, investors fear that companies will have to keep adapting to
country-specific regulations. Furthermore, they assume that the unified rules allow reaching a
critical scale which will give U.S. start-ups a competitive edge over their European rivals. As a
consequence, investors prefer to invest in and collaborate with American start-ups.
Two necessary steps can be derived from the arguments. First, the government is
required to shape legislation in consultation with the ecosystem’s start-ups. Sascha Fritz
emphasizes that, for instance, establishing clearer rules for the requirements for testing AVs on
public roads would help domestic start-ups. Moreover, Germany’s Road Traffic Authority
(KBA) is a pioneer in establishing legislation regarding AVs. However, to increase the gravity
of its enactment and to assist domestic start-ups, Germany should support the establishment of
standards and regulations on a European level. Also, the competitiveness of European start-ups
would benefit from unified AV rules and concurrently lead to an increase in the availability of
capital. Correspondingly, European policymakers must quickly create clarity for investors
regarding the possibility of standardization, as the entrepreneurial activity is already suffering
from the belief of investors in Europe’s inability to unify.
The implementation and development of the European General Data-Protection
Regulation, which was adopted by about 120 countries as privacy law, can serve as a model
(Bradford, 2020; DENTONS, 2020; The Economist, 2020b). Moreover, an in-depth
investigation of the Israelian ecosystem could reveal insights for German AV entrepreneurs.
Leading AV start-ups such as Arbe23 emerged from the ecosystem despite the absence of an
addressable domestic market24. To begin, my interview partner Meir Dardashti, who is an
Israelian investor, underlines that the absence requires a strong early global orientation and the
formation of alliances and partnerships. He adds: ‘The natural course of an Israelian start-up is
launching American or European headquarters really early on.’ He refers to a comparatively
more inward-looking German approach by stressing: ‘We ask them [the German AV start-ups]
why don’t you look at Korea or the U.S. [for customers and partners], and they will look at us
like we’re aliens […]. German entrepreneurs are very Germany-focused, and it doesn’t help
them.’

23
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/arbe-robotics#section-overview
24
The absence of a domestic market is a characteristic which is comparable to the German start-ups’ situation
without unified European rules
47
5.3.2 Human capital
Furthermore, the availability of skilled employees has, throughout this analysis, emerged as the
fundamental success factor of the Californian ecosystem. Its availability is especially critical to
the AV ecosystem due to the complexity of the technology. Its actors rely on highly skilled
employees to develop cutting-edge technology.
The analysis reveals that immigrants comprise a critical source of human capital for the
Californian AV ecosystem. Moreover, the willingness of global talent to immigrate to the
ecosystem is a prerequisite. The eagerness, in turn, depends on the attractiveness of the
ecosystem. Thus, the co-founder of Stripe, a payments start-up, identifies the factor responsible
for the failure to replicate Silicon Valley’s success elsewhere by saying that ‘everyone there
wants to come here’ (Manjoo, 2017).
According to a study25 which ranks OECD countries according to their ‘talent
attractiveness’, the United States is more attractive to skilled individuals than Germany. The
OECD ranks the countries in the study according to ‘quality of opportunities, income and taxes,
future prospects, family environment, skills environment, inclusiveness26 and quality of life’
(OECD, n.d.). Also, in our interview, Meir Dardashti emphasizes that the availability of
opportunities for immigrants is the most influential reason. The result of the scores is reflected
in the number of immigrants in a country with a postsecondary degree. The figure for the United
States is more than seven times higher than that for Germany. However, the United States is
now taking a harsher stance toward immigrants. Eventually, this could be a chance for Germany.
The country could attract talent by emphasizing its openness to immigration. Also, since the
availability and quality of opportunities are central factors, German policymakers should ensure
equality of opportunities.
Moreover, the Californian ecosystem is also benefiting from the inflow of human capital
from other states of the United States. The establishment of the legislation that prohibited non-
compete clauses had a crucial influence. However, it is vital to refrain from the assumption that
the law’s positive effects in encouraging a culture of information exchange and
entrepreneurship are generally applicable to the German ecosystem. Instead, the success of the
implementation is dependent on several factors. Notably, non-compete agreements have the

25
The ‘OECD Indicators of Talent Attractiveness is the first comprehensive tool to capture the strengths and
weaknesses of OECD countries regarding their capacity to attract and retain three specific categories of talented
migrants: highly educated workers (those with master and doctoral degrees), foreign entrepreneurs and
university students.’ (OECD, 2020)
26
Inclusiveness refers to ‘the degree of diversity, natives’ attitudes towards immigration, gender equality’
48
purpose of encouraging employers to invest in their human capital. Correspondingly, it is
especially important to distinguish between the short-term and long-term investment horizons
of the industry. Erik Stam writes that prohibiting non-compete clauses in ‘sectors with long
investment horizons may frustrate these investments leading to welfare destroying effects’
(Stam, 2019). A long-term investment horizon characterizes the AV ecosystem, as high initial
investments are commonly required, which are expected to pay off in the distant future.
Accordingly, investments in states which prohibit non-compete clauses are combined
with high risk for companies. Waymo, which lost several key-employees in one year and
concurrently gained new competitors, illustrates the potential negative impact on investors.
Thus the risk persists that companies will avoid California. The consequences could be a
downward spiral caused by an absence of positive effects, such as former employees founding
start-ups in the sector. However, in accordance with the results presented in Chapter 4, the
Californian ecosystem remains in a leading position in terms of entrepreneurial activity. Among
the reasons for its position is the attractiveness of the ecosystem as a result of its resources such
as availability of funding and talent. Accordingly, as Germany lacks behind in terms of
attractiveness, prohibiting the non-compete law27 could deter investors from entering or staying
in the German ecosystem.
However, the law could concurrently encourage employees of OEMs and automotive
suppliers to leave their employers and become entrepreneurs in Germany. Accordingly, the
establishment could help the German ecosystem leverage one of its key strength: the availability
of human capital with automotive-industry knowledge. Consequently, start-ups of former
employees could have an edge, as their founders know the unique requirements of the
automotive industry. Correspondingly, Meir Dardashti underlines the advantage of founders
with automotive industry experience when pitching for venture capital: ‘the most valuable
entrepreneurs say when they come to us, especially on the B2B side, “I know that corporates
need X because I was there”’. Also, collaboration with automotive companies could be
promising for founders with automotive background, as a ‘culture clash’28 is unlikely.
Still, the argumentation is based on assumptions. Further research is, therefore,
necessary. Currently, scholars focus on the United States and leading entrepreneurial
ecosystems in general. The law’s effect on the development of ecosystems which are not among

27
Currently the HGB states that a non-competition clause for up to two years may have legal capacity.
(Osnabrügge (2020))
28
‘A conflict arising from the interaction of people with different cultural values’ (Collins English Dictionary,
2014)
49
the leading in its sector would be insightful. Also, the implementation of a hybrid approach in
Germany, similar to that encountered in the United States, offers the potential to reveal insights.
By establishing the law only in a part of the country, for instance, in Germany’s AV hubs, Berlin
and Munich would allow policymakers to observe the effects of the law before discussing a
national establishment (Stam, 2019).

5.3.3 Partnership
The interviewees Meir Dardashti, Puneeth Meruva and Sascha Fritz, agree on the dreadfulness
the threat of outdated processes common in the automotive industry poses on entrepreneurial
activity, as outlined in Chapter 4.3.4. They accentuate the relevance of cooperation with start-
ups for the competitiveness of OEMs in new technologies, such as full vehicle autonomy. Meir
Dardashti stresses: ‘BMW is not going to develop its own digital products. Innovation will
happen through working with start-ups’. Dardashti refers to the example of Tesla to underline
that processes which are better suited for innovation and collaboration with start-ups are
possible in the automotive industry. He emphasizes: ‘the Teslas of this world are very happy to
work in much shorter time frames like development periods of 1-2 years. This means that
innovation will go to them, and the traditional OEMs are suffering, which means they can’t
compete with the big tech companies.’ The OEMs’ reluctance to adapt their processes to the
requirements of working with start-ups is ‘killing the start-ups, which would be their saviours.’
He further highlights that often the only alternative to bankruptcy is the sale to a tech-company.
‘Either they are dying, or they’re going to the very companies German OEMs are threatened
by; Tesla, Google or Amazon because they know how to integrate them in six months’.
Accordingly, critical for the German automotive industry and the AV start-up ecosystem
is the adaption of processes to enact efficient collaboration with start-ups. The sincerity of the
necessity to change becomes apparent if setting the market capitalization of Tesla in relation to
the value of the German OEMs. Besides generating only a fraction of sales and profits, Tesla’s
market capitalization is comparable to the combined value of Volkswagen AG and BMW AG.
The ‘market value […] is equal to the present value of all expected future cash flows to equity
owners’. Accordingly, investors expect Tesla to generate as much discounted cash flows as the
two German OEMs combined in the future (Crider, 2020; McGuigan et al., 2008).
Moreover, the adaption of processes and efficient cooperation with start-ups is complex
and requires dedication to be successful. Dries Faems stresses the possibility of misconceptions
when cooperating with start-ups, such as ‘Venturing as Isolated Speedboat’. The theory refers

50
to the consequences of missing proximity between start-ups and corporates during cooperation.
A result is a missing understanding of the start-ups’ needs. The theory further accentuates that
separation of the entities is important; still understanding key elements such as the ‘core
business’ is vital (Faems, 2019). Correspondingly, one approach towards a corporate
transformation involves educating the executives of OEMs through entrepreneurship courses.
Besides increasing the awareness for the relevance of this approach for innovativeness,
education can contribute to understanding the requirements and challenges combined with
collaborations. Eventually, the entrepreneurial AV ecosystem in Germany and the traditional
automotive industry could be beneficiaries of the corporate transformation.

5.3.4 Finance
The average funding for a German AV start-up is approximately $8.5M. The figure is less than
six per cent of the Californian AV start-ups average. Also, the median is $3.6M and is therefore
27% of the Californian median. The proportional difference between the average and the
median can be attributed to large outliers of the Californian ecosystem like Cruise, which
received funding of $5.3bn.

Figure 19: Distribution of funding – Californian and German AV ecosystem

One main explanation for the difference in funding for German and Californian AV start-ups
could be the cooperation with automotive companies. Original equipment manufacturers and
automotive suppliers are vital partners for AV start-ups. In partnerships, they share their
expertise and offer a solution for scaling products. Moreover, they contribute to entrepreneurial
activity by investing in AV start-ups. In addition, three out of the leading five Californian start-

51
ups have OEMs among their investors. In contrast, out of Germany’s AV start-ups, Crunchbase
lists only two start-ups with investors from the automotive industry (Continental and General
Motors).
Two principal reasons cause the missing ties between German AV start-ups and the
automotive industry. First, as stated by Sascha Fritz and Meir Dardashti in our interviews,
German AV start-ups are unusually averse to cooperation with other companies. This
characteristic is especially pronounced in the earlier stages of the start-ups. Second, German
AV start-ups are lacking in size and potential29 in comparison to their Californian competitors.
The venture capitalist stresses that large investors from the automotive industry, such as Robert
Bosch Venture Capital, are interested in start-ups which are more mature and have a more
foreseeable future.
Accordingly, it is critical for the German AV ecosystem to have a culture of collaboration
and ensure that start-ups can grow to a size which makes them relevant to the automotive
industry.
First, universities can contribute to a culture of collaboration by teaching
entrepreneurship. For instance, inviting alumni who founded a start-up can inspire students.
The exchange between students and founders can serve as the first step for students to build a
network, which in turn contributes to establishing collaborative entrepreneurship. However, as
the analysis of the Californian ecosystem revealed is discrimination against women a potential
risk. Thus, universities should contribute to increasing the awareness of students and should
encourage female entrepreneurship. Moreover, as Sascha Fritz outlines that especially the early
stages of start-ups showed an aversion towards cooperation, potentially insightful could be an
investigation of the reasons for this change in later stages. The findings might contribute to
developing measures which encourage openness towards collaboration among German
entrepreneurs from the beginning.
Regarding the second reason for the missing ties between the German AV ecosystem
and the automotive industry, I outline, in the following, potential steps which might contribute
to the creation of leading AV start-ups. One sincerely limiting factor is the availability of
financing for the growth stage of start-ups. The total invested venture capital in the United
States is significantly higher than in Germany. In addition, the proportion of venture capital
invested in the growth stage of start-ups is more than 50% in the United States, compared to

29
The potential is according to Sascha Fritz strongly influenced by the expected unification of regulations.
Correspondingly, investors do not anticipate standardised rules on a European level.
52
less than a third in Germany. Similar to the approach of the Californian policymakers at the
beginning of Silicon Valley, the German government could offer subsidies to invest in start-ups.
Correspondingly, Russo, a consultant, recommends adding up to 1€ to every Euro invested in
more mature start-ups. (Russo, 2018). The aid could increase the overall venture capital and
raise the share of funding allocated to growth-stage start-ups.
Also, following the proposal of one of the nine principles of Isenberg (2010), which
suggests favouring high potentials, could contribute to the creation of industry leaders. The
advice involves the reallocation of resources to start-ups with high potential entrepreneurs. The
German ecosystem could benefit, as the emergence of industry leaders stimulates
entrepreneurial activity ‘many experts argue that the wealth creation, power to inspire other
start-ups, labor force enrichment, and reputational value are much greater with [one rapidly
globalizing 500- person operation]’. Isenberg (2010) mentions an example of Enterprise
Ireland, which ‘has created a program specifically to provide mentoring and financial assistance
to high-potential start-ups, which it defines as ventures that are export-oriented, are based on
innovative technology, and can generate at least €1 million in sales and 10 jobs in three years’,
as a model (Isenberg, 2010).
Moreover, establishing similar rules to those of the ‘JOBS’ Act established by the U.S.
government could encourage investing in growth-stage start-ups. Especially influential could
be the second and third initiatives of the act, which caused an increase in the number of
companies going public.
Lastly, as the average number of technologies and industries start-ups are engaged with
reveals, German AV entrepreneurs are engaged concurrently with more industries and
technologies (3.7) than their Californian counterparts (2.7, Section 5.2.2). This broader focus
of German AV start-ups might be harmful due to the lower available financial resources of
German entrepreneurs. Accordingly, following the advice of my interview partner Puneeth
Meruva might be feasible for German AV entrepreneurs. He recommends concentrating on a
single niche market in the AV ecosystem due to the lower capital required to become a market
leader.

