07 - Chapter 4

CHAPTER 4
START-UP ECOSYSTEM IN KERALA
4.1 Profile of Kerala Based Start-up Entrepreneurs
Information collected from 201 start-up entrepreneurs from the state of Kerala is analysed in
the following pages.
Table 4.1 reveals that 54 per cent of the respondents are in the age group of 25-35 years
followed by 34 per cent of the respondents in the age group 35-45 years. It can be observed
that 2.5 per cent of the respondents are below 25 years of age. 8.5 per cent of the respondents
are in the age group 45-55 and 1 per cent of the respondents are above 55 years of age. This
shows that a majority of the respondents participated in the survey are fairly young.
It can be seen that majority of the respondents (91 per cent) are males. The findings are similar
to the state average. According to the latest Kerala Start-up Ecosystem Report 2019, of all the
co-founders, only 5 per cent are women entrepreneurs. To increase the involvement of aspiring
women professionals to take up the entrepreneurial journey, KSUM conducts Women start-up
summit. Apart from that, Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd (KSIDC) has
in od ced We Mi ion Ke ala . The ini ia i e p o ide men o ing, financial, inf a c al
and networking support to existing women entrepreneurs to scale up their business. In states
like Bihar and Jammu and Kashmir and Andaman and Nicobar (Union Territory) women
entrepreneurs are given monthly allowance. For all the schemes introduced by Bihar
government, women entrepreneurs are given additional grant/exemption/subsidy. Adopting
such measures can motivate, attract and support more women entrepreneurs in Kerala and
reduce the wide gender gap.
Among the respondents, 65 per cent are graduates and 25 per cent are post graduates. 10 per
cent of the respondents have a professional qualification. Professionals includes lawyers,
Chartered Accountants and Doctors. Out of the total respondents, 68 per cent of the start-up
entrepreneurs were found to have an engineering background.
Other than working on their start-up idea, 17 respondents (8.5 per cent) have another job. 10
of them are having other business, 3 of them are working under an organization, 4 of them are
professionals.
67
Table 4.1 Demographic Profile of the Respondents
Variables No: of Respondents Percentage
1. Age
<25 5 2.5
25-35 109 54.2
35-45 68 33.8
45-55 17 8.5
>55 2 1
Total 201 100
2. Gender
Male 183 91
Female 18 9
Total 201 100
3. Educational Qualification of the Entrepreneur
Graduate 131 65.17
Post Graduate 51 25.37
Professional Qualification 19 9.45
Total 201 100
4. Main Occupation
Start-up entrepreneur 184 91.5
Other 17 8.5
201 100
5. Previous Work Experience
Yes 175 87.1
No 26 12.9
Total 201 100
6. Is your Start-up in the Same Line of Previous Job?
Yes 122 60.7
No 53 26.4
NA 26 12.9
Total 201 100
7. No. of Start-ups Founded Before the Current Start-up
68
1 40 19.9
2 15 7.5
None 146 72.6
Total 201 100
Source: Primary Data
87 per cent have previous work experience before starting their current start-up and 61 per cent
has started their business in the same line of their previous work experience. This helps them
in taking a planned risk as they have an awareness about the market they are going to deal with.
Prior experience in the relevant field also helps an entrepreneur in creating a network for
business support. Apart from the previous job experience, 20 per cent of the respondents have
co-founded one start-up and 7 per cent have co- founded two start-ups before their current start-
up in Kerala. This shows the calibre of the founder and their attraction towards the business
environment in Kerala.
Table 4.2 Cross table showing number of start-ups founded before the current start-up
and the status of the previous start-up
Status of previous Start-up One % Two % Total %

Still operating and business is stable 19 47 6 40 25 45
Still operating and gaining traction 10 25 1 6.7 11 20
Sold stake to an investor or buyer 3 7.5 5 33 8 15
Closed due to profitability issues 8 20 3 20 11 20
Total 40 100 15 100 55 100
Entrepreneurs were asked about the status of their previous start-up founded in Kerala. Out of
the 55 start-up entrepreneurs who have start-up experience in Kerala, 45 per cent reported that
their previous start-up is still operating and the business is stable. 20 per cent of the start-ups
are still operating and is gaining traction. 15 per cent of the entrepreneur have sold their stake
to an investor or buyer. 20 per cent of the entrepreneurs have closed their previous business
due to profitability issues. It can be observed that entrepreneurs have the courage and passion
to start a new business in Kerala even after winding up a business due to profitability issues.
69
4.2 Information about the Start-ups
Table 4.3 provides information about the start-ups from which data is collected. 37 per cent of
the start-ups are under operation for less than 2 years. 43 per cent of the start-up are operational
for past 2-5 years. Start-ups which are in existence for more than 5 years and less than 8 years
constituted 13 per cent of the respondents. 7 per cent of the start-ups are under operation for 8-
10 years.
Table 4.3 Information About the Start-up

Variables No: of Respondents Percentage
1. No. of years of Operation
Less than 2 years 74 36.8
2-5 years 86 42.8
5-8 years 27 13.4
8-10 years 14 7
Total 201 100
2. Nature of Start-up
Product 86 42.8
Service 26 12.9
Both 89 44.3
Total 201 100
3. Current Phase in Business
Concepting 8 4
Validation 30 14.9
Scaling 151 75.1
Established 12 6
Total 201 100
4. Mode of Business
B2B 174 86.6
B2C 75 37.3
B2G 33 16.4
5. Legal Status
Private Limited Company 178 88.6
Limited Liability Partnership 23 11.4
70
Total 201 100
6. Incubation Status
Incubated 145 72.1
Not Incubated 56 27.9
Total 201 100
43 per cent of the start-ups are product based, 13 per cent of the start-ups are service driven
and 44 per cent of the start-ups are dealing with both product and service. According to the
Kerala Start-up Ecosystem Report 2019, there are 37 per cent product based, 25 per cent service
based and 38 per cent product and service-based start-ups in Kerala respectively.
A start-up goes through concepting phase, validation phase, scale up phase before becoming
an established unit. In the concepting phase, there are cofounders with balanced skillset and
shared vision. Roles and ownership plan of cofounders including milestones for the next 2-3
years are decided on vesting terms. An initial product/ service is developed at this stage. 4 per
cent of the respondents are in the concepting phase. In the validation phase, the team identifies
the key performance indicators, iterate and test the assumptions and develop the product/
service to attract initial customers. Out of the total respondents, 15 per cent are in the validation
stage of their start-up. In Scaling stage, the start-up has gained traction and attained growth in
customers and revenue. The start-up might have attracted external funding and started hiring
to the team. Majority of the respondents (75 per cent) considered for the study are scaling up
their business. A start-up becomes an established unit after scaling up considerably, but
culturally continue like a start-up. The enterprise has attained great growth, which can be
expected to continue, and attract more funding and human resources. The co-founders make
exits or continue with the start-up. 6 per cent of the respondents has already become an
established start-up.
It can be inferred from Table 4.3 that 87 per cent of the respondents has B2B business model.
37 per cent of the respondents follow B2C mode of business. Unlike other states, 16 per cent
of the respondents have government as their major customer. According to the policy
landscape, the government departments can directly procure from start-ups for an amount of
Rs 1 crore without any tender. But this facility is available for IT enabled start-ups. Widening
the scope of this scheme to other areas where government organisation can be an initial
customer will be highly appreciated by the start-up community.
71
89 per cent of the respondents registered as a private limited company 11 per cent of the
respondents registered the start-up as limited liability partnership. To avail the tax benefits
provided by the central government, one of the eligibility criteria is to register the start-up as a
private limited company or limited liability partnership.
Out of the total respondents 72 per cent are incubated and 28 per cent have registered under
KSUM but have not availed any incubation service. The incubators in Kerala provide office
spaces, mentorship service, network support and workshops to foster a vibrant ecosystem in
Kerala. According to Kerala Start-up Ecosystem Report, 2019 there are 40 + incubators in the
state.
Table 4.4 Cross table showing number of start-ups founded and Government
Procurement from start-ups
Government Procurement Number of Start-ups founded in Kerala

One % Two % Total %
Procured 10 25 2 13 12 22
Not Procured 30 75 13 87 43 78
Total 40 100 15 15 55 100
It can be inferred from the table that government has procured the product of 22 per cent of the
start-up who has a prior experience in staring business in Kerala. But 78 per cent of the
procurement is from start-ups which doe n ha e a p io e pe ience. Th , i can be infe ed
that, prior experience and success in Kerala is not a factor leading to the government
procurement from start-ups in Kerala.
4.3 Primary Business Activity
It can be observed from Figure 1, a considerable portion (52.2) of the total start-ups responded
were dealing with software/ IT products followed by start-ups in the hardware development
sector (20.4 per cent) and healthcare (8 per cent). According to the Global Start-up Ecosystem
Report, 2019, nearly 45 per cent of the start-ups created in the world are in deep tech sector
and the sector is growing faster than other sectors. The start-ups in the Deep tech sector were
seen to have raised twice the funding raised by start-ups in other sectors. Deep tech includes
Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, Life sciences, Cleantech, and Agtech. Only 7.5 per cent of the
respondents were engaged in deep tech business in Kerala. San Diego, Lausanne-Bern-Geneva,
72
and Munich are in the top 30 start-up ecosystems in the world as they have created more start-
ups in the Deep Tech and Life sciences sector. Following the pattern may help Kerala to grow
the ecosystem, attract more funds and contribute to the economic development of the nation.
Bengaluru is the only place from India which has secured a position among the top 30 start-up
ecosystems in the world. But the deep tech sector has not observed much growth even in
Bengaluru.
Primary Business Activity