5.4 Methodology reflection and avenues for further research

First, one severe restriction on the analysis is the insufficient data found in databases such as
Crunchbase. A strong indicator for its incompleteness is the sharp decline in the number of
companies founded in 2018 and 2019, as depicted in Figure 13. The fall is very likely to be a

53
result of missing data, as the analysis of the ecosystem does not indicate a drop as severe as the
data suggests. Also, Crunchbase suggests that information often requires several months to
report (Glasner, 2018). Accordingly, a disproportionate share of recently founded companies is
presumed to be not incorporated in the database.
Further, manual analysis of the Crunchbase dataset reveals that the database tends to
incorporate more data about companies which are larger in terms of employees, funding and
expected revenue. This characteristic distorts findings. For instance, as a result, the average
funding per company is probably higher than its actual value. Thus, I have focused on drawing
comparisons, as they allow to exclude the distortion. For instance, a comparison of the average
funding of a Californian AV ecosystem with the figure for the average worldwide (excluding
California) allows concluding.
Also, topic modeling is more reliable if applied to a large sample size. For instance, only
one start-up in California belongs to the marine topic. However, nine start-ups worldwide
engage in this industry. If I restricted the data-set to Californian start-ups before running the
algorithm, the topic modeling could rely only on one start-up. The restriction would prevent the
building of a topic. Therefore, implementing geographical restrictions after running the
algorithm to incorporate a larger sample size allows one to build the marine topic. In Section
5.4.3, I offer a potential solution to the case if there was only one start-up which belonged to
the marine topic in the world.
Moreover, the requirement of manual editing of data is an additional potential source of
mistakes. Manual editing was required when deleting start-ups which were not relevant to the
ecosystem, when supplementing the Crunchbase data-set with start-ups that were mistakenly
left out and when creating the geographical classification of start-ups in California, Germany
and worldwide. Regarding the latter, I was able to control whether the total number of start-ups
was correct. Hence, I was able to adapt the data until the figures became equal, thereby reducing
the probability of a mistake.

5.4.1 Applying the CorEx algorithm

I now provide a concise overview of what I learned by applying the CorEx algorithm for topic
modeling.
The application of a semi-supervised approach to identify latent structures has proven
insightful, and its output has been shown to be reliable.30 Furthermore, I observed that assigning

30
Reliable in terms of its ability to classify the start-ups correctly
54
a low weight to the anchors in the first stages of building the topics allows the model to override
the anchors and thus prevents the misinterpretation of a topic. The result is aligned with the
findings of van Kessel (2019), a data scientist.
However, Van Kessel (2019) recommends adding words which the model seems to have
missed. Nevertheless, from my own experience, the inclusion interfered the development of
topics. Accordingly, I relied for the most part on adding the words as anchors which were
suggested by the respective topic. However, the difference in his result and my own could be a
consequence of a problem I elaborate on below, in Section 5.4.2.
Moreover, one further step has increased the unambiguous assignment of start-ups to
topics. Generally, words that are included in several topics reduce the lack of ambiguity and
can lead to false positives. For instance, the word automotive could apply to several topics in
my analysis. Therefore, the algorithm could include the word in the topic ADAS and mobility
as a service. Hence, a mobility-as-a-service start-up could have a likelihood of belonging to
topic ADAS as a consequence (i.e., a positive correlation explanation value). This would be the
case if the start-up incorporated the word automotive in its description text and if both topics
included the word. If there were several of these cases, it could lead to a start-up exceeding the
minimum required correlation explanation value I set in Excel to avoid this problem. One
possible solution is to remove words that are included in more than one topic through the
process described in Section 3.4.2. This process can increase the reliability of assigning start-
ups to topics.
However, deleting words that are shared among several topics can interfere with the
building of topics. Hence, it is necessary to limit the extent of deleting words that are included
in more than one topic. The resulting trade-off leads necessarily to some words being included
in more than one topic. Therefore, start-ups which engage with mobility as a service might have
a small correlation with ADAS. Setting a minimum correlation explanation value in Excel
makes it possible to avoid assigning start-ups to topics which have only a low probability of
belonging to the topic.
Moreover, in the following, I outline a possible limitation of the application of the CorEx
algorithm and illustrate the conduction of an experiment to investigate a possible restriction.

5.4.2 Confirmation bias and semi-supervised topic modeling

The semi-supervised approach’s possibility of incorporating human domain knowledge poses a
risk concurrently. The uncertainty is reflected in the confirmation bias. The confirmation bias

55
refers to the tendency of humans ‘to process information by looking for, or interpreting,
information that is consistent with one’s existing beliefs. This biased approach to decision
making is largely unintentional and often results in ignoring inconsistent information’ (Casad,
2019). I realized that I was quick in building topics which are aligned with the conclusions I
draw about the ecosystem based on previous research. At the same time, the topics that were
not aligned with my expectations received less attention from a retrospective point of view.
Hence, the incorporation of domain knowledge in topic modeling might come at the cost of
infringing on a primary responsibility of topic modeling: the unbiased identification of latent
structures in texts. This effect could be especially pronounced when the subject is prone to
continuous change, which implies that domain knowledge is not current.
To the best of my knowledge, no research has been conducted on a possible limitation
of the confirmation bias of a semi-supervised topic modeling approach. Thus, I propose that
experimental studies be conducted. For example, the research focus could lie on whether the
implementation of a semi-supervised approach leads to the systematic neglect of topics which
do not belong to the domain. Confirmation of the hypotheses could indicate the influence of
confirmation bias on the outcome of topics.

5.4.3 Web scraping

Furthermore, analysis of a relatively small data set is accompanied by a negative effect. Though
the semi-supervised approach allows for the guidance of the algorithms, I was not able to
reliably build topics such as military. I assume that the lack of words in absolute terms which
are related to military to be responsible for my inability to build the topic. The description of
start-ups in Crunchbase usually incorporates only around 20 words and, only a few start-ups
would belong to the topic.31 Hence, the number of words available to build the topic is modest.
One possible way to complement the available number of words the topic modeling can build
on involves implementing a method called web scraping. ‘Web scraping is an automated
method used to extract large amounts of data from websites’ (Hiremath, 2020). Specifically,
one possible approach includes using the Crunchbase data to determine the URLs of the relevant
start-ups. Then the application of web scraping allows one to download the text of the start-ups’
websites. The topic modeling algorithm can then rely on the downloaded text as a supplement
to the description text of the start-ups on Crunchbase.

31
Data collected through manual analysis of the data-set
56
 Besides increasing the number of words available for analysis, this approach would
allow for the reception of more recent data about the companies’ focus, as the Crunchbase data
is not updated as often as the website text is. Also, the collection of data from company websites
would facilitate to receive a broader perspective, as potential sub-topics could become apparent,
which were not mentioned in the description text. However, some websites prohibit the
application of web scraping. Appending ‘/robots.txt’ to the URL forwards the user to a page
which outlines the type of data that may be retrieved (Hiremath, 2020; Kho, 2018). Moreover,
though the analysis might reveal interesting and insightful information, further research should
also address the feasibility of the approach in terms of factors such as time effectiveness and
the reliability of the outcome. From preliminary research about the method, I conclude that the
application can be feasible if applied in several analyses, but more in-depth research is essential.

57
 References

Abuelsamid, S. (2017). The Future For Smaller Automakers May Be As Tier 1 Suppliers To
Apple And Waymo. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/samabuelsamid/2017/06/13/the-future-for-smaller-
automakers-may-be-as-tier-1-suppliers-to-apple-and-waymo/#56af1c6e3f2f

Acemoglu, D., & Johnson, S. (2005). Unbundling Institutions. Journal of Political Economy,
113(5), 949-995. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/432166

Ács, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014). National Systems of Entrepreneurship: Measurement
issues and policy implications. Research Policy, 43(3), 476–494.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.08.016

Ács, Z. J., Stam, E., Audretsch, D. B,, & O’Connor, A. (2017). The lineages of the
entrepreneurial ecosystem approach. Small Business Economics, 49(1), 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9864-8

Agar, I. (2019, August 27). The top VC investors in autonomous vehicle tech. Pitchbook.
https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/the-top-investors-in-autonomous-vehicle-tech

AGVE. (2020). Automated Guided Vehicles since 1985. https://www.agvegroup.com/

Alcorn, S. (2019, July 3). What everyone at a startup needs to know about immigration.
TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/03/what-everyone-at-a-startup-needs-to-
know-about-immigration/

Amadeo, K. (2019, August 24). Silicon Valley, America's Innovative Advantage. The Balance.
https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-silicon-valley-3305808

Atomico & Slush. (2017). The State of European Tech. https://s3.eu-central-

1.amazonaws.com/maison-moderne-paperjam-gms-
prod/files/state_of_european_tech_2017_fullreport.pdf

Bakunin, M., & Kuznetsov, M. Y. (2020). The Cultural Clash: Traditional Automakers vs.
Deigital Companies – Can they work together? In M. Y. Kuznetsov & M. I. Nikishova
(Eds.), Challenges and opportunities of corporate governance transformation in the
digital era (pp. 117–129). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-2011-
6.ch006

58
Baldwin, R. (2020, October 2). Self-Driving-Car Research Has Cost $16 Billion. What Do We
Have to Show for It? Car and Driver.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a30857661/autonomous-car-self-driving-research-
expensive/

Baumol, W. J. (1990). Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and Destructive. Journal

of Political Economy. 98(5), 893-921.

Benson, A., Tefft, B. C., Svancara, A. M., & Horrey, W. J. (2018). Potential Reduction in
Crashes, Injuries and Deaths from Large-Scale Deployment of Advanced Driver
Assistance Systems. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
https://aaafoundation.org/potential-reduction-in-crashes-injuries-and-deaths-from-large-
scale-deployment-of-advanced-driver-assistance-systems/

Biography. (2019, December 4). Sergey Brin Biography.

https://www.biography.com/business-figure/sergey-brin

Bird, J. (2019, June 4). Car hacking threatens vision of connected mobility. Financial Times.
https://www.ft.com/content/163f08c6-6ce3-11e9-9ff9-8c855179f1c4

Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent Dirichlet Allocation. Journal of
Machine Learning Research, 3(1), 993-1022.

Block, J. H., & Sandner, P. G. (2009). What is the Effect of the Financial Crisis on Venture
Capital Financing? Empirical Evidence from US Internet Start-Ups. Venture Capital,
11(4), 295-309.

BonaLaw. (n.d.). Is My Out-Of-State Noncompete Agreement Enforceable In California?

https://www.businessjustice.com/is-my-out-of-state-noncompete-agreement-
enforceable-in-californi.html

Bowman, J. (2018, August 9). Driverless Cars Will Impact These 5 Industries. The Motley
Fool. https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/06/11/driverless-cars-will-impact-these-5-
industries.aspx

Bradford, A. (2020). The Brussels effect: How the European Union rules the world. Oxford
University Press.

59
Bruns, K., Bosma, N., Sanders, M., & Schramm (2017). Searching for the existence of
entrepreneurial ecosystems: A regional cross-section growth regression approach. Small
Business Economics, 49(1), 31-54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9866-6

California State University. (2019). Facts About the CSU. https://www2.calstate.edu/csu-

system/about-the-csu/facts-about-the-csu

Casad, B. J. (2019). Confirmation bias. Britannica.

https://www.britannica.com/science/confirmation-bias

Castells, M. (2010). The rise of the network society (2. ed.). Wiley.

Chen, Z. (2017). Computer Vision and Machine Learning for Autonomous Vehicles
[Dissertation]. Worcester Polytechnic Institute.
https://web.wpi.edu/Pubs/ETD/Available/etd-102217-205519/unrestricted/zchen.pdf

Connor, P., & Ruiz, N. G. (2019, January 22). Majority of U.S. Public Supports High-Skilled
Immigration. Pew Research Center.
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/01/22/majority-of-u-s-public-supports-high-
skilled-immigration/

Cooke, P. (2001). Regional Innovation Systems, Clusters, and the Knowledge Economy.
Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 945–974. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/10.4.945

Coren, M. J. (2017, September 15). All of the car companies, suppliers, and auto startups in
Silicon Valley. Quartz. https://qz.com/1072873/all-of-the-car-companies-suppliers-and-
auto-startups-in-silicon-valley/

Crider, J. (2020, February 7). Tesla’s Market Cap Is Nearly That Of BMW & VW Combined.
CleanTechnica. https://cleantechnica.com/2020/02/07/teslas-market-cap-is-nearly-that-of-
bmw-vw-combined/

Davies, A., & Marshall, A. (2020, February 27). In California, Which Self-Driving Cars Log
the Most Miles? New reports show autonomous vehicles from 36 companies covered 2.9
million miles in the state last year, up from 2.1 million in 2018. Wired.
https://www.wired.com/story/california-self-driving-cars-log-most-miles/

Dennis, M. A. (2019). Silicon Valley. Encyclopædia Britannica.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Silicon-Valley-region-California

60
Dentons. (2020, January 30). Global Guide to Autonomous Vehicles 2020.
https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/guides-reports-and-
whitepapers/2020/january/29/global-guide-to-autonomous-vehicles-2020

Descant, S. (2018, June 27). Autonomous Vehicles to Have Huge Impact on Economy, Tech
Sector. Government Technology.
https://www.govtech.com/fs/automation/Autonomous-Vehicles-to-Have-Huge-Impact-
on-Economy-Tech-Sector.html

DeVore, C. (2016, February 18). Silicon Valley Keeps Winning Because Non-Compete Limit
Innovation. TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2016/02/18/silicon-valley-keeps-
winning-because-non-competes-limit-innovation/

Dictionary.com. (2020). Micromobility. Tech & Science Dictionary.

https://www.dictionary.com/e/tech-science/micromobility/

Duvall, T., Hannon, E., Katseff, J., Safran, B., & Wallace, T. (2019, May 22). A new look at
autonomous-vehicle infrastructure: What infrastructure improvements will promote the
growth of autonomous vehicles while simultaneously encouraging shared ridership?
McKinsey. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/capital-projects-and-
infrastructure/our-insights/a-new-look-at-autonomous-vehicle-infrastructure

DW. (2017, June 21). Uber boss Travis Kalanick resigns under investor pressure.
https://www.dw.com/en/uber-boss-travis-kalanick-resigns-under-investor-pressure/a-
39341897

Egusa, C. (2019). A San Francisco startup guide for international entrepreneurs. The next
web. https://thenextweb.com/podium/2019/08/13/a-san-francisco-startup-guide-for-
international-entrepreneurs/

Faems, D. (2019). Module 2: Mimicking startups: Stimulating intrapreneurship. WHU - Otto

Beisheim School of Management. Entrepreneurial Transformation in Corporations,
Burgplatz 2, 56179 Vallendar, Germany.
Faems, D. (n.d.). Entrepreneurial Discovery of Digital Hotspots for Education in Germany.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d8f61b41b9891096ad1ccf0/t/5e5c123955dd083654
3dfd1c/1583092284312/METHODOLOGICAL+NOTE+Digital+Education+hotspots.pdf

Feld, B. (2012). Startup Communities: Building an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem in Your City.

Wiley.
61
Feldman, M. P. (2014). The character of innovative places: entrepreneurial strategy, economic
development, and prosperity. Small Business Economics, 43(1), 9-20.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-014-9574-4

Firstmile VC. (2019, July 31). Decoding the Autonomous Driving Landscape: Software will
indeed eat the (automotive) world. Medium.
https://medium.com/@firstmilevc/avlandscape-8a21491f1f54

Franzke, S., & Theissen, E. (2005). IPO als Exit der Venture-Capital-Finanzierung. In C. J.
Börner & D. Grichnik (Eds.), Entrepreneurial Finance: Kompendium der Gründungs-
und Wachstumsfinanzierung; mit 25 Tabellen (pp. 391–405). Physica-Verlag
Heidelberg.

Gadam, S. (2018, April 19). Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Vehicles. Medium.
https://medium.com/datadriveninvestor/artificial-intelligence-and-autonomous-vehicles-
ae877feb6cd2

Gallagher, R. J., Reing, K., Kale, D., & ver Steeg, G. (2017). Anchored Correlation
Explanation: Topic Modeling with Minimal Domain Knowledge. Transactions of the
Association for computational Linguistics, 5(1), 1-21.

Gjording, L. R. (2017). Women grapple with Silicon Valley's bro culture. DW.
dw.com/en/women-grapple-with-silicon-valleys-bro-culture/a-39437021

Glasner, J. (2018, April 26). Here Is Where The San Francisco Startup Scene Is Headed.
Crunchbase News. https://news.crunchbase.com/news/san-francisco-startup-scene-
headed/

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. (2019). Democratising funding through equity-

crowdfunding. https://www.gemconsortium.org/economy-profiles/united-states

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. (n.d.). Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Attitudes.

https://www.gemconsortium.org/wiki/1375

Heineke, K., Kampshoff, P., Kellner, M., & Kloss, B. (2019). Change vehicles: How robo-
taxis and shuttles will reinvent mobility. McKinsey.
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/change-
vehicles-how-robo-taxis-and-shuttles-will-reinvent-mobility

62
Henrekson, M., & Sanandaji, T. (2014). Small business activity does not measure
entrepreneurship. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
of America, 111(5), 1760–1765. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1307204111

Hiremath, O. S. (2020). A Beginner’s Guide to learn web scraping with python! Edureka.
https://www.edureka.co/blog/web-scraping-with-python/

Holzer, H. (2020, April 20). Audi verzichtet beim A8 auf den Autopiloten: Eigentlich sollte
das Audi-Flaggschiff bei selbstfahrenden Systemen zum Vorreiter werden. Doch die
Gesetzgebung sei noch nicht weit genug, betont der Hersteller. Handelsblatt.
https://www.handelsblatt.com/auto/nachrichten/autonomes-fahren-audi-verzichtet-beim-
a8-auf-den-autopiloten/25786454.html

I-car. (2019, July 22). ADAS, And Autonomous Vehicles - The Cars Of The Future.
https://rts.i-car.com/collision-repair-news/adas-and-autonomous-vehicles-the-cars-of-
the-future.html

Invstor. (n.d.). Friends and Family Financing Definition.

http://www.invstor.com/information/go-big-dictionary/friends-and-family-financing-
definition

Isenberg, D. J. (2010). How to Start an Entrepreneurial Revolution. Harvard Business

Review(6), 40–50.

Isenberg, D. J. (2011, May 25). Introducing the Entrepreneurship Ecosystem: Four Defining
Characteristics. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danisenberg/2011/05/25/introducing-the-
entrepreneurship-ecosystem-four-defining-characteristics/#3c0280265fe8

Jain, B. A., & Kini, O. (1995). Venture capitalist participation and the post-issue operating
performance of IPO firms. Managerial and Decision Economics 16(6), 593–606.

Johnson, H., & Sanchez, S. (2019, May). Immigrants in California. Public Policy Institute of
California. https://www.ppic.org/publication/immigrants-in-california/

Kaas, H. W. (2016). Interview by L. Collins, & D. Mohr [Podcast].

https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Industries/Automotive%20and%20Asse
mbly/Our%20Insights/Self%20driving%20cars%20and%20the%20future%20of%20the
%20auto%20sector/Self-driving-cars-and-the-future-of-the-auto-sector.ashx

63
Kane, M. (2020, March 17). Tesla Makes California The Only Western State To Produce
Cars. INSIDEEVs. https://insideevs.com/news/404602/tesla-california-western-state-
produce-cars/

Kanies, L. (2017, November 9). If You Take Venture Capital, You’re Forcing Your Company
To Exit: To understand venture capital, you must understand the consequences of how
VCs return capital to their investors. Medium. https://medium.com/s/understanding-
venture-capital/if-you-take-venture-capital-youre-forcing-your-company-to-exit-
fc08fcdb32cc

Kho, J. (2018, September 27). How to Web Scrape with Python in 4 Minutes: A Beginner’s
Guide for Webscraping in Python. Medium. https://towardsdatascience.com/how-to-
web-scrape-with-python-in-4-minutes-bc49186a8460

Kille, L. W. (2014, October 5). Transportation safety over time: Cars, planes, trains, walking,
cycling. Journalist's Resource.
https://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/transportation/comparing-fatality-
risks-united-states-transportation-across-modes-time/

Kunthara, S. (2019, October 18). Risky Business: The Difference Between Private Equity And
Venture Capital. Crunchbase News. https://news.crunchbase.com/news/risky-business-
the-difference-between-private-equity-and-venture-capital/

Lafuente, E., Vaillant, Y., & Rialp, J. (2007). Regional Differences in the Influence of Role
Models: Comparing the Entrepreneurial Process of Rural Catalonia. Regional Studies,
41(6), 779–796. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400601120247

Lee, T. B. (2017, February 13). A little-known California law is Silicon Valley's secret
weapon. Vox. https://www.vox.com/new-money/2017/2/13/14580874/google-self-
driving-noncompetes

Leggett, T. (2018, May 22). Who is to blame for 'self-driving car' deaths? BBC News.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44159581

Li, S. (2018, March 31). Topic Modeling and Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) in Python.
Medium. https://towardsdatascience.com/topic-modeling-and-latent-dirichlet-allocation-
in-python-9bf156893c24

64
Lohr, S., & Griffith, E. (2019, November 22). With Big Tech in Their Path, Start-Ups Turn to
Business Markets. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/22/business/startups-enterprise-big-tech.html

Lumen. (n.d.). Ecology of Ecosystems. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-

biology/chapter/ecology-of-ecosystems/

Lunden, I. (2018, August 14). FiveAI to start a trial of its shared autonomous car fleet in
London in 2019. TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2018/08/13/fiveai-to-start-a-trial-
of-its-shared-autonomous-car-fleet-in-london-in-2019/

Mack, E., & Mayer, H. (2016). The evolutionary dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Urban Studies, 53(10), 2118–2133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098015586547

Manjoo, F. (2017, February 8). Why Silicon Valley Wouldn’t Work Without Immigrants. The
New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/technology/personaltech/why-
silicon-valley-wouldnt-work-without-immigrants.html

McGee, P., & Chazan, G. (2020, January 29). The Apple effect: Germany fears being left
behind by Big Tech. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/6f69433a-40f0-11ea-
a047-eae9bd51ceba

McGuigan, J. R., Moyer, R. C., & Harris, F. H. d. (2008). Managerial economics:

Applications, strategies and tactics. Pages 9-10 (11. ed., Internt. student ed.).
https://books.google.de/books?id=kJznJPI-
u8MC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=market+capitalization+are+all+expected+discounted+fut
ure+profits&source=bl&ots=gac7nb3pqH&sig=ACfU3U24IMiyndSANyMq3TI1Q6cGTC
YFQA&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj6zOLp18npAhWNGewKHVRyC1MQ6AEwAHo
ECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=market%20capitalization%20are%20all%20expected%20disco
unted%20future%20profits&f=false

Murtha, S. (2015, October 2). Autonomous vs connected vehicles – what’s the difference?
Atkins. https://www.atkinsglobal.com/en-gb/angles/all-angles/autonomous-vs-
connected-vehicles-whats-the-difference

My Visa Jobs. (n.d.). Zoox Inc. http://www.myvisajobs.com/Visa-Sponsor/Zoox/1246058.htm

Nicas, J., & Wichter, Z. (2019, March 14). A Worry for Some Pilots: Their Hands-On Flying
Skills Are Lacking. New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/business/automated-planes.html
65
OECD. (n.d.). Talent Attractiveness. https://www.oecd.org/migration/talent-attractiveness/

Osnabrügge, S. (n.d.). § 16 Nachvertragliches Wettbewerbsverbot / I.