60.0 52.2
50.0
40.0
30.0 20.4
20.0 8.0
10.0 1.5 4.5 1.5 4.0 4.5 1.0 1.5
.5 .5
0.0

Figure 4.1 Primary Business Activity
4.4 R& D Facility

A start-up firm is a small business with innovative ideas, which disrupts what exist today. It
goes through various Research and Development processes to bring in innovation to an existing
product or introduce a new product to the market. In a globalised market economy, it is difficult
for start-up o ain he compe i ion f om big MNC . Lack of adeq a e finance i a ba ie
for start-ups to devote more time and resources for R&D activities.
4.4.1 R&D Facility based on Growth Phase of Business
Table 4.5 provides details of the R&D facility possessed by the start-ups in Kerala and their
growth phase.
73
Table 4.5 Cross table showing R&D Facility based on Growth Phase of Business
R&D Facility Growth Phase
Established
Concepting
Validation
Scaling
Total
%
%
%
Own R&D Facility 4 50 24 80 122 80.8 10 83.3 160 79.6
Sharing R&D Facilities 0 0 1 3.3 2 1.3 0 0 3 1.5
Alliance with similar 0 0 0 0 4 2.6 0 0 4 2
Organisations
Sub- contract 2 25 3 10 3 2 0 0 8 4
Not Applicable 2 25 2 6.7 20 13.2 2 16.7 26 12.9
Total 8 4 30 14.9 151 75.1 12 6 201 100
It can be observed from the table 4.5, 160 start-up firms reported to have their own R&D
facili . I doe n mean ha he a e f ll eq ipped i h all he eq i ed R&D facility. They
possess an average facility required to run their business. 26 service-based start-ups don have
an R&D facility. 3 start-ups share R&D facility with other organizations and 4 have an alliance
with similar organization to use their R&D facility. 8 start-ups subcontracted their R&D to
other organization.
Out of the start-ups in the concept development phase 4 start-ups (50 per cent) have their own
R&D facility and 2 start-ups sub contract to other firms. Out of the start-ups in the validation
phase, 80 per cent have their own R&D facility, 3 start-ups sub contract to other firms and one
start-up share their R&D facility with other organizations. Out of the start-ups in the scaling
phase, 81 per cent has their own R&D facility, 3 per cent has alliance with other organizations,
3 start-ups sub contract to other firms and 2 start-ups share R&D facility with other
organization. Out of the established start-ups, 83 per cent have their own R&D facility. This
shows that, regardless of the growth phase of business, majority of the start-ups possess a
minimum required R&D facility.
The data is analysed to check the classification of R&D facility possessed by the start-up based
on their mode of business. 87 per cent of the start-ups are engaged in B2B business, 37 per cent
of the start-ups are engaged in B2C business and 16 per cent of the start-ups received an
opportunity to do business with government organizations.
74
Table 4.6 R&D Facility and Mode of Business
Mode of Business (B2B)
R&D Facility B2B % B2C % B2G %
Own R&D Facility 141 81 55 73.3 23 69.7
Sharing R&D Facilities 2 1.1 1 1.3 1 3
Alliance with similar Organisations 4 2.3 3 4 2 6.1
Sub- contract 5 2.9 6 8 1 3
Not Applicable 22 12.6 10 13.3 6 18.2
Total 174 86.6 75 37.3 33 16.4
It can be observed from table 4.6, 81 per cent of the B2B start-ups have own R&D facility, 3
per cent sub contract to other firms, 4 start-ups (2 per cent) have an alliance with similar
organizations and 2 start-ups (1 per cent) share their R&D facility with other organizations. 73
per cent of the B2C start-ups have own R&D facility, 8 per cent sub contract to other firms, 4
per cent have an alliance with similar organizations and one start-up share R&D facility with
other organization. Majority of the government procurement has been made from start-ups
which has own R&D facility (70 per cent). Out of 33 units which had a B2G mode of business,
24 units had their own R&D facility. One start-up is sharing the R&D facility, one start-up has
subcontracted to other organizations and 2 units have an alliance with similar organization.
The go e nmen can make con ac i h big MNC and c ea e fo eign alliance hich can
help start-ups in sharing their R&D facility.
4.4.2 R&D Facility and Government Funding
Table shows the classification of R&D facility possessed by the start-up and the government
funding received.
75
Table 4.7 Cross table showing R&D Facility and Government Funding
Government Funding
R&D Applied % Applied % Not % Total %
Facility and but not Applied
Received Received
Own R&D 92 82.1 32 53.8 36 64 160 79.6
Facility
Sharing R&D 3 2.7 0 0 0 0 3 1.5
Facilities
Alliance with 3 2.7 0 0 1 2 4 2
similar
Organisations
Sub- contract 5 4.5 3 7.7 0 0 8 4
Not 9 8 4 10.3 13 26 26 12.9
Applicable
Total 112 55.7 39 19.4 50 24.9 201 100
Out of 112 start-ups which received government funding, 82 per cent start-ups have their own
R&D facility, 3 per cent share the R&D facility, 3 start-ups have made an alliance with other
organization and 5 of them have subcontracted the production activities to other organizations.
Out of 39 start-up hich didn ecei e go e nmen f nding, 54 per cent have their own R&D
facility and 8 per cent have sub contracted to other organizations. Out of the start-ups which
didn appl fo a go e nmen f nding, 64 pe cen ha e o n R&D facili and 2 pe cen ha e
an alliance with similar organizations. Thus, it can be concluded that, majority of the
organizations which received government funding has own R&D facility. The government
should create funds which can be allocated for start-ups to set up their own R&D facility. More
funding for universities to undertake research might lead to the transfer of technology from
universities to industry.
The data collected is analysed to check the classification of experience of the entrepreneur and
R&D facility possessed by the start-up.
76
Table 4.8 Cross table showing R&D Facility and the Experience of the entrepreneur
Prior Experience in the same line of business
R&D Experience % No % No % Total %
Facility in the same Experience experience
line in the same at all
line
Own R&D 97 60.6 41 25.6 22 13.8 160 79.6
Facility
Sharing R&D 2 66.7 1 33.3 0 0 3 1.5
Facilities
Alliance with 2 50 2 50 0 0 4 2
similar
Organisations
Sub- contract 3 37.5 2 25 3 37.5 8 4
Not 18 69.2 7 26.9 1 3.8 26 12.9
Applicable
Total 122 60.7 53 26.4 26 12.9 201 100
In total, 122 start-up entrepreneurs have experience in the same line in which they are doing
business in Kerala. 61 per cent of the start-ups which has set up their own R&D facility have
an entrepreneur with experience in the same line, 26 per cent did not have an experience in the
ame line and 13 pe cen don ha e an e pe ience. Out of those sharing the R&D facility
with other organization, 2 start-ups have experience in the same line of business and one has
no experience in the same line. Out of the 4 start-ups having an alliance with similar
organizations, 2 en ep ene ha e an e pe ience in he ame line and 2 en ep ene don
have an experience in the same line. Out of the 8 start-ups that have sub contracted to other
companies, entrepreneurs of 3 start-ups have an experience in the same line of doing business,
2 don ha e e pe ience in he ame line and 3 don ha e an e pe ience a all.
It can be concluded that, the R&D facility is possessed by start-ups with entrepreneurs having
experience in doing business in Kerala.
77
4.5 Market Orientation
Market orientation is the market concentrated by the entrepreneur to sell their product or
service. Some start-ups sell their product/ service only in the domestic market. Some start-ups
are export oriented. They manufacture the product or service mainly for their foreign
counterparts. There are others who develop the product or service both for domestic and export
purposes. The start-ups dealing with the foreign markets are classified into export oriented in
the present study. In the present study, 56 per cent of the start-ups are export oriented and 40
per cent of the start-ups are producing for the domestic market. 4 per cent of the start-ups are
at present dealing in the domestic market, but they are planning to expand their business to the
foreign markets.
Table 4.9 Cross table showing Market orientation based on nature of the start-up
Market Nature of the Start-up
Orientation Product % Service % Both % Total %
Export 41 36.2 17 15 55 48.6 113 56
Domestic 41 50.6 8 9.8 32 39.5 81 40
Planning to 4 57.1 1 14.3 2 28.6 7 4
Export
Total 86 42.8 26 12.9 89 44.3 201 100
From the table, it can be observed that, 36 per cent of the export-oriented units are dealing with
products, 15 per cent are providing services and 49 per cent are dealing with both product and
service. Those dealing with the domestic markets, 51 per cent are dealing with products, 10 per
cent of the start-ups are providing services and 39 per cent of the start-ups are dealing with
both products and services. In total, 7 start-ups have an intention to expand to the foreign
markets in the future. 4 out of them are product based, 2 are dealing with both product and
service and one among them is service oriented. It can be concluded that majority of the export-
oriented start-ups are either dealing with both product and service or product alone.
The data collected is analysed to check the classification of market orientation of start-ups
based on their mode of business.
78
Table 4.10 Cross table showing Market orientation based on Mode of Business
Market Orientation Mode of Business (B2B)
B2B % B2C % B2G %
Export 102 58.6 33 44 22 66.7
Domestic 68 39 38 50.6 10 30.3
Planning to Export 4 2.3 4 5.3 1 3
Total 174 86.6 75 37.3 33 16.4
It can be observed that, 59 per cent of the start-ups with B2B mode of business are export
oriented. 39 per cent of the start-ups with B2B mode of business are doing business in the
domestic market and 2 per cent of the start-ups with B2B mode of business are planning to
enter into the foreign markets. 44 per cent of the start-ups doing B2C mode of business are
export oriented, 51 per cent of the start-ups are doing business with the domestic consumers
and 5 per cent of the start-ups engaged in B2C business have an intention to expand to the
foreign market to attract more foreign customers. 67 per cent of the government procurement
is done from export-oriented start-ups. 30 per cent of the government procurement was done
from start-ups dealing in the domestic market. The government also did business with a start-
up which has plans to expand to the domestic market. Thus, it can be concluded from the table
that, majority of the start-ups dealing in B2B market are export oriented. Majority of the
respondents engaged in B2C business are doing business with the domestic customers. It is
difficult to analyse and create a product/service satisfying the needs of foreign consumers due
to the social, economic and cultural changes prevailing in the global market. Majority of the
government procurement is done from export-oriented start-ups.
The data collected is analysed to know the market orientation and incubation status of the start-
ups.
Table 4.11 Cross table showing Market orientation based on Incubation Status
Market Orientation Incubation Status
Yes % No % Total %
Export 81 55.9 32 57.1 113 56
Domestic 59 40.7 22 39.3 81 40
Planning to Export 5 3.4 2 3.6 7 4
Total 145 72.1 56 27.9 201 100
79
56 per cent of the incubated start-ups are exporting their product/service. 41 per cent of the
incubated start-ups are doing business with the domestic customers and 3 per cent of the
incubated start-ups are planning to expand to the foreign market. Out of the start-ups which are
not incubated, 57 per cent have already expanded to the foreign markets, 39 per cent is doing
business in the domestic market and 4 per cent are planning to expand to the foreign market.
This shows that, expanding to the global markets are irrespective of the incubation status of a
start-up.
The data collected is analysed to check the market orientation and government funding received
by the start-up.
Table 4.12 Cross table showing Market orientation based on Government Funding
Market Government Funding
Orientation Applied % Applied % Not % Total %
and but not Applied
received received
Export 60 53.6 21 53.8 32 64 113 56
Domestic 48 42.9 17 43.6 16 32 81 40
Planning to 4 3.5 1 2.6 2 4 7 4
Export
Total 112 55.7 39 19.4 50 24.9 201 100
54 per cent of the start-up which has applied and received government funding are export
oriented. 43 per cent of the start-up which received government funding are doing business in
the domestic market. 3 per cent of the start-up which has plan to expand to foreign market has
also received government funding. Out of 39 start-ups, 21 start-ups (54 per cent) which are
export oriented didn ecei e an go e nmen f nding, 17 start-ups (43 per cent) doing
b ine in he dome ic ma ke didn ecei e an go e nmen f nding and 1 start-up which
ha plan o e pand didn ecei e go e nmen f nding. Out of 50 start-ups which has not
applied for any government funding, 32 start-ups (64 per cent) are export oriented, 16 start-ups
(32 per cent) are dealing with the domestic market and 2 start-ups has plans to expand to foreign
market. This shows that, majority of the start-ups which received government funding are
export oriented.
80
The data collected is analysed to check the classification of market orientation based on the
experience of the entrepreneur.
Table 4.13 Cross table showing Market orientation and the Experience of the
Entrepreneur
Market Prior Experience in the same line of business
Orientation Experience % No % No % Total %
in the Experience experience
same line in the at all
same line
Export 69 61.1 28 24.8 16 14.2 113 56
Domestic 50 61.7 22 27.2 9 11.1 81 40
Planning to 3 42.8 3 42.8 1 14.2 7 4
Export
Total 122 60.7 53 26.4 26 12.9 201 100
It can be observed from the table that, out of the total export-oriented firms, 61 per cent have a
prior experience in the same field of business. 25 per cent of the export-oriented firms did not
have any prior experience in the same field of business and 14 per cent of the export-oriented
firms did not have any experience. Out of the firms dealing with the domestic market, 62 per
cent have a prior experience in the line of start-up business. 27 pe cen didn ha e an
e pe ience in he ame field and 11 pe cen didn ha e an e pe ience befo e a ing hi
business. Out of the 7 firms, who have plans to export, 3 have experience in the relevant field,
3 do not have experience in the relevant field and one among them do not have any experience.
Thus, it can be concluded that, majority of the export-oriented start-ups and start-ups dealing
with the domestic market have a prior experience in the relevant field.
The available data is analysed to check the classification of start-ups on the basis of number of
start-ups founded in Kerala before the current start-up.
81
Table 4.14 Cross table showing Market orientation and Number of Start-ups Founded
by the Entrepreneur
Market Number of Start-ups Founded Before the Current Start-up
Orientation None % One % Two % Total %
Export 82 72.6 22 19.5 9 7.9 113 56
Domestic 61 75.3 15 18.5 5 6.2 81 40
Planning to 3 42.8 3 42.8 1 14.2 7 4
Export
Total 146 72.6 40 19.9 15 7.5 201 100
Entrepreneurs, of 73 per cent of the export-oriented start-ups, have not started any start-up
before their current start-up in Kerala. 19 per cent of the export-oriented start-ups have
entrepreneurs with prior experience of starting a business in Kerala and 8 per cent have an
experience of starting 2 business before their current start-up. 75 per cent of the entrepreneurs
dealing with the domestic market does not have an experience of running business in Kerala.
19 per cent have an experience of starting a start-up in Kerala before their current start-up and
6 per cent have started two business in Kerala before their current start-up. Out of the 7 start-
ups planning to expand to foreign markets, entrepreneurs of 3 start-ups do not have any
experience of starting a business, 3 have an experience of starting one business and one have
an experience of starting and running two business in Kerala. Thus, it can be concluded that
irrespective of experience in running business, entrepreneurs are able to expand to foreign
markets.
4.6 Business Plan
A Business plan is a blue print of the activities proposed to be undertaken in a business. It is a