Wettbewerbsverbotsklausel. Haufe. https://www.haufe.de/recht/deutsches-anwalt-office-
premium/16-nachvertragliches-wettbewerbsverbot-i-
wettbewerbsverbotsklausel_idesk_PI17574_HI10973525.html

Russo, C. (2018, June 14). Treibstoff Venture Capital: Wie Deutschland Innovation und
Wachstum beschleunigen kann. Roland Berger.
https://www.rolandberger.com/de/Media/Treibstoff-Venture-Capital-Wie-Deutschland-
Innovation-und-Wachstum-beschleunige.html

SAE International. (2014, January 16). Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to On-
Road Motor Vehicle Automated Driving Systems.
https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3016_201401/

SAE International. (2018, June 15). Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving
Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles.
https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3016_201806/

Samila, S., & Sorenson, O. (2009, June 7). Venture capital, entrepreneurship and economic
growth. http://www.martinprosperity.org/media/agrawal/3SorensonSamila.pdf

Saxenian, A. (2000). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and
Route 128. Harvard University Press.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard University Press.

Semotiuk, A. J. (2019, January 2). Recent Changes To The H1B Visa Program And What Is
Coming In 2019. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andyjsemotiuk/2019/01/02/recent-changes-to-the-h1b-
visa-program-and-what-is-coming-in-2019/#6b1cea724a81

Shane, S. A. (2005). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation.

Edward Elgar.

Shulman, S. (2019, August 25). Low-Cost LiDAR Startup Oryx Vision Shuts Down: Founded
in 2009, Oryx developed a light detection and ranging camera system (LiDAR) for
autonomous cars. Calcalistech. https://www.calcalistech.com/ctech/articles/0,7340,L-
3768922,00.html

66
Singh, V. (2017, October 16). How we Changed Unsupervised LDA to Semi-Supervised
GuidedLDA. FreeCodeCamp. https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/how-we-changed-
unsupervised-lda-to-semi-supervised-guidedlda-e36a95f3a164/

Smialek, J., & Flitter, E. (2020, January 30). The Fed Wants to Loosen Rules Around Big
Banks and Venture Capital. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/30/business/economy/volcker-rule-banks-venture-
capital.html

Spigel, B. (2017). The Relational Organization of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems.

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), 49–72.
https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12167

Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Regional Policy: A Sympathetic Critique.

European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759–1769.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1061484

Stam, E. (2019). The Case against Non-Compete Agreements. Utrecht University.

https://www.uu.nl/sites/default/files/rebo_use-wp_2019_1920.pdf

Stam, E., & Spigel, B. (2017). Entrepreneurial Ecosystems. Utrecht University.

https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/347982/16_13.pdf

Stam, E., & van de Ven, A. (2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystem elements. Small Business
Economics. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11187-019-00270-6.pdf

Startup Genome. (2018, April 17). Global Startup Ecosystem Report 2018: Succeeding in the
New Era of Technology. https://startupgenome.com/reports/global-startup-ecosystem-
report-gser-2018

Starvish, M. (2013, February 7). Managerial Myopia: Why Public Companies Underinvest in
the Future. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2013/02/07/managerial-myopia-
why-public-companies-underinvest-in-the-future/#6103daaa1f2e

Statista. (2020). Beschäftigte in der deutschen Automobilindustrie in den Jahren 2005 bis
2019.
https://de.statista.com.login.bibproxy.whu.edu/statistik/daten/studie/30703/umfrage/bes
chaeftigtenzahl-in-der-automobilindustrie/

67
Sussan, F., & Ács Zoltán J. (2017). The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem. Small Business
Economics, 49(1).

Taiebat, M., Brown, A. L., Safford, H. R., Qu, S., & Xu, M. (2018). A Review on Energy,
Environmental, and Sustainability Implications of Connected and Automated Vehicles.
Environmental Science & Technology, 52(20), 11449–11465.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b00127

Terjesen, S., Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., Hechavarria, D., Stam, E., & White, R. (2017).
Entrepreneurial ecosystems: the search for performance.

Teach, E. (2014, September 15). On the IPO On-Ramp: How the JOBS Act helped five CFOs
take their companies public. CFO.

The Economist (2020b, May 16). Creative destruction in times of covid.

https://www.economist.com/business/2020/05/16/creative-destruction-in-times-of-covid

The Economist. (2014, January 14). All together now: What entrepreneurial ecosystems need
to flourish. https://www.economist.com/special-report/2014/01/16/all-together-now

The Economist. (2017, April 15). Silicon Valley’s sexism problem: Venture capitalists are
bright, clannish and almost exclusively male.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2017/04/15/silicon-valleys-sexism-problem

The Economist. (2018a, August 30). Why startups are leaving Silicon Valley: Its primacy as a
technology hub is on the wane. That is cause for concern.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/08/30/why-startups-are-leaving-silicon-valley

The Economist. (2018b, January 9). Silicon Valley is changing, and its lead over other tech
hubs narrowing: Great success has brought high costs and structural change.
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/09/01/silicon-valley-is-changing-and-its-
lead-over-other-tech-hubs-narrowing

The Economist. (2020a, April 25). The Hua-war: Some body to hold.
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2020/04/23/the-fight-with-huawei-means-
america-cant-shape-tech-rules

The Economist. (2020b, February 20). The EU wants to set the rules for the world of
technology: On data protection, artificial intelligence, competition and more.
68
 https://www.economist.com/business/2020/02/20/the-eu-wants-to-set-the-rules-for-the-
world-of-technology

The Economist. (2020c, February 6). American tech giants are making life tough for startups:
Big, rich and paranoid, they have reams of data to help them spot and buy young firms
that might challenge them. https://www.economist.com/business/2018/06/02/american-
tech-giants-are-making-life-tough-for-startups

The Economist. (2020d, April 23). The car industry faces a short-term crisis and long-term
decline: It can still be viable, with the right fixes.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/04/23/the-car-industry-faces-a-short-term-
crisis-and-long-term-decline

The Economist. (2020e, May 16). The pandemic increases the challenges facing business
schools: Teachable moment. https://www.economist.com/business/2020/05/16/the-
pandemic-increases-the-challenges-facing-business-schools

The Free Dictionary. (n.d.). Culture Clash. Collins English Dictionary

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/culture+clash

Times Higher Education. (2019). World University Rankings 2019 by subject: computer
science. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-
rankings/2019/subject-ranking/computer-
science#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats

Trajkovska, B. (2018, December 11). Berlin’s startup ecosystem at a glance. EU-Startups.

https://www.eu-startups.com/2018/12/berlins-startup-ecosystem-at-a-glance/

Tyborski, R., & Demling, A. (2020, May 15). Autoindustrie droht beim autonomen Fahren
den Anschluss an Google zu verlieren. Handelsblatt.
https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/industrie/roboterautos-autoindustrie-droht-
beim-autonomen-fahren-den-anschluss-an-google-zu-verlieren/25832202.html

Van de Ven, A. H. (1993). The development of an infrastructure for entrepreneurship. Journal

of Business Venturing, 8(3), 211-230.

Van Kessel, P. (.2018a, August 13). Making sense of topic models. Medium.
https://medium.com/pew-research-center-decoded/an-intro-to-topic-models-for-text-
analysis-de5aa3e72bdb

69
van Kessel, P. (2018b, August 13). An intro to topic models for text analysis. Medium.
https://medium.com/pew-research-center-decoded/an-intro-to-topic-models-for-text-
analysis-de5aa3e72bdb

van Kessel, P. (2019, October 4). Overcoming the limitations of topic models with a semi-
supervised approach. Medium. https://medium.com/pew-research-center-
decoded/overcoming-the-limitations-of-topic-models-with-a-semi-supervised-approach-
b947374e0455

Ver Steeg, G. (n.d.). Correlation Explanation. Information Sciences Institute.

https://www.isi.edu/projects/gregv/correlation_explanation

Wang, N. (2018, November 12). Diversity Is The Key to Startup Success - What Can Early-
stage Founders Do About It? Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nancywang/2018/11/12/diversity-is-the-key-to-startup-
success-what-can-early-stage-founders-do-about-it/#1d4016db3966

Ward, A. (n.d.). How can platform businesses create sustainable competitive advantage?
BearingPoint. https://www.bearingpoint.com/de-de/unser-erfolg/thought-
leadership/how-can-platform-businesses-create-sustainable-competitive-advantage/

Watkins, T. (n.d.), The Regional Advantage of the Silicon Valley and Its History. San José
State University. https://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/regadv.htm

Wilhelm, A. (2020, April 22). New data details the decline in Silicon Valley's Q1 venture
activity. TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/22/new-data-details-the-decline-
in-silicon-valleys-q1-venture-activity/

World Economic Forum. (n.d.). Section 2: Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: Similarities and

Differences around the Globe. https://reports.weforum.org/entrepreneurial-ecosystems-
around-the-globe-and-early-stage-company-growth-dynamics/section-2-entrepreneurial-
ecosystems-similarities-and-differences-around-the-globe/#read

Zider, B. (1998). How Venture Capital Works. Harvard Business Review.

https://hbr.org/1998/11/how-venture-capital-works

70
 Appendix – List of AV start-ups included in the analysis – 25th May 2020

Organization name Headquarters location Total funding amount Topics

US$

Stockholm, Stockholms Lan, Computer Vision, Platform, Research,

13th Lab Sweden $ 700.000,00 Localization and Mapping, Camera-Vision,
Venlo, Limburg, The Localization and Mapping, Full Vehicle
Accerion Netherlands $ 1.253.271,00 Autonomy, Robotis,
Watervliet, New York, United
Actasys States $ 1.349.300,00 Camera-Vision,
Mobillity as a Service, Data-Analytics,
Platform, Mobility Infrastructure, Urban
Denver, Colorado, United Mobility Development, Camera-Vision,
Acyclica States Connected Vehicle, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Data-Analytics, Security, Computer Vision,
Platform, Mobility Infrastructure, Urban
AD Knight Herzliya, Tel Aviv, Israel Mobility Development,
Yoqne`am `illit, HaZafon, Data-Analytics, Computer Vision, AI, ADAS,
Adasky Israel $ 20.000.000,00 Camera-Vision, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Fairfax, Virginia, United Aviation, Mobility Infrastructure, Connected
AERO Corporation States Vehicle,
Aviation, Computer Vision, Platform, Mobility
Melbourne, Florida, United Infrastructure, Localization and Mapping, Full
Aeronyde Corporation States $ 4.700.000,00 Vehicle Autonomy,
Aerospec Chicago, Illinois, United
Technologies States Aviation, Data-Analytics, Security, Robotis,
Computer Vision, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Agripper Moshava, HaZafon, Israel Robotis,
Security, Logistics, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
AHK Robotics Kayseri, Kayseri, Turkey Robotis,
Eindhoven, Noord-Brabant, Security, Logistics, Mobility Infrastructure, AI,
AI in Motion | AIIM The Netherlands Localization and Mapping,
AIRIS - Urban Air
Mobility Hamilton, Hamilton, Bermuda Aviation, Electric Vehicle Manufacturing, AI,
Mobillity as a Service, Aviation, Logistics,
AIRLIFT One Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv, Israel Sustainability, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Airwayz Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv, Israel Aviation, Data-Analytics, Platform,
Aitonomi TeleRetail Sierre, Valais, Switzerland $ 1.050.000,00 Logistics, Robotis,
Brighton, Michigan, United
AKTV8 LLC States $ 1.650.000,00 Mobillity as a Service,
London, England, United Localization and Mapping, Full Vehicle
Albora Technologies Kingdom $ 59.464,00 Autonomy,
Altigreen Propulsion Research, Electric Vehicle Manufacturing,
Labs Bengaluru, Karnataka, India $ 2.000.000,00 Micromobility,
American Center for Ypsilanti, Michigan, United
Mobility States $ 7.000.000,00 Research, Connected Vehicle,
AMS Robotics Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain Logistics, ADAS,