document which contains the details about nature of the business, goals of the business and
how you plan to achieve the goal, financial background, planned profit and the timeline for
achieving the profit. It provides a direction for the entrepreneur and he could compare the
performance of the company with the planned performance. The entrepreneurs in this study are
asked whether they started with a business plan and who prepared the business plan for them.
96 pe cen of he e ponden had a b ine plan and 4 pe cen of he e ponden didn had
82
a business plan. Out of the total respondents, 54 per cent prepared the business plan themselves,
29 per cent prepared a business plan with the help of a consultant, management team of the
business prepared the business plan for 13 per cent of the respondents.
The data is analysed to check the classification of growth phase of the e ponden business
and who prepared their business plan.
Table 4.15 Cross table showing Business Plan based on Growth phase of Business
Business Plan Growth Phase
Established
Concepting
Validation
Scaling
Total
%
%
Self 5 62.5 19 63.3 82 54.3 2 16.7 108 53.7
Consultant 2 25 7 23.3 46 30.5 3 25 58 28.9
Management Team 0 0 2 6.7 17 11.3 7 58.3 26 12.9
No Business Plan 1 12.5 2 6.7 6 4 0 0 9 4.5
Total 8 4 30 14.9 151 75.1 12 6 201 100
From table 4.15, it is observed that, out of 8, 5 start-ups in concept development phase
developed the business plan themselves, 2 of them prepared the business plan with the help of
a con l an , and emaining one didn ha e a b ine plan. 63 per cent of the start-ups in the
validation phase prepared the business plan themselves, followed by 23 per cent prepared with
the help of a consultant, and 7 per cent prepared with the help of a management team.
Remaining 7 per cent of the start-ups in the validation phase haven p epa ed a b ine plan.
54 per cent of the respondents in the scaling phase prepared the business plan themselves, 31
per cent prepared with the help of a consultant, 11 per cent prepared with the help of
management team in the business and 4 per cent didn ha e a b ine plan. Out of the 12
established firms, 2 prepared the business plan themselves, 3 entrepreneurs prepared the
business plan with the help of a consultant, 7 of them prepared with the help of a management
team. Thus, it can be concluded that, regardless of the growth phase, majority of the
entrepreneurs prepared the business plan themselves.
83
Table shows the nature of start-ups based on business plan preparation.
Table 4.16 Cross table showing Business Plan preparation based on Nature of Start-up
Business Plan Nature of Start-up
Product % Service % Both % Total %
Self 46 53.5 13 50 49 55.1 108 53.7
Consultant 26 30.2 8 30.8 24 27 58 28.9
Management Team 12 14 2 7.7 12 13.5 26 12.9
No Business Plan 2 2.3 3 11.5 4 4.5 9 4.5
Total 86 42.8 26 12.9 89 44.3 201 100
Entrepreneurs of 54 per cent of the product-based start-ups prepared their business plan
themselves. 30 per cent of the entrepreneurs of product-based start-ups are helped by the
consultants to prepare a business plan and the management team in the company prepared the
business plan for 14 per cent product-based start-ups. 2 per cent of the start-up didn ha e a
business plan. 50 per cent of the entrepreneurs of service-based start-ups prepared the business
plan themselves. Consultants prepared the business plan for 31 per cent of the service-based
start-ups and Management team of the company prepared for 8 per cent of the service-based
start-ups. Entrepreneurs of three service-based start-up didn p epa e a b ine plan. For
start-ups providing both product and service, 55 per cent prepares their business plan
themselves, 27 per cent prepares the business plan with the help of consultants, management
team of the company prepares the business plan for 14 per cent of the respondents and 4 per
cen didn p epa e a b ine plan. Thus, in all the three cases start-up entrepreneurs in Kerala
prepares the business plan themselves. The incubators should provide training sessions on
preparing a business plan to the entrepreneurs for making a logical and structured business
plan.
84
Table 4.17 Cross table showing Business Plan preparation based on Mode of Business
Business Plan Mode of Business
B2B % B2C % B2G %
Self 91 45.3 47 62.7 19 57.6
Consultant 52 29.9 19 25.3 8 24.2
Management Team 24 13.8 5 6.7 4 12.1
No Business Plan 7 4 4 5.3 2 6.1
Total 174 86.6 75 37.3 33 16.4
From the table 4.17, it can be observed that, 45 per cent of the entrepreneurs engaged in B2B
business, 63 per cent of the entrepreneurs engaged in B2C business and 58 per cent of the
entrepreneurs engaged in B2G business have prepared their business plan themselves. 30 per
cent of the entrepreneurs dealing with B2B business, 25 per cent of the entrepreneurs dealing
with B2C business and 24 per cent of the entrepreneurs dealing with B2G business are helped
by the consultants in preparing their business plan. The management team of the company is
preparing the business plan for 14 per cent of the entrepreneurs dealing with B2B business, 7
per cent of the entrepreneurs dealing with B2C business and 12 per cent of the entrepreneurs
dealing with B2G business. Thus, it can be concluded that, majority of the entrepreneurs
prepared the business plan themselves regardless of the mode of business they are doing.
Table 4.18 Cross table showing Business Plan preparation based on Incubation Status
Business Plan Incubation Status
Yes % No % Total %
Self 83 57.2 25 44.6 108 53.7
Consultant 38 26.2 20 35.7 58 28.9
Management Team 15 10.3 11 19.6 26 12.9
No Business Plan 9 4.5 0 0 9 4.5
Total 145 72.1 56 27.9 201 100
It can be inferred from the table 4.18, 57 per cent of the entrepreneurs of start-ups in the
incubator and 45 per cent of the entrepreneurs of start-ups not registered under any incubator
85
prepared their business plan themselves. 26 per cent of the entrepreneurs of start-ups in the
incubator and 36 per cent of the entrepreneurs of start-ups not registered under any incubator
received the help of consultants in preparing the business plan. Management team of the start-
up prepared the business plan for 10 per cent of the entrepreneurs of incubated start-ups and 20
per cent of the entrepreneurs of start-ups not registered under any incubator. 5 per cent of the
entrepreneurs of incubated start-up ha en p epa ed a b ine plan. Thus, it can be concluded
that, majority of the entrepreneurs of incubated and non- incubated start-ups prepared their
business plan themselves.
The data is analysed to observe the classification of educational qualification of the
entrepreneur and how the entrepreneur prepared the business plan.
Table 4.19 Cross table showing Business Plan preparation based on Educational
Qualification of the Entrepreneur
Business Plan Educational Qualification of the Entrepreneur
Graduate % Post % Professional % Total %
Graduate Qualification
Self 66 52 31 60.8 11 47.8 108 53.7
Consultant 39 30.7 11 21.6 8 34.8 58 28.9
Management 16 12.6 8 15.7 2 8.7 26 12.9
Team
No Business 6 4.7 1 2 2 8.7 9 4.5
Plan
Total 127 63.2 51 25.4 23 11.4 201 100
It is observed from the table 4.19 that, 52 per cent of the graduates prepared the business plan
themselves and 31 per cent prepared with the help of consultants. 13 per cent of the were helped
the management team of the company in preparing business plan and 5 per cent of the graduated
didn p epa ed a b ine plan. 61 pe cen of he po g ad a e p epa ed he b ine plan
themselves and consultants prepared the business plan for 22 per cent of the respondents. 16
per cent of the respondents prepared the business plan with the help of management team in
he compan and 2 pe cen didn p epa ed a b ine plan. Out of the professionally qualified
respondents, 48 per cent prepared the business plan themselves and consultants prepared it for
86
35 per cent of the respondents. Management team in the company prepared the business plan
fo 2 e ponden and he emaining 2 e ponden didn p epa e a b ine plan. Thus, it can
be concluded that, majority of the graduates, post graduates and professionally qualified
respondents prepared the business plan alone, followed by the respondents who received the
help of consultants.
4.7 Market Research
Any entrepreneur should conduct a market research before entering into entrepreneurship. The
entrepreneur should identify the market opportunities and choose the one to be pursued by him.
Literature shows that the entrepreneurs who could identify the market opportunities perform
better than the other category10 (Gruber et al., 2008). The present study enquired whether the
entrepreneurs conduct market research before incorporating their start-up. Multiple methods
were adopted by the entrepreneurs to gain information about the target market. 91 per cent of
the entrepreneurs used internet, 41 per cent of the respondents conducted a market survey, 59
per cent of the respondents met a business/ professional expert, 9 per cent used reports of
industry associations, 5 per cent met a consultant, 19 per cent were aware of the market as they
had prior experience in working in the industry.
Table 4.20 Cross table showing Market Research based on Nature of Start-up
Market Research Nature of Start-up
Product % Service % Both % Total %
Internet 79 91.9 24 92.3 80 89.9 183 91
Market Survey 38 44.2 12 46.2 32 36 82 40.8
Business/ Professional 50 58.1 14 53.8 54 60.7 118 58.7
experts
Reports of Industry 12 14 1 3.8 5 5.6 18 8.9
Associations
Consultants 5 5.8 1 3.8 3 3.4 9 4.4
10
Gruber, M., MacMillan, I. C., & Thompson, J. D. (2008). Look before you leap: Market opportunity
identification in emerging technology firms. Management science, 54(9), 1652-1665.
87
The above table 4.20 shows that, 92 per cent of the product-based start-ups used internet for
conducting market research, 44 per cent conducted market survey, 58 per cent met business/
professional experts, 14 per cent used the reports of industry associations and 6 per cent met
consultants. Out of the service-based start-ups, 92 per cent used internet for conducting market
research, followed by 54 per cent who met business/ professional experts, 46 per cent
conducted market survey, one respondent relied on the reports of industry association and one
respondent met consultants to conduct market research. 90 per cent of the respondents dealing
with both product and service business used internet to conduct the market research, followed
by 61 per cent who consulted business/ professional experts. 36 per cent of the respondents did
a market survey, 6 per cent used the reports of industry association and 3 per cent met
consultants to gain information about the market. It can be inferred that, regardless of the nature
of start-up, respondents are using internet as the primary source for market information,
followed by meeting business/ professional experts and conducting a market survey.
Table 4.21 Cross table showing Market Research based on Mode of Business
Market Research Mode of Business
B2B % B2C % B2G %
Internet 157 90.2 67 89.3 31 93.9
Market Survey 63 36.2 45 60 8 24.2
Business/ Professional experts 105 60.3 43 57.3 17 51.5
Reports of Industry Associations 17 9.8 7 9.3 2 6.1
Consultants 7 4 5 6.7 2 6.1
90 per cent of the respondents engaged in B2B business are using internet for the purpose of
market survey followed by 60 per cent used business/ professional expertise, 36 per cent of the
respondents engaged in B2B business conducted a market survey, 10 per cent used reports of
the industry association and 4 per cent used the expertise of consultants. Out of the respondents
engaged in B2C business, 89 per cent used internet for collecting market information, followed
by 60 per cent conduced market survey, 57 per cent used business/ professional expertise, 9
per cent used reports of industry association and 7 per cent used help of consultants for market
research. Out of the respondents engaged in B2G business, 94 per cent used internet for
conducting market research, followed by 52 per cent who consulted business/ professional
88
experts, 24 per cent conducted a market survey and 6 per cent used reports of industry
association and met consultants for conducting market research. Thus, it can be concluded that
every respondent conducted market research some way or the other. Majority of the
respondents, regardless of their mode of business, used internet as a primary source of market
research.
The data was analysed to check the classification of incubation status of the entrepreneur based
on market research conducted by them.
Table 4.22 Cross table showing Market Research based on Incubation Status
Market Research Incubation Status
Yes % No % Total %
Internet 132 91 51 91.1 183 91
Market Survey 55 37.9 27 48.2 82 40.8
Business/ Professional experts 91 62.8 27 48.2 118 58.7
Reports of Industry Associations 14 9.7 4 7.1 18 9
Consultants 4 2.8 5 8.9 9 4.5
It is observed from the table 4.22, 91 per cent of the respondents within the incubator and 91
per cent not registered in an incubator used internet for conducting market research. 63 per cent
of the incubated start-ups and 48 per cent of the start-ups not under any incubator use business/
professional expert to gain information about the market. 38 per cent of the incubated start-up
and 48 per cent of the start-ups not incubated, did a market survey to gain information about
the market. 10 per cent of the incubated start-ups and 7 per cent of the start-ups not incubated
use the reports of industry association and 3 per cent of the incubated start-ups and 9 per cent
of the start-ups not incubated seek the help of consultant to gain information about the market.
Thus, it can be inferred that, internet is the major option considered by the start-ups, regardless
of their incubation status, to conduct market research.
89
Table 4.23 Cross table showing Market Research based on Government Funding
Market Research Government Funding
Applied and % Applied % Not %
Received but not Applied
received
Internet 102 91.1 36 92.3 45 90
Market Survey 44 39.3 21 53.8 17 34
Business/ Professional experts 67 59.8 19 48.7 32 64
Reports of Industry Associations 15 13.4 1 2.6 2 4
Consultants 6 5.4 2 5.1 1 2
It is observed from the table 4.23 that, 91 per cent of the respondents who received government
funding used internet to conduct market research, followed by 60 per cent who met business/
professional experts, 39 per cent conducted a market survey, 13 per cent used the reports of
Industry associations and 5 per cent did the market research through consultants. Out of the
e ponden ho didn ecei e go e nmen f nding, 92 pe cen ed in e ne o cond c
market research, followed by 54 per cent conducted a market survey and 49 per cent met
business/ professional experts to gain market information. One respondent used the reports of
industry associations and 2 met consultants to conduct the market research. Out of the
e ponden ho didn appl fo a go e nmen f nding, 90 pe cen ed in e net to conduct
market research, 64 per cent met business/ professional experts to conduct market research and
34 per cent conducted a market survey. 2 respondents used the reports of industry associations
and 1 respondent did the market research with the help of a consultant. Thus, it can be
concluded that, majority of the respondents who received the government funding has
conducted a market research through internet and business/ professional expertise.
90
Table 4.24 Cross table showing Market Research based on Experience of the
Entrepreneur
Market Research Prior Experience in the same line of business
Experience % No % No %
in the Experience experience
same line
Internet 110 90.2 49 92.5 24 92.3
Market Survey 42 34.4 27 50.9 13 50
Business/ Professional 74 60.7 29 54.7 15 57.7
experts
Reports of Industry 11 9 7 13.2 0 0
Associations
Consultants 5 4.1 3 5.7 1 3.8
The data is analysed to check the classification of the method of market research conducted by
the entrepreneur based on his experience. 61 per cent of the respondents considered have a
working experience in the same field of their start-up business, 26 per cent has a working
experience, but not in the same field as that of their start-up b ine and 13 pe cen don
have previous work experience before starting the current business.
90 per cent of the respondents who have experience in the same field of doing business used
internet, along with their own experience, to gain information about the market, followed by
61 per cent who used business/ professional expertise, 34 per cent conducted market survey, 9
per cent used the reports of industry associations and 4 per cent depended on consultants to
collect information about the market. O of he e ponden ho don ha e an e pe ience in
the same field of doing business, 93 per cent used internet, 55 per cent used business/
professional expertise, 51 per cent conducted market survey, 13 per cent used the reports of
industry associations and 6 per cent met consultants to gain information about the market. Out
of he e ponden ho don ha e an o of e pe ience, 92 pe cen ed in e ne , 58 pe cen
met business/ professional experts, 50 per cent conducted a market survey. One of the
respondents ho didn ha e an e pe ience me con l an o ge info ma ion abo he
market. Thus, it can be concluded that, the entrepreneurs who have experience in the same
91
field rely mainly on inte ne fo ma ke e ea ch and en ep ene ho don ha e e pe ience
rely on internet, market survey and business/ professional experts to conduct market research.
Table 4.25 Cross table showing Market Research based on Market Orientation
Market Research Market Orientation
Export % Domestic % Planning to % Total %
Export
Internet 105 92.9 72 88.9 6 85.7 183 91
Market Survey 34 30.1 42 51.9 6 85.7 82 40.8
Business/ 70 61.9 47 58 1 14.3 118 58.7
Professional
experts
Reports of Industry 9 8 9 11.1 0 0 18 9
Associations
Consultants 5 4.4 4 4.9 0 0 9 4.5
The data is analysed to know the classification of market research based on the market
orientation of start-ups. 93 per cent of the Export oriented start-ups use internet, 62 per cent
consulted business/ professional experts, 30 per cent conducted market survey, 8 per cent relied
on the reports of industry associations and 5 per cent used consultants help to conduct market
research. Out of the start-ups doing business in the domestic market, 89 per cent used internet,
52 per cent conducted a market survey, 58 per cent met business or professional experts, 11
per cent relied on the reports of industry associations and 5 per cent met consultants for the
purpose of conducting market research. Out of the start-ups who are planning to enter the
foreign market, 6 start-ups used internet and market survey and 1 start-up consulted
business/professional experts for the purpose of conducting market research. Thus, it can be
concluded that, both export-oriented start-ups and start-ups which sell in the domestic market
are relying more on the internet and Business/professional experts to gain information about
the market.
92
4.8 Profitability of the Start-Up
It is not the number of start-ups created, but the number of start-ups which are becoming
profitable and established is more important. The entrepreneurs were asked about the
profitability position of their business. The alternate options given were:
i. Profitable
ii. Breakeven
iii. Revenue Generation Stage
iv. Losses
v. Other
The entrepreneurs who are making profits were classified under profitable, the entrepreneurs
whose business has reached a breakeven level were classified under the second option
breakeven, the entrepreneurs whose business were generating revenue were classified under
the third option revenue generation stage, the entrepreneurs whose business is not generating
much revenue and are struggling were classified into the 4th option. Other includes the response
of en ep ene ho don fi o an of he abo e men ioned fo op ion . 29 per cent of the
start-up entrepreneurs reported they are profitable, 14 per cent of the start-ups have reached
breakeven level, 38 per cent of the start-ups are in the revenue generation stage, 10 per cent of
the start-ups are making loss and 9 per cent of the respondents responded to the option other.
They are respondents in the concepting and validation stage who are not still in the mainstream
business.
Table 4.26 Cross table showing Profitability Position based on Nature of Start-up
Nature of Start-up
Profitability Product % Service % Both % Total %
Profitable 23 39 11 18.6 25 42.4 59 29.4
Breakeven 13 44.8 4 13.8 12 41.4 29 14.4
Revenue Generation 33 42.9 9 11.7 35 45.5 77 38.3
Losses 8 42.1 1 5.3 10 52.6 19 9.5
Other 9 52.9 1 5.9 7 41.2 17 8.5
Total 86 42.8 26 12.9 89 44.3 201 100
93
The nature of the start-up is classified on the basis of profitability position of the firm. Out of
the profitable start-ups, 42 per cent of the start-ups are dealing with both product and service,
39 per cent are dealing with product and 19 per cent of the profitable start-ups are service
oriented. Out of the start-ups in the breakeven stage, 45 per cent of the start-ups are product
based, 41 per cent of the start-ups are delivering both product and service and 14 per cent of
the start-ups are service oriented. Out of the start-ups in the revenue generation stage, 43 per
cent of the start-ups are product based, 46 per cent of the start-ups are dealing with both product
and service and 12 per cent of the start-ups are service oriented. Out of the 19-loss making
start-ups, 8 are product based, 1 is service based and 10 are dealing with both product and
service. Out of the remaining 17 start-ups, 9 are product based, 1 is service based and 7 are
dealing with both product and service. Thus, it can be concluded that, start-ups which are
dealing with both product and service business are creating more profitable, revenue generating
start-ups than the other two categories. Thus, entrepreneurs if possible, should undertake both
product and service business to make the firm established and profitable enterprise.
Table 4.27 Cross table showing Profitability based on Mode of Business

Mode of Business
Profitability B2B % B2C % B2G %
Profitable 55 93.2 15 25.4 15 25.4
Breakeven 25 86.2 16 55.2 5 17.2
Revenue Generation 67 87 27 35.1 13 16.9
Losses 14 73.7 10 52.6 0 0
Other 13 76.5 7 41.2 0 0
Total 174 86.6 75 37.3 33 16.4
Out of the profitable start-ups, 93 per cent have adopted a B2B mode of business, 25 per cent
have adopted a B2C mode of business and 25 per cent have adopted a B2G mode of business.
Out of the firms reaching the breakeven level, 86 per cent are in B2B business, 55 per cent are
in B2C business and 17 per cent are in B2G business. Out of the start-ups in the revenue
generation stage, 87 per cent are in B2B business, 35 per cent are in B2C business and 17 per
cent are in B2G business. 14 start-ups in B2B business and 10 start-ups in B2C business are
94
making loss. Out of the remaining 20 start-up hich a e nde he ca ego O he , 13 a e
B2B start-ups and 7 are B2C start-ups.
Table 4.28 Cross table showing Profitability position based on Incubation Status
Incubation Status
Profitability Yes % No % Total %
Profitable 40 67.8 19 32.2 59 29.4
Breakeven 18 62.1 11 37.9 29 14.4
Revenue Generation 58 75.3 19 24.7 77 38.3
Losses 14 73.7 5 26.3 19 9.5
Other 15 88.2 2 11.8 17 4.5
Total 145 72.1 56 27.9 201 100
The incubation status of the start-up is classified on the basis of profitability position of the
firm. It can be observed from the table 4.28 that, 68 per cent of the profitable firms are
incubated and 32 per cent are not incubated. Out of the start-ups reaching the breakeven level,
62 per cent are incubated. Out of the total revenue generating start-ups, 75 per cent are
incubated and 25 per cent are not incubated. Out of the 19 loss making units, 14 are incubated
(74 per cent) and 5 are not incubated (26 per cent). Out of the remaining 17 start-ups, 15 are
incubated and 2 are not incubated. The number of start-ups incubated are more in the present
study. It can be concluded that, out of the total sample, majority of the profitable start-ups are
incubated. Majority of the incubated start-ups are also found to be reaching the breakeven level
and revenue generating. The loss-making unit were also more among the incubated start-ups.
The managers of the incubators must take appropriate measures to check the performance of
start-ups in the incubators. The problems faced by each start-up might be different. The
managers in the incubator should maintain a proper communication channel. This helps in
supporting the struggling start-ups in the incubator. There can be start-ups which are not
capable of bringing up their business to the next level due to the lack of coherence in their idea
or following unfeasible idea. Such start-ups should be identified to avoid investing more
common resources to such start-ups.
95
The data collected is analysed to check the classification of profitability position of the start-
ups based on the government funding received.
Table 4.29 Cross table showing Profitability position based on Government Funding
Government Funding
Profitability Applied % Applied % Not % Total %
and but not Applied
Received received
Profitable 32 28.6 5 12.8 22 44 59 29.4
Breakeven 18 16.1 7 17.9 4 8 29 14.4
Revenue 40 35.7 18 46.2 19 38 77 38.3
Generation
Losses 11 9.8 6 15.4 2 4 19 9.5
Other 11 9.8 3 7.7 3 6 17 8.5
Total 112 55.7 39 19.4 50 24.9 201 100
It is observed from the table 4.29, 29 per cent of the start-ups who received government funding
are profitable, 16 per cent of the start-ups reached the level of breakeven, 36 per cent of the
start-ups are in the revenue generation stage, 10 per cent of the start-ups are making losses and
the remaining 10 per cent are not in any of the above category. Out of the start-ups which
applied but could not raise government funding, 13 per cent are profitable, 18 per cent has
reached breakeven level, 46 per cent are revenue generating and 15 per cent are loss making
firms. The emaining 8 pe cen a e in he ca ego O he . Out of the start-up hich ha en
applied for a government funding, 44 per cent are profitable, 8 per cent reached the breakeven
level, 38 per cent are revenue generating start-ups, 4 per cent are making loss and remaining 6
per cent are not in any of the above-mentioned category. Thus, it can be concluded that, except
a few firms, all other start-up firms which received government funding have become
p ofi able/ b eake en/ e en e gene a ing. B he e a e man fi m ho didn ecei e
government funding due to various reasons. Many of such start-ups performed well and
become profitable or reached breakeven level. Receiving a funding support at the right time
can take these start-ups to more heights.
96
Table 4.30 Cross table showing Profitability based on Experience of the Entrepreneur
Prior Experience in the same line of Business
Experience % No % No % Total %
Profitability in the Experience experience
same line
Profitable 34 57.6 17 28.8 8 13.6 59 29.4
Breakeven 15 51.7 7 24.1 7 24.1 29 14.4
Revenue 48 62.3 21 27.3 8 10.4 77 38.3
Generation
Losses 13 68.4 4 21.1 2 10.5 19 9.5
Other 12 70.6 4 23.5 1 5.9 17 8.5
Total 122 60.7 53 26.4 26 12.9 201 100
The data is analysed to check the classification of profitability position of start-ups based on
prior experience of the entrepreneur. It can be observed that, the entrepreneurs of 58 per cent
of the profitable start-ups have an experience in the same line of business, 29 per cent of the
didn ha e p io e pe ience in he ame field and 13 pe cen ha e no p io e pe ience.
Entrepreneurs of 52 per cent of the start-ups which has reached breakeven level have prior
experience in the same line of business, 24 per cent don ha e e pe ience in he ame line and
the remaining 24 per cent have no experience at all. Entrepreneurs of 62 per cent of the revenue
generating start-ups have prior experience in the same line of business, 27 per cent has no
experience in the same line of business and 10 per cent have no experience at all. Out of the 19
loss making firms, 13 entrepreneurs (68 per cent) have prior experience in the same line of
doing business, 4 entrepreneurs (21 per cent) have no experience in the same line and 2
entrepreneurs (11 per cent) have no experience at all. Out of the remaining entrepreneurs, 12
(71 per cent) have prior experience, 4 (23 per cent) don ha e e pe ience in he ame line and
one entrepreneur (6 per cent) don ha e an e pe ience. Thus, it can be concluded that,
entrepreneurs with prior experience in the same line of business are more likely to become
p ofi able han ho e ho don ha e e pe ience. Therefore, it is advisable for the prospective
entrepreneurs to gain experience in the relevant field before entering into entrepreneurship.
97
Table 4.31 Cross table showing Profitability based on Market Orientation
Market Orientation
Export % Domestic % Planning % Total %