71
Anatolian
Technologies Sariyer, Istanbul, Turkey $ 140.000,00 Research, AI, Connected Vehicle,
Leeds, Leeds, United
Antonym Kingdom Logistics,
Anyverse Madrid, Madrid, Spain AI, Full Vehicle Autonomy, Robotis,
Anzhi Automotive
Parts Suzhou, Jiangsu, China Platform, ADAS, Camera-Vision,
Applied Aeronautics Austin, Texas, United States Aviation, Security, Research,
London, England, United Mobillity as a Service, Data-Analytics,
AppyParking Kingdom $ 14.021.418,00 Platform, Mobility Infrastructure,
Tel Aviv-yafo, Tel Aviv, Computer Vision, Mobility Infrastructure,
Arbe Israel $ 54.650.000,00 Camera-Vision, Micromobility,
Coventry, Coventry, United
ArcVehicle Kingdom $ 3.259.014,00 Electric Vehicle Manufacturing,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
Argo AI United States $ 3.600.000.000,00 Mobillity as a Service, Platform,
London, England, United
Arrival Kingdom $ 111.369.612,00 Platform,
ARTSYS 360\xb0 Holon, Tel Aviv, Israel $ 3.900.000,00 Urban Mobility Development,
ASANA
TECHNOLOGY Jerusalem, Yerushalayim, Mobility Infrastructure, ADAS, Connected
(ISRAEL) LTD Israel $ 1.577.463,00 Vehicle,
Ascent Robotics Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan $ 17.893.439,00 Full Vehicle Autonomy, Robotis,
Helsinki, Southern Finland,
Asenno Finland Robotis,
Atiko Haifa, Hefa, Israel Platform, Robotis,
Atlis Motor Vehicles Mesa, Arizona, United States $ 1.106.724,00 Mobility Infrastructure,
Mobillity as a Service, Security, Computer
Tel Aviv-yafo, Tel Aviv, Vision, Platform, Research, AI, Connected
Aurora Labs Israel $ 11.100.000,00 Vehicle,
Coventry, Coventry, United Logistics, Research, Urban Mobility
Aurrigo Kingdom Development, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Chicago, Illinois, United
Autobon States $ 1.175.000,00 Logistics,
S\xe3o Paulo, Sao Paulo,
Automni Brazil Robotis,
Automotive Robotic
Industry Nazareth Illit, HaZafon, Israel Full Vehicle Autonomy, Robotis,
Santana De Parna\xedba, Sao Computer Vision, Research, AI, Camera-
Autonomoous .ai Paulo, Brazil Vision, Robotis,
Autonomous
Intelligent Driving Munich, Bayern, Germany Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Security, Research, Urban Mobility
Autonomous System Development, ADAS, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Certification Labs Inc. Mississauga, Ontario, Canada Robotis,
Autonomous Vehicle
Technology Troy, Michigan, United States Mobillity as a Service, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Autonomous vehicles
traffic management Kazan, Tatarstan, Russian
center Federation Platform,

72
AutonomouStuff,
LLC Morton, Illinois, United States Localization and Mapping,
Data-Analytics, Security, Platform, Mobility
Singapore, Central Region, Infrastructure, Urban Mobility Development,
Autonomy Singapore Connected Vehicle, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
AutoO2 Gurgaon, Haryana, India $ 100.000,00 Platform,
Ljubljana, Ljubljana Urban Data-Analytics, Platform, Research, Mobility
AV Living Lab Commune, Slovenia Infrastructure,
Singapore, Central Region,
AVEVAI Singapore $ 1.000.000,00 AI,
Sulz Im Wienerwald,
Aviloo Niederosterreich, Austria Data-Analytics,
Azevtec Bend, Oregon, United States $ 8.118.113,00 Sustainability, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Banma Network Platform, Mobility Infrastructure, Connected
Technologies Shanghai, Shanghai, China $ 233.000.000,00 Vehicle,
Sydney, New South Wales,
Baraja Australia $ 33.554.803,00 Computer Vision,
Logistics, Electric Vehicle Manufacturing,
London, England, United ADAS, Connected Vehicle, Full Vehicle
Baro Vehicles Kingdom $ 453.186,00 Autonomy, Robotis,
BASELABS GmbH Chemnitz, Sachsen, Germany Data-Analytics, ADAS,
BaseTracK Tallinn, Harjumaa, Estonia Logistics, Camera-Vision,
BeeX Autonomous Singapore, Central Region,
Systems Singapore Full Vehicle Autonomy, Robotis, Marine,
Seoul, Seoul-t'ukpyolsi, South
bitsensing Korea $ 1.500.000,00 Computer Vision,
Aviation, Data-Analytics, Computer Vision,
Platform, Electric Vehicle Manufacturing, AI,
blackshark.ai Graz, Steiermark, Austria Localization and Mapping,
Wilmington, Delaware,
Blongg United States Mobillity as a Service,
Research, Electric Vehicle Manufacturing,
Blue White Robotics Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv, Israel Robotis,
Bolt Tallinn, Harjumaa, Estonia $ 300.128.077,00 Mobillity as a Service, Platform,
Chicago, Illinois, United
botsensei States AI, Full Vehicle Autonomy, Robotis,
Aviation, Security, Platform, Research,
BRAQ Aerospace Mobility Infrastructure, Localization and
LLC Tampa, Florida, United States Mapping, Full Vehicle Autonomy, Marine,
Logistics, Platform, AI, Localization and
Mapping, Camera-Vision, Full Vehicle
Brisa Robotica Recife, Bahia, Brazil Autonomy, Robotis,
Buffalo, New York, United Security, Platform, Localization and Mapping,
Buffalo Automation States $ 1.875.500,00 Full Vehicle Autonomy,
BYTON Nanjing, Jiangsu, China $ 1.200.000.000,00 Connected Vehicle,
Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania,
CabbyGo, LLC United States $ 30.000,00 Full Vehicle Autonomy,
CalmCar Vision Data-Analytics, Computer Vision, AI,
System Suzhou, Jiangsu, China $ 18.712.334,00 Localization and Mapping, ADAS,

73
 Bristol, Bristol, City of,
Calyo United Kingdom Security, Full Vehicle Autonomy, Robotis,
Data-Analytics, Security, Computer Vision,
Brooklyn, New York, United Platform, AI, Localization and Mapping, Full
CARMERA States $ 27.100.000,00 Vehicle Autonomy,
CarSense Mumbai, Maharashtra, India $ 924.428,00 Micromobility, Connected Vehicle,
Carvolution Bannwil, Aargau, Switzerland $ 11.030.941,00 Mobillity as a Service, Connected Vehicle,
Cell Propulsion Bangalore, Karnataka, India $ 156.521,00 Connected Vehicle, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Jerusalem, Yerushalayim, Data-Analytics, Computer Vision, AI,
Ception Israel Localization and Mapping,
Changxing Zhineng Suzhou, Jiangsu, China Logistics,
Citadelta Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Rishon Le Zion, HaMerkaz,
City Transformer Israel $ 2.830.000,00 Urban Mobility Development,
Lerum, Vastra Gotaland,
Clean Motion Sweden Sustainability,
Platform, Research, AI, ADAS, Full Vehicle
Cognata Rehovot, HaMerkaz, Israel $ 23.500.000,00 Autonomy,
Petah Tikwah, HaMerkaz,
CogniMine Israel AI, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Data-Analytics, Electric Vehicle
Manufacturing, Mobility Infrastructure,
Connected Signals, Eugene, Oregon, United Sustainability, Urban Mobility Development,
Inc. States $ 2.792.199,00 Camera-Vision, Connected Vehicle,
Orlando, Florida, United Research, Mobility Infrastructure, AI,
Connected Wise States Sustainability, Connected Vehicle,
Mobillity as a Service, Electric Vehicle
Critical TechWorks Porto, Lisboa, Portugal Manufacturing, ADAS,
London, England, United
CrowdEmotion Kingdom Security, AI, Camera-Vision,
St Louis, Missouri, United Data-Analytics, Security, Computer Vision,
Cuedd States $ 20.000,00 Electric Vehicle Manufacturing, Robotis,
Daedalean Z\xfcrich, Zurich, Switzerland $ 14.518.314,00 Aviation,
Platform, Electric Vehicle Manufacturing,
Mobility Infrastructure, Full Vehicle
DAV Zug, Zug, Switzerland $ 24.500.000,00 Autonomy,
Data-Analytics, Security, Platform, Research,
DeepBrainz\u200b Bangalore, Karnataka, India AI, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Computer Vision, Localization and Mapping,
DeepMotion Beijing, Beijing, China ADAS,
Moscow, Moscow City,
DEPHAN Russian Federation $ 6.300.000,00 Security, Computer Vision,
Data-Analytics, Platform, Mobility
Detroit, Michigan, United Infrastructure, Camera-Vision, Connected
Derq States $ 3.080.000,00 Vehicle,
DiDi Mobility Japan Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan Data-Analytics, Connected Vehicle,
Ume\xe5, Vasterbottens Lan,
Dignita Sweden Research,