Profitability to Export
Profitable 42 71.2 17 28.8 0 0 59 29.4
Breakeven 23 79.3 6 20.7 0 0 29 14.4
Revenue 42 54.5 34 44.2 1 1.3 77 38.3
Generation
Losses 3 15.8 13 68.4 3 15.8 19 9.5
Other 3 17.6 11 64.7 3 17.6 17 8.5
Total 113 56.2 81 40.3 7 3.5 201 100
The data is analysed to know the classification of profitability of start-ups based on their market
orientation. It is observed that, 71 per cent of the profitable start-ups are export oriented units,
29 per cent are doing business in the domestic market. Out of the start-ups reaching the
breakeven level, 79 per cent are export oriented start-ups and 21 per cent are doing business in
the domestic market. Out of the start-ups in the revenue generation stage, 55 per cent are export
oriented firms, 44 per cent are doing business in the domestic market and 1 per cent is planning
to enter the foreign market. Out of the loss-making firms, 16 per cent are export oriented start-
ups, 68 per cent are selling in the domestic market and 16 per cent are planning to enter the
global market. Out of the remaining start-ups, 18 per cent are export oriented firms, 64 per cent
are doing business in the domestic market and 18 per cent are planning to enter the global
market. Thus, it can be concluded that, compared to start-ups selling in the domestic market,
export-oriented firms are becoming profitable and reaching the breakeven level. Majority of
the revenue generating firms were also observed to be export oriented start-ups.
4.9 Asset Development
An asset is any resource owned and controlled by the firm which can add value to the firm. It
can be tangible and intangible. The entrepreneurs in the study were asked about the asset
development of the firm over the previous year. The alternate options given were
i. Decrease
98
ii. Remain the same
iii. Increase
The question is asked to know whether the firm is making any addition to its assets rather than
concentrating on the day to day activities of the firm. 4 per cent of the respondents said there
is a decrease in the assets, 21 per cent responded that their assets remain the same and 77 per
cent of the respondents said there is an increase in the assets of the start-up.
The data is analysed to check the classification of Nature of start-up based on their Asset
Development.
Table 4.32 Cross table showing Asset Development based on Nature of Start-up
Nature of Start-up
Asset Development Product % Service % Both % Total %
Decline 2 2.3 0 0 2 2.2 4 2
Remain the same 20 23.3 6 23.1 16 18 42 20.9
Increase 64 74.4 20 76.9 71 79.8 155 77.1
Total 86 42.8 26 12.9 89 44.3 201 100
It is observed from the table 4.32, out of the product start-ups, 2 per cent registered a decline
in their asset development, 23 per cent said their assets remain the same over the previous year
and 74 per cent registered an increase in the asset development. Start-ups dealing with service
projects may not have many fixed assets as that of product start-ups. 23 per cent of the service-
oriented start-ups responded that their assets remain the same in the previous year and 77 per
cent said their assets increased over the previous year. Out of the start-ups dealing with both
product and service, 2 per cent informed their assets declined over the previous year, 18 per
cent responded, their assets remain the same and 80 per cent responded their assets increased
over the previous year. Thus, it can be concluded that, comparatively, service-oriented start-
ups register more increase in the assets possessed.
99
Table 4.33 Cross table showing Asset Development based on Mode of Business
Mode of Business
Asset Development B2B % B2C % B2G %
Decline 4 2.3 2 2.7 0 0
Remain the same 34 19.5 18 24 5 15.2
Increase 136 78.2 55 73.3 28 84.8
Total 174 86.6 75 37.3 33 16.4
The data is analysed to see the classification of Asset development based on the mode of
business. It was observed that, 2 per cent of the start-ups dealing with B2B business registered
a decline in assets, assets remain the same for 20 per cent of the start-ups and assets increased
for 78 per cent of the start-ups. In the case of start-ups dealing with B2C business, 3 per cent
registered a decline in assets, 24 per cent informed their assets remain the same and 73 per cent
registered an increase in the assets. Out of the start-ups dealing with B2G business, the assets
of 15 per cent of the start-ups remain the same and assets increased for 85 per cent of the start-
ups. Thus, it can be concluded that, only a few firms informed decline in the assets and the
assets remain same over the previous year. Such firms were dealing with B2B business and
B2C business.
Table 4.34 Cross table showing Asset Development based on Incubation Status
Incubation Status
Asset Development Yes % No % Total %
Decline 3 2.1 1 1.8 4 2
Remain the same 32 22.1 10 17.9 42 20.9
Increase 110 75.9 45 80.4 155 77.1
Total 145 72.1 56 27.9 201 100
The data is analysed to check the classification of asset development based on the incubation
status of the start-ups. It is observed that, out of the incubated start-ups, 2 per cent registered a
decrease in the asset development, 22 per cent informed their assets remain the same and 76
per cent responded an increase in their assets over the previous year. Out of the start-ups which
100
ha en adop ed inc ba ion facili , 2 pe cen egi e ed decline in a e , 18 pe cen info med
their assets remain the same and 80 per cent informed their assets increased over the previous
year. It can be concluded that the asset development is independent of the incubation status of
the start-up.
Table 4.35 Cross table showing Asset Development based on Government Funding
Government Funding
Asset Applied % Applied but % Not % Total %
Development and not Applied
Received received
Decline 3 2.7 1 2.6 0 0 4 2
Remain the same 18 16.1 13 33.3 11 22 42 20.9
Increase 91 81.2 25 64.1 39 78 155 77.1
Total 112 55.7 39 19.4 50 24.9 201 100
Data is analysed to check the classification of asset development of start-ups based on the
government funding. Out of the start-ups which received government funding, 3 per cent
registered a decline in their asset, 16 per cent informed their asset remain the same and 81 per
cent responded their asset has increased over the previous year. Out of the start-ups which were
denied a government funding, one start-up informed a decline in their assets, 33 per cent
informed their assets remain the same and 64 per cent responded an increase in their assets.
Out of the start-up hich didn appl fo a go e nmen f nding, 22 pe cen e ponded their
assets remain the same and 78 per cent responded there is an increase in their assets over the
previous year. It is concluded that, majority of the start-ups which received a government
funding shows an increase in the asset development.
101
Data is analysed to check the classification of asset development of start-ups based on the
experience of the start-up entrepreneurs.
Table 4.36 Cross table showing Asset Development on Experience of the Entrepreneur
Prior Experience in the same line of Business
Experience % No % No % Total %
Asset in the Experience experience
Development same line in the same at all
line
Decline 2 1.6 2 3.8 0 0 4 2
Remain the 25 20.5 13 24.5 4 15.4 42 20.9
same
Increase 95 77.9 38 71.7 22 84.6 155 77.1
Total 122 60.7 53 26.4 26 12.9 201 100
Out of the start-ups, which has an experienced entrepreneur in the same line of business, 2
percent witnessed a decline in their assets, 21 per cent informed their assets remained the same
and 78 per cent reported their assets increased over the previous year. Out of the start-ups which
don ha e an experienced entrepreneur in the same line, 4 per cent observed a decline in their
assets, 25 per cent reported their assets remained the same and 72 per cent informed their assets
increased over the previous year. Out of the start-ups which do not have an experienced
entrepreneur 15 per cent reported their assets remain same over the previous year and 85 per
cent informed their assets increased over the previous year. It is concluded that, irrespective of
the experience of the entrepreneur asset development is somewhat similar among all the
categories. Comparatively, start-ups of entrepreneurs with no experience shows a greater
percentage of increase in asset development than the other.
102
Table 4.37 Cross table showing Asset Development on Market Orientation
Market Orientation
Asset Export % Domestic % Planning to % Total %
Development Export
Decline 1 0.9 3 3.7 0 0 4 2
Remain the same 11 9.7 29 35.8 2 28.6 42 20.9
Increase 101 89.4 49 60.5 5 71.4 155 77.1
Total 113 56.2 81 40.3 7 3.5 201 100
The data is analysed to check the classification of asset development based on the market
orientation of start-ups. It is observed that, out of the export-oriented start-ups, 90 per cent of
the start-ups observed an increase in their assets, assets of 10 per cent of the start-ups remain
the same and less than 1 per cent witnessed a decline in the assets. Out of the start-ups doing
business in the domestic market, 60 per cent witnessed an increase in their asset, assets of 36
per cent of the start-ups remain the same and assets of 4 per cent of the start-ups declined. Out
of the 7 start-ups which has plans to enter the foreign market, 5 start-ups registered an increase
in their assets and assets of 2 start-ups remain the same.
Table 4.38 Cross table showing Asset Development on Profitability Position

Asset Development
Profitability Decline % Remain % Increase % Total %
Position the same
Profitable 1 1.7 2 3.4 56 94.9 59 29.4
Breakeven 0 0 3 10.3 26 89.7 29 14.4
Revenue 0 0 24 31.2 53 68.8 77 38.3
Generation
Losses 2 10.5 5 26.3 12 63.2 19 9.5
Other 1 5.9 8 47.1 8 47.1 17 8.5
Total 4 2 42 20.9 155 77.1 201 100
103
The data is analysed to check the classification of asset development based on the profitability
of the firm. It was found that, out of the profitable start-ups, 95 per cent witnessed an increase
in their assets, 3 per cent reported their assets remain the same over the previous year, and 2
per cent witnessed a decline in their assets. Out of the start-ups which reached the breakeven
level, 90 per cent of the start-ups witnessed an increase in their assets and 10 per cent reported
that their assets remain the same. Out of the revenue generating start-up, 69 per cent of the
start-ups observed an increase in their assets and 31 per cent reported that their assets remain
the same. Out of the 19 loss making firms, 12 (63 per cent) reported an increase in their assets,
5 (26 per cent) start-ups reported their assets remain the same and 2 start-ups (11 per cent)
reported a decline in their assets. There are 17 start-up hich don come nde an of hi
category. 8 start-ups (47 per cent) reported an increase in the assets, 8 start-ups (47 per cent)
reported that their assets remain the same and one start-up reported their assets declined over
the previous year. Thus, it can be concluded that, profitable, breakeven and revenue generating
start-ups register an increase in their assets over the previous year.
4.10 How did the Start-ups Scale Up?
The scaled-up start-up entrepreneurs were asked what were the measures taken by them to scale
up their business. Out of the total start-ups 155 reported to be in the scaling stage and 12 start-
ups informed to be established firms. Table below shows the measures taken by the established
start-ups and the start-ups in the scaling stage to scale up their business.
Table 4.39 Cross table showing How the Start-ups Scaled up their Business
Growth Phase
Measure Adopted to Scale up Scaling Established Total
Hiring the Right People 90 7 97
Establishing Key Relationships and Networks 88 10 98
Extra Financing 57 7 64
Outsource Non- essential Works 13 0 13
Establishing key relationship is the measure adopted by 10 out of 12 established start-ups to