74
 Aviation, Data-Analytics, Localization and
DINGBOT Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada Mapping, Camera-Vision, Robotis, Marine,
Jerusalem, Yerushalayim,
DiverGuard Israel Security, Electric Vehicle Manufacturing,
Drivelist Sydney, Nova Scotia, Canada Micromobility,
West Linn, Oregon, United Aviation, Security, Research, Urban Mobility
Drone Complier States $ 1.155.000,00 Development, Connected Vehicle,
Savannah, Georgia, United
DroneMedia.com States Aviation,
Aachen, Nordrhein- Logistics, Platform, Urban Mobility
Ducktrain Westfalen, Germany Development,
Dynamic Map Computer Vision, Platform, Research,
Platform Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan $ 51.646.244,00 Localization and Mapping,
Champaign, Illinois, United Security, Platform, AI, Sustainability, Camera-
EarthSense, Inc. States $ 2.025.000,00 Vision, Robotis,
Aviation, Data-Analytics, Security, Mobility
Brooklyn, New York, United Infrastructure, Camera-Vision, Full Vehicle
Easy Aerial States $ 1.560.000,00 Autonomy,
Toulouse, Midi-Pyrenees,
EasyMile France $ 24.320.146,00 Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Warwick, Warwickshire,
Eatron Technologies United Kingdom $ 820.182,00 ADAS,
ECMA New Delhi, Delhi, India Sustainability,
Aviation, Data-Analytics, Security, Full
EcoDrone Firenze, Toscana, Italy $ 25.000,00 Vehicle Autonomy, Marine,
Camberley, Surrey, United Research, Full Vehicle Autonomy, Robotis,
ecoSUB Robotics Kingdom Marine,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
Edge Case Research United States $ 7.000.000,00 Security, Research, Robotis,
Stockholm, Stockholms Lan,
Einride Sweden $ 32.343.070,00 Data-Analytics, Sustainability,
Trollh\xe4ttan, Vastra
Ellwee Gotaland, Sweden $ 829.644,00 Micromobility,
Stocksund, Stockholms Lan,
Enviroways Sweden Mobility Infrastructure,
Computer Vision, Platform, Electric Vehicle
Manufacturing, Localization and Mapping, Full
ENWAY Berlin, Berlin, Germany $ 6.611.912,00 Vehicle Autonomy, Robotis,
Middleboro, Massachusetts,
EPC Corporation United States $ 70.000,00 Mobility Infrastructure,
eProInn Fisciano, Campania, Italy $ 55.997,00 Research,
Fairfax, Virginia, United
eTrans Systems States Connected Vehicle, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Data-Analytics, Platform, Mobility
EVspeak Chengdu, Sichuan, China Infrastructure,
Exocetus Wallingford, Connecticut, Platform, Research, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Autonomous Systems United States Marine,
Eyeware Martigny, Valais, Switzerland $ 2.028.378,00 Computer Vision, Localization and Mapping,
FABU.ai Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China $ 40.000.000,00 ADAS,
75
 Computer Vision, Research, Localization and
Fastree3D Ecublens, Vaud, Switzerland $ 3.996.301,00 Mapping, Camera-Vision,
Delft, Zuid-Holland, The
Fesla Charge Netherlands $ 334.541,00 Mobility Infrastructure, Sustainability,
Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, Logistics, Platform, AI, Urban Mobility
FiveAI United Kingdom $ 78.700.000,00 Development,
Aviation, Security, Computer Vision,
Localization and Mapping, Full Vehicle
Fixposition Z\xfcrich, Zurich, Switzerland $ 3.886.770,00 Autonomy, Robotis,
Fleetonomy Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv, Israel $ 3.000.000,00 AI,
Helsinki, Southern Finland,
Fleetonomy.ai Finland Aviation, Platform,
London, England, United
FlexiCab Kingdom Mobillity as a Service, Platform,
Mobillity as a Service, Data-Analytics,
Platform, Research, Mobility Infrastructure,
Localization and Mapping, Urban Mobility
flinc GmbH Darmstadt, Hessen, Germany Development, Micromobility,
Flux Auto Bangalore, Karnataka, India Computer Vision, Platform,
Data-Analytics, Electric Vehicle
FOMM Kawasaki, Kanagawa, Japan $ 44.567.946,00 Manufacturing,
Pleasant Grove, Utah, United Aviation, Security, Computer Vision, Full
Fortem Technologies States $ 21.870.669,00 Vehicle Autonomy,
Generalized Aviation, Computer Vision, Platform, Research,
Intelligence Beijing, Beijing, China Mobility Infrastructure, AI,
New York, New York, United
Geopipe States AI,
Gideon Brothers Zagreb, Grad Zagreb, Croatia $ 5.527.751,00 Full Vehicle Autonomy, Robotis,
Data-Analytics, Computer Vision, Platform,
Giscle Systems Bangalore, Karnataka, India Localization and Mapping,
Good2Go Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv, Israel Data-Analytics,
Data-Analytics, Security, Mobility
Chicago, Illinois, United Infrastructure, Urban Mobility Development,
HAAS Alert States $ 2.340.000,00 Connected Vehicle,
Kowloon City, Kowloon,
Haloview Hong Kong Urban Mobility Development, Camera-Vision,
Haxtron Gdynia, Pomorskie, Poland Robotis,
London, England, United Computer Vision, Localization and Mapping,
Headlight AI Kingdom Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Heex Technologies Paris, Ile-de-France, France Data-Analytics, Micromobility,
Heliosatings Canton, Ohio, United States Sustainability,
Aviation, Data-Analytics, Platform, Mobility
Hepta Airborne Tallinn, Harjumaa, Estonia $ 736.936,00 Infrastructure, Localization and Mapping,
Singapore, Central Region,
Hertzwell Singapore Computer Vision,
Hesai Technology Shanghai, Shanghai, China $ 231.151.155,00 Computer Vision,
Copenhagen, Hovedstaden,
Holo Denmark Research,
HoloMatic Beijing, Beijing, China $ 30.000.000,00 AI,
76
Humanising London, England, United
Autonomy Kingdom $ 9.248.989,00 Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Data-Analytics, ADAS, Camera-Vision,
i4drive Modi'in, HaMerkaz, Israel Connected Vehicle, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Ikanuki Toronto, Ontario, Canada Data-Analytics,
Milton Keynes, Milton
Immense Simulations Keynes, United Kingdom $ 4.600.000,00 AI, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Indrones Mumbai, Maharashtra, India Aviation, Data-Analytics,
Inertial Sense, INC Salem, Utah, United States $ 2.000.000,00 Localization and Mapping,
Infinidome LTD Security, Computer Vision, Localization and
(GPSDOME) Caesarea, Hefa, Israel $ 1.100.000,00 Mapping, Connected Vehicle,
Innoviz Technologies Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv, Israel $ 252.000.000,00 Computer Vision, AI, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
InOrbis Corporation Calgary, Alberta, Canada Logistics, AI, Sustainability, Micromobility,
Invision AI Toronto, Ontario, Canada $ 1.100.000,00 Localization and Mapping, Camera-Vision,
IOE Intelligent
Technology Company Taoy\xfcan, T'ai-wan, Taiwan Urban Mobility Development,
Data-Analytics, Computer Vision, Platform,
Electric Vehicle Manufacturing, Mobility
IonTerra Petah Tiqva, HaMerkaz, Israel $ 3.953.142,00 Infrastructure, AI, Camera-Vision,
Cambridge, Massachusetts,
ISEE United States $ 17.736.986,00 Research, AI,
Computer Vision, AI, Localization and
iSenses Bengaluru, Karnataka, India Mapping,
Data-Analytics, Mobility Infrastructure, AI,
iUGO Technology Sariyer, Istanbul, Turkey $ 444.000,00 Localization and Mapping,
Heverlee, Vlaams-Brabant,
IVEX Belgium $ 1.295.580,00 Platform, Research, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Computer Vision, Camera-Vision, Full Vehicle
IVO Driver Robot Beersheba, HaDarom, Israel Autonomy, Robotis,
Basingstoke, Hampshire,
JCC Bowers United Kingdom $ 290.000,00 Connected Vehicle,
Data-Analytics, Localization and Mapping,
Connected Vehicle, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Kaaenaat Bangalore, Karnataka, India Robotis,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Mobility Infrastructure, Localization and
Kaarta United States $ 6.500.000,00 Mapping, Robotis,
Kaiyi Technology Wangjing, Beijing, China $ 14.475.341,00 Computer Vision, Platform, AI, ADAS,
kmoEye Haifa, Hefa, Israel Research,
Kopernikus
Automotive Berlin, Berlin, Germany ADAS,
Oxford, Oxfordshire, United
Latent Logic Kingdom $ 2.920.000,00 Research, AI, Full Vehicle Autonomy, Robotis,
Luxembourg, Luxembourg,
Laureti Luxembourg $ 5.660.501,00 Electric Vehicle Manufacturing,
Leadgen Technology
Co., Ltd. Beijing, Beijing, China Platform, Research, AI,
Platform, Mobility Infrastructure,
Sustainability, Urban Mobility Development,
LeSee Beijing, Beijing, China $ 1.080.000.000,00 ADAS, Camera-Vision,
77
 Frome, Somerset, United
Level Five Supplies Kingdom Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Light Theto Beijing, Beijing, China $ 38.572.798,00 Research, Electric Vehicle Manufacturing,
Mandurriao, Iloilo City,
LocoAI Philippines $ 120.000,00 Computer Vision,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
Locomation United States $ 5.500.000,00 Logistics, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Aviation, Computer Vision, Electric Vehicle
Bellevue, Washington, United Manufacturing, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Lumotive, LLC States Robotis,
Tucson, Arizona, United
Lunewave States $ 5.500.000,00 Computer Vision, Connected Vehicle,
Gothenburg, Vastra Gotaland,
Lynk & Co Sweden Electric Vehicle Manufacturing,
Machines With Edinburgh, Edinburgh, City Mobility Infrastructure, Localization and
Vision of, United Kingdom $ 1.891.246,00 Mapping,
Mainblades The Hague, Zuid-Holland,
Inspections The Netherlands Aviation,
Boston, Massachusetts,
MassRobotics United States $ 2.500.000,00 Research,
Ann Arbor, Michigan, United
May Mobility States $ 83.620.000,00 Security, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Ann Arbor, Michigan, United
Mcity States $ 11.000.000,00 Research, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Data-Analytics, Security, Electric Vehicle
Manufacturing, Localization and Mapping,
MicroTraffic Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada ADAS,
Data-Analytics, Computer Vision, AI,
Momenta Beijing, Beijing, China $ 203.150.880,00 Localization and Mapping,
MonVehicule Paris, Ile-de-France, France Mobillity as a Service,
Moodify Caesarea, Hefa, Israel $ 1.600.000,00 Data-Analytics, Platform,
Motovis Shanghai, Shanghai, China Computer Vision, AI, ADAS,
My Sam Albi, Midi-Pyrenees, France $ 800.320,00 ADAS,
National Electric
Vehicle Sweden Trollh\xe4ttan, Vastra
(NEVS) Gotaland, Sweden Electric Vehicle Manufacturing,
Bundangdong, Kyonggi-do,
Naver Labs South Korea Research, Robotis,
Computer Vision, Localization and Mapping,
Naviato Kitzingen, Bayern, Germany Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Brooklyn, New York, United
NAViKS States Localization and Mapping,
Mobillity as a Service, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
NAVYA Paris, Ile-de-France, France $ 72.466.003,00 Robotis,
Edinburgh, Edinburgh, City Data-Analytics, Computer Vision, Platform, AI,
NCTech of, United Kingdom $ 13.601.654,00 Urban Mobility Development, Camera-Vision,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
Near Earth Autonomy United States Aviation, Full Vehicle Autonomy,

78
 Seoul, Seoul-t'ukpyolsi, South Aviation, Data-Analytics, Computer Vision,
Nearthlab Korea $ 2.896.404,00 Research, AI, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
M\xf6dling, Niederosterreich,
Nekonata Austria Security, AI, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Ljubljana, Ljubljana Urban Mobillity as a Service, Data-Analytics,
Nervtech Commune, Slovenia $ 315.672,00 Computer Vision, Platform, AI, ADAS,
London, England, United Aviation, AI, Localization and Mapping,
Neurobotx Kingdom $ 111.849,00 Robotis,
New Mobility Chicago, Illinois, United Mobillity as a Service, Urban Mobility
Consulting States Development, Connected Vehicle,
Mobillity as a Service, Logistics, Platform, Full
NEXT-MOB Bruz, Bretagne, France Vehicle Autonomy,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
NextDroid United States $ 350.000,00 AI, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Cambridge, Massachusetts,
nuTonomy United States $ 19.600.000,00 Research, Full Vehicle Autonomy, Robotis,
Platform, Research, Localization and Mapping,
Optimotive ADAS, Camera-Vision, Full Vehicle
Technologies Windsor, Ontario, Canada Autonomy,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, Mobillity as a Service, Research, Electric
Optimus Ride United States $ 75.981.997,00 Vehicle Manufacturing, Sustainability, Robotis,
Itzehoe, Schleswig-Holstein,
OQmented Germany AI,
Seattle, Washington, United
Orca Mobility States Logistics, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
St Louis, Missouri, United
Orzata States $ 20.000,00 Computer Vision, Platform, Robotis,
Data-Analytics, Security, Platform, Urban
Otonomo Herzliya, Tel Aviv, Israel $ 53.000.000,00 Mobility Development,
Logistics, Mobility Infrastructure, Localization
OTTO Motors Kitchener, Ontario, Canada $ 41.090.004,00 and Mapping, Robotis,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
Ottomatika United States $ 2.256.477,00 ADAS,
Ottopia Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv, Israel $ 3.000.000,00 Platform, Research,
Yongsan, Seoul-t'ukpyolsi,
OWiN South Korea $ 6.586.081,00 Platform,
Oxford, Oxfordshire, United
Oxbotica Kingdom $ 29.386.644,00 Computer Vision, AI, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Mobillity as a Service, Computer Vision,
Padam Paris, Ile-de-France, France $ 791.159,00 Platform, Research,
Brooklyn, New York, United
Parkble Inc. States $ 300.000,00 Data-Analytics,
Data-Analytics, Platform, Electric Vehicle
New York, New York, United Manufacturing, Mobility Infrastructure,
ParkWise States $ 1.000.000,00 Connected Vehicle, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Somerville, Massachusetts,
Perceptive Automata United States $ 20.000.000,00 Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Phantasma Labs Berlin, Berlin, Germany Research, AI,
79
 Sevenoaks, Kent, United Computer Vision, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Photonic Vision Kingdom Robotis,
Farmington Hills, Michigan,
Pi Square United States Security, Connected Vehicle,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Data-Analytics, Security, Research, Full
Platypus United States Vehicle Autonomy, Robotis,
Data-Analytics, Computer Vision, Platform,
Research, AI, Localization and Mapping,
Playment Bangalore, Karnataka, India $ 2.470.000,00 Robotis,
Polygons Hanoi, NA - Vietnam,
Technologies Vietnam Computer Vision,
Portland, Oregon, United Security, Platform, Research, Full Vehicle
Polysync States Autonomy,
Electric Vehicle Manufacturing, Full Vehicle
PortusX Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan Autonomy,
Mobillity as a Service, Mobility Infrastructure,
Boston, Massachusetts, Sustainability, Camera-Vision, Full Vehicle
Powerhydrant United States Autonomy, Robotis,
Precision Navigation Mobility Infrastructure, Localization and
Systems O\xdc Tallinn, Harjumaa, Estonia $ 24.673,00 Mapping,
Raleigh, North Carolina, Aviation, Data-Analytics, Security, Platform,
PrecisionHawk United States $ 136.000.000,00 AI,
Data-Analytics, Platform, Urban Mobility
PrioriPark Rehovot, HaMerkaz, Israel Development,
Provizio Limerick, Limerick, Ireland Platform,
Quantya SA Lugano, Ticino, Switzerland Electric Vehicle Manufacturing,
Quixote Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India Connected Vehicle,
RADSee Herzliya, Tel Aviv, Israel Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Boston, Massachusetts,
Realtime Robotics United States $ 13.700.000,00 Mobillity as a Service, Camera-Vision, Robotis,
REE Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv, Israel $ 40.200.000,00 Computer Vision, Platform, ADAS,
Rego 4X4 Mahanayim, HaZafon, Israel Platform, Electric Vehicle Manufacturing,
Security, Platform, Mobility Infrastructure,
Sustainability, Localization and Mapping,
Regulus Cyber Haifa, Hefa, Israel $ 6.300.000,00 Connected Vehicle,
San Antonio, Texas, United Security, Electric Vehicle Manufacturing,
Renu Robotics States $ 578.000,00 Mobility Infrastructure, Robotis,
Aviation, Security, Computer Vision, AI,
Camera-Vision, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
RFISee Ra'anana, HaMerkaz, Israel Robotis,
Rockville, Maryland, United Localization and Mapping, Camera-Vision, Full
RFNav States Vehicle Autonomy,
Mobillity as a Service, Computer Vision,
RideVision Herzliya, Tel Aviv, Israel $ 2.500.000,00 Camera-Vision,
Kazan, Tatarstan, Russian
RoadAR Federation Data-Analytics,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
RoadBotics United States $ 11.400.000,00 Data-Analytics, Computer Vision, AI,
Roadstar.ai Shenzhen, Guangdong, China $ 140.000.000,00 Security, AI, Robotis,