scale up their operation. 7 start-ups hired right people and introduced extra finance to scale up
104
their business. The measure adopted by majority of the scaled-up start-ups is hiring the right
people followed by establishing key relationships and networks and extra financing. 13 start-
ups informed that they outsourced non-essential works to another firm. It helps in spending
more time for the core business activity and helps in increasing the efficiency of the firm.
Establishing networks by the entrepreneur helps in increasing the reach of the firm to new
areas. Having adequate network helps the business in reaching the final customers. Similarly,
employees are the backbone of any business. The employees affect the overall performance of
a business. In the case of a start-up business, it becomes more important to fix the right number
and combination of employees in the initial stages. Finance is other important aspect for any
business. The business need finance to expand and increase production. Thus, it could be
inferred that, hiring the right people, establishing key networks and extra financing are the
measures adopted by the start-up companies in Kerala to become scaled up firm. Apart from
the given options, some entrepreneurs took other measures to scale up their business. It includes
increasing the production and sales of the product, introducing the product to new market and
introducing service projects which helps in maintaining financial stability.
4.11 Source of Funding
Finance is the life blood of any business. Success or failure of any business depends to a large
extend on the availability of finance. The entrepreneurs were asked about their source of seed
capital funding, source of working capital funding and collateral security kept for loans. The
start-ups raised funds through incubator seed funding, government grants, business loans,
friends/family, angel investment, Venture Capital funds or by bootstrapping their business.
Bootstrapping is the method of starting the business with personal savings and the returns from
the initial sales, without taking any external help.
4.11.1 Source of Seed Capital
Seed capital is the money raised by an entrepreneur to kick start his business. It is mainly raised
f om he en ep ene pe onal a ing o i h he help pf f iend /famil . The amo n i
mainly used for meeting the expenses met at the time of incorporation of a company.
In the present study, 31 per cent of the start-ups received seed funding assistance from the
incubator, 11 per cent raised government grants, 20 per cent started with the help of
105
friends/family, 43 per cent bootstrapped their business, 6 per cent received angel investment,
3 per cent took business loans and 2 per cent received venture capital fund.
The data is analysed to check the seed fund raised based on the nature of start-up.
Table 4.40 Cross table showing Source of Seed Capital based on Nature of Start-up
Nature of Start-up
Source of Seed Product % Service % Both % Total %
Capital
Incubator Seed 32 37.2 4 15.4 26 41.9 62 30.8
Funding
Government Grants 13 15.1 3 11.5 6 6.7 22 10.9
Business Loans 5 5.8 0 0 1 1.1 6 3
Angel Investment 6 7 2 7.7 3 3.4 11 5.5
Friends/Family 21 24.4 3 11.5 16 18 40 19.9
Venture Capital 1 1.2 0 0 3 3.4 4 2
Funds
Bootstrap 29 33.7 17 65.4 41 46.1 87 43.3
The data analysis shows that, 37 per cent of the product start-ups raised their seed funds from
the incubator, 15 per cent received government grants, 6 per cent took business loans, 7 per
cent received angel investment, 24 per cent were raised funds from their friends/family, 34 per
cent bootstrapped their business and one start-up received fund from a Venture capital. Out of
the service start-ups, 65 per cent bootstrapped their business, 15 per cent raised funds from the
incubator, 12 per cent received government grants and loan from friends/ family and 2 start-
ups received angel investment. Out of the start-ups dealing with both product and service 46
per cent bootstrapped their business, 42 per cent received incubator seed funding, 18 per cent
received funds from friends/ family, 7 per cent received government grants, 3 per cent received
angel investment and venture capital funds and one start-up took a business loan. Thus, it can
be concluded that, majority of the product-based start-ups raised seed funds from the incubator
and majority of service-oriented start-ups and start-ups dealing with both product and service
bootstrapped their business.
106
The data analysis is done to classify the source of seed capital based on the profitability position
of the start-up.
Table 4.41 Cross table showing Source of Seed Capital on Profitability Position
Profitability Position
Source of
Revenue Generation
Seed
Capital
Breakeven
Profitable
Losses
Other
Total
%
%
Incubator 16 27.1 22 41.4 25 32.5 5 26.3 4 23.5 62 30.8
Seed
Funding
Govt. 7 11.9 4 13.8 7 9.1 2 10.5 2 11.8 22 10.9
Grants
Business 0 0 0 0 4 5.2 1 5.3 1 5.9 6 3
Loans
Angel 4 6.8 1 3.4 4 5.2 2 10.5 0 0 11 5.5
Investmen
t
Friends/ 5 8.5 8 27.6 21 27.3 3 15.8 3 17.6 40 19.9
Family
Venture 2 3.4 0 0 1 1.3 1 5.3 0 0 4 2
Capital
Funds
Bootstrap 25 42.4 11 37.9 42 54.5 5 26.3 4 23.5 87 43.3
It can be observed that, out of the profitable start-ups, 42 per cent bootstrapped the business,
27 per cent raised seed funding assistance given by the incubator, 12 per cent received
government grants, 7 per cent received angel investment, 9 per cent raised funds from friends/
107
family and 3 per cent raised funds from venture capitalists. Out of the start-ups in the breakeven
stage, 41 per cent received incubator seed funds, 38 per cent bootstrapped the business, 28 per
cent raised funds from friends/ family, 14 per cent received government grants, and one start-
up received angel investment. Out of the start-ups in the revenue generation stage, 55 per cent
bootstrapped their business, 33 per cent received incubator seed funds, 27 per cent raised funds
from friends/ family, 9 per cent received government grants, 5 per cent took business loan and
received angel investment and one start-up received venture capital funds. Out of the loss-
making firms, 26 per cent bootstrapped and 26 per cent received seed fund from the incubator,
16 per cent raised funds from friends/family, 2 firms received government grants and angel
investment, one firm took business loan and one firm received venture capital funding. Out of
the remaining firms, 24 per cent bootstrapped their business and 24 per cent raised seed funds
from the incubator, 18 per cent raised funds from friends/family, 2 firms received government
grants and one firm raised a business loan. Thus, it can be concluded that, majority of the
profitable firms bootstrapped their business and relied on incubator seed funding as external
funds. Firms which reached breakeven level and revenue generating firms initially
bootstrapped their business and later relied on start-up incubator seed funding and
friends/family for further funding requirements.
4.11.2 Source of Working Capital
The capital maintained by the business for its day to day operations are the working capital for
a business. The concept of working capital is important because, it is the amount used by a
company to pay its short-term debts and expenses.
In the present study, 84 per cent of the respondents met their working capital requirements
through Internally generated funds, 5 per cent received loan from government institutions, 11
per cent took a loan from bank, 14 per cent raised funds from family, 10 per cent received help
from friends and 2 per cent used the funds received from Venture Capitalists. Here, internally
generated funds are the amount raised by the company from initial sales of the product/ service.
108
The data is analysed to check the working capital raised based on the nature of start-up.
Table 4.42 Cross table showing Source of Working Capital based on Nature of Start-up
Nature of Start-up
Source of Working Product % Service % Both % Total %
Capital
Internally generated 69 80.2 23 88.5 76 85.4 168 83.6
Funds
Loan from 8 9.3 0 0 2 2.2 10 5
Government
Loan from Banks 11 12.8 2 7.7 10 11.2 23 11.4
Loan from Family 15 17.4 3 11.5 11 12.4 29 14.4
Loan from Friends 12 14 0 0 9 10.1 21 10.4
Venture Capital 4 4.7 0 0 1 1.1 5 2.5
Funds
The data analysis shows that, 80 per cent of the product start-ups met their working capital
requirement from internally generated funds. 9 per cent received loan from government
institutions. The amount raised through the loan is used for meeting the working capital
requirements.13 per cent used the loan taken from bank, 17 per cent were helped by the family
and 14 per cent were helped by friends meet the working capital requirement. The amount
raised from Venture capitalists were used by 5 per cent of the product start-ups as working
capital. In the case of service start-ups, 89 per cent used internally generated funds as working
capital, 12 per cent were helped by family members and 8 per cent took a loan from bank. 85
per cent of the start-ups dealing with both products and service used internally generated fund
as working capital, 12 per cent took loan from family, 11 per cent took loan from banks and 10
per cent took loan from friends. 2 start-ups used the loan taken from government institution as
working capital and one start-up used the funds received from Venture capitalists to meet the
working capital requirements. Thus, it is concluded that, majority of the respondents used
internally generated funds, followed by loan from family to meet their working capital
requirements, regardless of the nature of their business.
109
4.12 Entrepreneurial Motivation
The success of any business depends up on the motivation of the entrepreneur to start and run
the business. Past studies show that there are many drivers for entrepreneurial motivation. It is
an important field of research because the theoretical evidences prove that the entrepreneurial
motivation has significant effect on performance of the enterprise. Stephen, U. et al (2015) in
their study identifies, Achievement, challenge & learning, Independence & autonomy, Income
security & financial success, Recognition & status, Family & Roles, Dissatisfaction,
Community & social motivations as some of the motivating factors to start an enterprise .
Table 4.43 Motivation to Start Business