80
 Cambridge, Cambridgeshire,
RoboK United Kingdom Computer Vision, Research,
London, England, United
Roborace Kingdom Platform, Electric Vehicle Manufacturing,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
RobotWits United States Computer Vision, Camera-Vision,
Romaeris Corporation Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Aviation, Security,
Bristol, Bristol, City of,
Rovco United Kingdom $ 11.669.728,00 Data-Analytics, Camera-Vision, Marine,
RydeAssist Bangalore, Karnataka, India Connected Vehicle,
Orlando, Florida, United
Saikou Optics States $ 343.090,00 Data-Analytics, Camera-Vision,
Mobillity as a Service, Electric Vehicle
Brno, Jihomoravsky kraj, Manufacturing, Sustainability, Micromobility,
SANEZOO Czech Republic Robotis,
Logistics, Urban Mobility Development, Full
SB Drive Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan $ 4.580.769,00 Vehicle Autonomy,
Sea Machines Boston, Massachusetts, Aviation, Security, Localization and Mapping,
Robotics United States $ 12.300.000,00 Full Vehicle Autonomy, Robotis, Marine,
Sealertec Beersheba, HaDarom, Israel Connected Vehicle, Robotis,
Seattle, Washington, United
SEEVA Technologies States $ 2.100.000,00 Sustainability, Camera-Vision,
Espoo, Southern Finland,
Sensible4 Finland $ 7.000.000,00 Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Sensor Cortek Ottawa, Ontario, Canada AI, ADAS,
Wan Chai, Hong Kong Island,
Sensor.Link Hong Kong $ 100.000,00 Data-Analytics, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Seoul, Seoul-t'ukpyolsi, South
Seoul Robotics Korea $ 6.100.000,00 Computer Vision, Robotis,
Tempe, Arizona, United Aviation, Research, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Shadow Flight Lab States Robotis,
ShenZhen OKAGV Logistics, Electric Vehicle Manufacturing,
Co. Ltd. Shenzhen, Guangdong, China Localization and Mapping, ADAS, Robotis,
SiaSearch Berlin, Berlin, Germany Mobillity as a Service, Data-Analytics, ADAS,
Platform, Mobility Infrastructure, AI, Full
SIGRA Technologies Munich, Bayern, Germany Vehicle Autonomy,
Simple Energy Bangalore, Karnataka, India Electric Vehicle Manufacturing, Micromobility,
Stockholm, Stockholms Lan, Aviation, Data-Analytics, Security, Computer
Skyqraft Sweden $ 675.500,00 Vision, Mobility Infrastructure, AI,
Daegu, Taegu-jikhalsi, South
sonnet.ai Korea AI,
Data-Analytics, Security, Computer Vision,
Gwangju, Kwangju-jikhalsi, Localization and Mapping, ADAS, Camera-
SOS Lab South Korea $ 6.610.000,00 Vision, Micromobility, Robotis,
Spacetrain Paris, Ile-de-France, France $ 5.799.125,00 Electric Vehicle Manufacturing,
Aviation, Security, Computer Vision, Platform,
London, England, United Localization and Mapping, Camera-Vision, Full
SpaceVee Kingdom Vehicle Autonomy, Robotis,

81
 London, England, United
Stormcharge Limited Kingdom Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Oxford, Oxfordshire, United Platform, Electric Vehicle Manufacturing, Full
StreetDrone Kingdom Vehicle Autonomy,
Chicago, Illinois, United
Stroma Vision States ADAS,
Aviation, Data-Analytics, Logistics, Full
Stromkind Vienna, Wien, Austria Vehicle Autonomy,
Data-Analytics, Platform, Research, Electric
Vehicle Manufacturing, Mobility Infrastructure,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, Urban Mobility Development, Micromobility,
Superpedestrian United States $ 63.700.000,00 Robotis,
Swisstrack GPS Platform, Localization and Mapping, Camera-
Erfahrungen Zug, Zug, Switzerland Vision,
Synercon Tulsa, Oklahoma, United
Technologies States $ 515.000,00 Data-Analytics,
Boston, Massachusetts,
Tennibot United States Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Teraki Berlin, Berlin, Germany $ 16.640.831,00 Data-Analytics,
Aviation, Data-Analytics, Computer Vision, AI,
TerraLoupe Munich, Bayern, Germany $ 3.655.534,00 Localization and Mapping, Camera-Vision,
Tevel Aerobotics Aviation, Platform, Localization and Mapping,
Technologies Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv, Israel $ 10.000.000,00 Full Vehicle Autonomy, Robotis,
Texas Turbine
Conversions Celina, Texas, United States Platform,
Chicago, Illinois, United
The Butterfly States $ 25.000.000,00 Mobillity as a Service, Aviation,
TheWhollySee Haifa, Hefa, Israel Computer Vision, AI, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
TOGO Beijing, Beijing, China $ 105.522.532,00 Micromobility,
Toposens Munich, Bayern, Germany $ 2.240.019,00 Robotis,
Traffic Technology Beaverton, Oregon, United Electric Vehicle Manufacturing, Mobility
Services States Infrastructure, Connected Vehicle,
Uber Advanced Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
Technologies Group United States $ 1.000.000.000,00 Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Mobillity as a Service, Data-Analytics,
Mobility Infrastructure, Sustainability, Urban
Ubiq.ai Vienna, Wien, Austria $ 943.714,00 Mobility Development,
UISEE Haidian, Beijing, China $ 11.250.000,00 Mobillity as a Service, Logistics,
Data-Analytics, Computer Vision, Mobility
Karlsruhe, Baden- Infrastructure, AI, Localization and Mapping,
understand.ai Wurttemberg, Germany $ 2.800.000,00 Camera-Vision, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Hov\xe5s, Vastra Gotaland,
Uniquesec Sweden $ 447.321,00 ADAS,
Mobillity as a Service, Data-Analytics,
Security, Platform, AI, Connected Vehicle, Full
Upstream Security Herzliya, Tel Aviv, Israel $ 41.000.000,00 Vehicle Autonomy,
Urban Paz Ramat Gan, Tel Aviv, Israel Platform, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Orlando, Florida, United Mobillity as a Service, Aviation, Data-
USDrobotics Inc States $ 100.000,00 Analytics, Computer Vision, Camera-Vision,

82
 Livonia, Michigan, United Localization and Mapping, Full Vehicle
Ushr States Autonomy,
V2V Messenger Budapest, Budapest, Hungary Connected Vehicle,
London, England, United
V2X Network Kingdom Data-Analytics, Platform, Connected Vehicle,
Computer Vision, Connected Vehicle, Full
Valerann Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv, Israel $ 5.000.000,00 Vehicle Autonomy,
Pforzheim, Baden-
Varomo UG Wurttemberg, Germany Robotis,
VAYAVISION Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv, Israel $ 10.771.806,00 Data-Analytics,
Singapore, Central Region, Data-Analytics, , Security, Electric Vehicle
Vebits AI Singapore Manufacturing,
Mobillity as a Service, Security, Mobility
Infrastructure, AI, Urban Mobility
viisights Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv, Israel $ 13.650.000,00 Development,
Wilmington, Delaware,
VINchain United States Data-Analytics, , Platform,
Viviota Austin, Texas, United States Data-Analytics,
Ramat Hasharon, Tel Aviv,
Voyage81 Israel Computer Vision,
New York, New York, United
Voyant Photonics States $ 4.300.000,00 Computer Vision, AI,
Zongmu Shanghai, Shanghai, China $ 29.054.134,00 ADAS,
G\xf6teborg, Vastra Gotaland,
Zenuity Sweden ADAS,
Saint Louis, Missouri, United
Zaphod Corporation States Mobillity as a Service,
Computer Vision, Platform, Localization and
Youibot Shenzhen, Guangdong, China Mapping, Full Vehicle Autonomy, Robotis,
Portsmouth, Ohio, United Electric Vehicle Manufacturing, Localization
Yost Labs States $ 1.000.000,00 and Mapping, Camera-Vision, Robotis,
Yonohub Troy, Michigan, United States AI, Robotis,
Yihang.ai Changchun, Jilin, China $ 47.152.005,00 Computer Vision, Research, AI,
Eindhoven, Noord-Brabant,
YaDo-VR BV The Netherlands $ 100.000,00 Computer Vision, AI, Camera-Vision,
Xesol Innovation Vigo, Galicia, Spain $ 2.638.464,00 Computer Vision, AI, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
WM Motor Shanghai, Shanghai, China $ 1.597.433.138,00 Platform, ADAS,
Cambridge, Cambridgeshire,
Wayve United Kingdom $ 20.000.000,00 Data-Analytics, AI,
Watfly Waterloo, Ontario, Canada $ 43.427,00 Aviation,
Data-Analytics, Security, Mobility
Infrastructure, AI, Urban Mobility
WaterView Torino, Piemonte, Italy $ 1.815.092,00 Development, Camera-Vision,
Data-Analytics, Computer Vision, Research,
Blickfeld Munich, Bayern, Germany $ 10.000.000,00 AI, Localization and Mapping, ADAS,
Automotive Artificial Data-Analytics, Security, Localization and
Intelligence Berlin, Berlin, Germany Mapping,

83

ArtiSense Munich, Bayern, Germany
NAVENTIK GmbH Chemnitz, Sachsen, Germany
Karlsruhe, Baden-
Atlatec GmbH Wurttemberg, Germany
Ree Technology Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Apostera Munich, Bayern, Germany
ExB Mobility GmbH Munich, Bayern, Germany
Aachen, Nordrhein-
SONAH GmbH Westfalen, Germany
Cleverciti Systems Munich, Bayern, Germany
Arculus Ingolstadt, Bayern, Germany
Parkling Berlin, Berlin, Germany
bliq Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Cologne, Nordrhein-
Silexica Westfalen, Germany
San Jose, California, United
4th Law, LLC States
San Jose, California, United
Aero Systems West States
Palo Alto, California, United
Aeva States
Dublin, California, United
AEye States
Santa Monica, California,
AirMap United States
American Robot San Luis Obispo, California,
Company United States
Palo Alto, California, United
Apex.AI States
Sunnyvale, California, United
Applied Intuition States
Menlo Park, California,
area17 United States
Data-Analytics, Computer Vision, Research,
AI, Localization and Mapping, Camera-Vision,
Full Vehicle Autonomy, Robotis,
Security, Computer Vision, Localization and
$ 2.000.000,00 Mapping, ADAS, Robotis,
Data-Analytics, Localization and Mapping,
ADAS,
ADAS, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
$ 1.000.000,00 Data-Analytics, Platform, AI, ADAS,
Mobillity as a Service, Data-Analytics,
Platform, Research, ADAS,
Data-Analytics, Computer Vision, Mobility
Infrastructure, Sustainability, Urban Mobility
Development, Robotis,
Data-Analytics, Computer Vision, Platform,
Mobility Infrastructure, Sustainability, Urban
$ 32.900.000,00 Mobility Development, Robotis,
Logistics, Platform, Mobility Infrastructure,
Connected Vehicle, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
$ 3.500.000,00 Robotis,
Data-Analytics, Computer Vision, Platform, AI,
Localization and Mapping, Urban Mobility
Development, Connected Vehicle,
Data-Analytics, Computer Vision, Platform, AI,
Localization and Mapping, Urban Mobility
$ 1.100.000,00 Development, Connected Vehicle,
$ 28.000.000,00 Data-Analytics, AI,
$ 135.000,00 Platform, Robotis,
Aviation,
Computer Vision, Camera-Vision, Full Vehicle
$ 48.500.000,00 Autonomy,
$ 59.085.591,00 Computer Vision, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
$ 43.600.000,00 Aviation, Platform, Localization and Mapping,
Robotis,
$ 15.500.000,00 Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Mobility Infrastructure, AI, Full Vehicle
$ 51.500.000,00 Autonomy,
Security, Computer Vision, Research,
Localization and Mapping, Urban Mobility
$ 2.000.000,00 Development, Full Vehicle Autonomy, Robotis,
84
 Campbell, California, United
Athena Robotics States AI, Full Vehicle Autonomy, Robotis,
Santa Clara, California, Mobillity as a Service, Urban Mobility
Auro Robotics United States $ 2.220.000,00 Development, Robotis,
Palo Alto, California, United
Aurora States $ 690.000.000,00 Mobillity as a Service, Logistics, AI,
San Jose, California, United
AutoX States $ 160.059.879,00 Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Manhattan Beach, California, Mobillity as a Service, Computer Vision, Urban
BadIntersections.com United States Mobility Development, Micromobility,
San Francisco, California, Mobillity as a Service, Platform, Full Vehicle
Bestmile United States $ 30.012.611,00 Autonomy,
Computer Vision, Mobility Infrastructure,
San Francisco, California, Localization and Mapping, Camera-Vision,
Built Robotics United States $ 48.000.000,00 Robotis,
San Francisco, California,
Camp Six Labs United States $ 4.540.011,00 Aviation, Research, Mobility Infrastructure,
San Jose, California, United Security, Computer Vision, Localization and
Cepton Technologies States $ 50.000.000,00 Mapping, Robotis,
San Francisco, California, Mobillity as a Service, Mobility Infrastructure,
ChargeWheel United States $ 1.000.000,00 Urban Mobility Development, Micromobility,
Cirrascale Cloud San Diego, California, United
Services LLC States Computer Vision, Mobility Infrastructure, AI,
San Francisco, California, Computer Vision, Platform, Localization and
Civil Maps United States $ 17.100.000,00 Mapping,
Pasadena, California, United
Coast Autonomous States Security, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
San Mateo, California, United Security, Computer Vision, Localization and
Cobalt States $ 53.300.000,00 Mapping, Robotis,
Redwood City, California,
Compound Eye United States $ 7.858.466,00 Computer Vision, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
San Francisco, California,
Cruise United States $ 5.268.800.000,00 Mobillity as a Service, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
San Francisco, California, Aviation, Platform, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Dczd.tech United States Robotis,
Palo Alto, California, United Aviation, Computer Vision, Mobility
Deep Vision States Infrastructure, AI, Camera-Vision, Robotis,
Palo Alto, California, United Data-Analytics, Computer Vision, Localization
DeepMap States $ 92.000.000,00 and Mapping, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Computer Vision, Mobility Infrastructure,
Mountain View, California, Localization and Mapping, Full Vehicle
DeepScale United States $ 18.500.000,00 Autonomy,
South San Francisco,
Dispatch California, United States $ 2.000.000,00 Platform, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Lafayette, California, United Platform, Localization and Mapping, Camera-
DreamVu States Vision, Robotis,
Driving Management San Francisco, California,
Systems, Inc United States $ 1.255.000,00 Platform,

85
 San Jose, California, United
EDJX States $ 2.000.000,00 Platform,
San Francisco, California, Mobillity as a Service, Security, Logistics,
Embark Trucks United States $ 117.100.000,00 Electric Vehicle Manufacturing,
San Carlos, California, United
eMotorWerks States Platform, Mobility Infrastructure,
Los Angeles, California,
Estify United States $ 8.774.000,00 Robotis,
San Francisco, California, Computer Vision, Platform, Localization and
Explorer.ai United States Mapping, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Palo Alto, California, United
Eyeris States Computer Vision, Research, AI,
Los Angeles, California,
FareShare United States Mobillity as a Service,
Irvine, California, United
Flyspan States Aviation, Data-Analytics, Platform,
Mountain View, California,
Ghost Locomotion United States $ 63.700.000,00 ADAS, Camera-Vision,
GreenValley Berkeley, California, United
International Inc States $ 10.000.000,00 Localization and Mapping, Robotis,
Mobillity as a Service, Data-Analytics,
Security, Platform, Electric Vehicle
San Francisco, California, Manufacturing, Sustainability, Urban Mobility
Hannah Systems United States $ 200.000,00 Development,
Berkeley, California, United Data-Analytics, Platform, AI, Urban Mobility
Hayden AI States $ 650.000,00 Development,
Menlo Park, California,
Helm.ai United States $ 13.000.000,00 AI, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
San Francisco, California,
Ike United States $ 52.000.000,00 Security, Logistics, Robotis,
Mountain View, California,
Kodiak Robotics United States $ 40.000.000,00 Logistics, Full Vehicle Autonomy, Robotis,
Fremont, California, United Mobility Infrastructure, Localization and
Kolmostar States $ 10.500.000,00 Mapping,
San Pedro, California, United Platform, Mobility Infrastructure, Full Vehicle
Land Systems Corp. States $ 4.685.000,00 Autonomy, Robotis,
Sunnyvale, California, United
Marvelmind Robotics States $ 88.000,00 Aviation, Localization and Mapping, Robotis,
Redwood City, California,
Metamoto United States $ 2.000.000,00 Computer Vision, AI, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Mirada Technologies San Francisco, California,
Inc. United States $ 1.451.000,00 Computer Vision,
San Diego, California, United
MRV Systems States Research, Marine,
Palo Alto, California, United
Nauto States $ 173.850.000,00 Security,
Los Angeles, California,
Neio Systems United States Connected Vehicle,

86
 Los Angeles, California,
Neuron EV United States Electric Vehicle Manufacturing,
Logistics, Platform, Electric Vehicle
Manufacturing, Urban Mobility Development,
NEXT Future San Jose, California, United Connected Vehicle, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Transportation States $ 1.240.100,00 Robotis,
Mobillity as a Service, Aviation, Security,
Computer Vision, Electric Vehicle
Manufacturing, Mobility Infrastructure,
Sustainability, Urban Mobility Development,
Mountain View, California, Camera-Vision, Micromobility, Full Vehicle
NFT Inc. United States Autonomy,
Marina Del Rey, California,
Nopilot.ai United States Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Mountain View, California,
Nuro United States $ 1.032.148.855,00 Electric Vehicle Manufacturing, AI, Robotis,
Palo Alto, California, United
Open Motors States $ 120.000,00 Platform,
San Francisco, California,
Otto United States Security, Logistics, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
San Francisco, California, Computer Vision, Localization and Mapping,
Ouster United States $ 90.000.000,00 Full Vehicle Autonomy, Robotis,
Palo Alto, California, United
Parallel Domain States $ 2.940.000,00 AI, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Mountain View, California,
Phantom Auto United States $ 13.500.000,00 Platform, Connected Vehicle, Robotis,
Sunnyvale, California, United Platform, Electric Vehicle Manufacturing,
Pixmoving States ADAS, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Cupertino, California, United
Plus.ai States $ 200.000.000,00 Security, Logistics, AI, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
San Francisco, California, Data-Analytics, Computer Vision, Localization
Point One Navigation United States and Mapping,
Fremont, California, United
Pony.ai States $ 726.000.000,00 AI, Full Vehicle Autonomy, Robotis,
Oakland, California, United Aviation, Computer Vision, Full Vehicle
Pyka States $ 11.120.000,00 Autonomy,
Aviation, Data-Analytics, Security, Computer
Sunnyvale, California, United Vision, Mobility Infrastructure, Localization
Quanergy Systems States $ 135.308.960,00 and Mapping, Camera-Vision, Robotis,
Reliable Robotics Mountain View, California,
Corporation United States $ 8.298.989,00 Aviation,
Campbell, California, United
Renovo Auto States $ 14.500.000,00 Data-Analytics, Platform,
Mobillity as a Service, Logistics, Electric
San Francisco, California, Vehicle Manufacturing, Localization and
RideOS United States $ 34.000.000,00 Mapping,
Palo Alto, California, United
Robby Technologies States $ 5.485.000,00 Computer Vision, Logistics, Robotis,

87
 San Francisco, California, Mobillity as a Service, Data-Analytics,
SafeMode United States Security, Platform, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
San Francisco, California,
Scooterson United States $ 1.805.000,00 Micromobility,
Menlo Park, California,
Scotty Labs United States $ 6.000.000,00 Research,
Santa Clara, California,
SF Motors United States $ 13.200.000,00 Sustainability, Connected Vehicle,
Sunnyvale, California, United
SHEnetics States Platform,
San Jose, California, United
Skycart States Aviation, Logistics,
San Jose, California, United Computer Vision, Platform, AI, ADAS,
StradVision States $ 42.179.000,00 Camera-Vision,
Pasadena, California, United Data-Analytics, Computer Vision, Full Vehicle
Strobe States Autonomy,
San Francisco, California, Aviation, Localization and Mapping, Full
Swift Navigation United States $ 48.800.000,00 Vehicle Autonomy, Robotis,
San Francisco, California,
Synapse AI United States Mobility Infrastructure,
Manhattan Beach, California, Data-Analytics, Security, Computer Vision,
Syndicated Maps United States Platform, Localization and Mapping,
San Francisco, California,
TAMSIN United States Logistics,
San Francisco, California,
Tensil United States $ 150.000,00 AI,
Palo Alto, California, United
Tensyr Inc. States Full Vehicle Autonomy,
San Francisco, California,
Terusama United States $ 150.000,00 Logistics, Platform, Connected Vehicle,
Playa Vista, California, Mobillity as a Service, Platform, Sustainability,
Tesloop United States $ 2.165.656,00 Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Mountain View, California,
ThorDrive United States Platform,
Oakland, California, United
Transcend Robotics States $ 302.000,00 AI, Robotis,
San Diego, California, United
TuSimple States $ 298.071.100,00 Logistics,
Burlingame, California,
udelv United States Logistics, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Mobillity as a Service, Aviation, Logistics,
San Francisco, California, Platform, Research, Mobility Infrastructure,
Unmanned Life United States $ 2.495.000,00 ADAS, Full Vehicle Autonomy, Robotis,
Pasadena, California, United Logistics, Electric Vehicle Manufacturing,
URB-E States Sustainability, Urban Mobility Development,
Mountain View, California, Data-Analytics, Mobility Infrastructure, Urban
Veniam United States $ 26.900.000,00 Mobility Development, Connected Vehicle,

88
 Agoura Hills, California,
Vitu United States Mobillity as a Service, Platform,
Palo Alto, California, United Mobillity as a Service, Mobility Infrastructure,
Voyage States $ 51.219.237,00 Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Palo Alto, California, United
Ztractor States $ 1.450.000,00 Sustainability, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Foster City, California, United Mobillity as a Service, Research, Full Vehicle
Zoox States $ 955.000.000,00 Autonomy, Robotis,
San Francisco, California, Logistics, Platform, Full Vehicle Autonomy,
Ziiko Robotics Inc. United States $ 1.300.000,00 Robotis,
San Francisco, California, Mobillity as a Service, Data-Analytics,
Zendrive United States $ 57.000.000,00 Security, Research,
Los Angeles, California, Mobillity as a Service, Platform, Mobility
Wheels United States $ 89.749.991,00 Infrastructure, Micromobility,
Palo Alto, California, United
Waycare States $ 9.550.000,00 Data-Analytics, Platform, Connected Vehicle,
Santa Clara, California, Data-Analytics, Computer Vision, AI, Camera-
Deepen AI United States Vision,
San
Francisco, California, United Aviation, Computer Vision, AI, ADAS, Full
Iris Automation States $ 10.000.000,00 Vehicle Autonomy,
San
Francisco, California, United
Fensens States Data-Analytics, ADAS, Connected Vehicle,
Stanford, California, United
Intrepide States Logistics,
Los Altos, California, United
Innovusion States $ 30.000.000,00 Computer Vision, ADAS,
Palo Alto, California, United Computer Vision, Research, Mobility
Luminar States $ 250.000.000,00 Infrastructure, Full Vehicle Autonomy,

89
 Declaration of authorship

I hereby declare that the thesis submitted is my own unaided work. All direct or indirect sources
used are acknowledged as references. I am aware that the thesis in digital form can be examined
for the use of unauthorized aid and in order to determine whether the thesis as a whole or parts
incorporated in it may be deemed as plagiarism. For the comparison of my work with existing
sources I agree that it shall be entered in a database where it shall also remain after examination,
to enable comparison with future theses submitted. Further rights of reproduction and usage,
however, are not granted here. This paper was not previously presented to another examination
board and has not been published.

Carl Christian Lackmann Münster, May 27th, 2020

first and last name city, data, signature

90