Sl. Factors No. of Percentage
No. Respondents
1 Freedom to choose your work environment 71 35
2 Welfare considerations of family/ community 10 5
3 Wealth creation/ Materialism 23 11
4 Dire need to achieve a specific goal 51 25
5 Sense of accomplishment 25 12
6 Brilliant idea that can improve the life of people 80 40
7 Passion to do something unique 163 81
8 Educational background 52 26
9 Occupational background and experience in the relevant 99 49
field
10 Creative than the present employer can put to use 36 18
11 Bring change in the society 43 21
12 Extraordinary demand for a product 10 5
13 Encouragement from big business houses 3 2
14 Government assistance, conducive ecosystem and 13 7
financial support
15 Ease of entry and management 5 3
16 Status/ prestige 8 4
17 Willingness to continue family tradition 2 1
Total Respondents 201 100
110
The present study analysed 17 motivating factors of the start-up entrepreneurs from Kerala.
The analysis indicates that passion (81 per cent) is the major factor motivating a person to start
an enterprise. Occupational background and experience in the relevant field (49 per cent),
Brilliant idea that can improve the life of people (40 per cent), Freedom to choose your work
environment (35 per cent), Educational background (26 per cent), Dire need to achieve a
specific goal (25 per cent), Bring change in the society (21 per cent), Creative than the present
employer can put to use (18 per cent), Sense of accomplishment (12 per cent), Wealth creation/
Materialism (11 per cent) can be identified as other motivational factors. But it can be noted
that only a few respondents considered Government assistance, conducive ecosystem and
financial support (7 per cent), Welfare considerations of family/ community (5 per cent),
Extraordinary demand for a product (5 per cent), Status/ prestige (4 per cent), Ease of entry
and management (3 per cent), Encouragement from big business houses (2 per cent),
Willingness to continue family tradition (1 per cent) as motivating factors to start an enterprise.
4.13 Factors Determining the Location of the Start-up
Entrepreneurs participated in the survey were asked what are the factors they considered while
deciding the location of their start-up.
Table 4.44 Factors Determining the Location of the Start-up
Sl. No. Factors No. of Respondents Percentage

1 Proximity to raw materials 6 3
2 Proximity to labour 13 7
3 Close to the market 15 8
4 Special economic zone 14 7
5 Business incubator 107 53
6 Ideal business atmosphere 30 15
7 Availability of infrastructure 29 14
9 Other 2 1
Total Respondents 201
It is observed from Table 4.44, 53 per cent of the entrepreneurs registered their business in
Kerala, as the state provides them with incubation facility. 15 per cent of the respondents thinks
there is an ideal environment for business in the state. 14 per cent of the respondents started
111
their business in Kerala as they have infrastructural facility for running their business in Kerala.
The customers of 8 per cent of the respondents are in Kerala, which intended them to start their
business in Kerala. 7 per cent of the respondents set up their business in Kerala, as they have
access to sufficient labour and they received an office space in the Special Economic Zone.
Proximity to raw materials was the reason for 3 per cent of the respondents to start their
business in Kerala. 1 per cent of the respondents started their business in Kerala due to other
reasons like they are settled in Kerala for past many years.
4.14 Reasons for Success of Start-ups
Success of Business depends on a host of internal and external factors. The respondents were
asked what they think as the reason for success of a start-up business.
Table 4.45 Reasons for success of Start-ups

Sl. Factors No. of Percentage
No. Respondents
1 Innovative idea of the product/ service 156 77.6
2 Teamwork of the employees 112 55.7
3 Capital adequacy of the business 75 37.3
4 Time at which the business is established 34 16.9
5 Supporting government policies 91 45.3
6 Crisis management ability of the entrepreneur 32 15.9
7 Business plan 21 10.4
8 Network of the entrepreneur 129 64.2
9 Scaling up of the business operations 52 25.9
Total Respondents 201 100
Table 4.45 shows that 78 per cent of the respondents believes Innovative idea of the product/
service is a reason for the success of start-ups. 64 per cent of the respondents opines that, an
entrepreneur with a good network can become successful. The number of employees in a start-
up are less. Therefore, teamwork of the employees is considered as an important factor
contributing to the success of start-ups by 56 per cent of the respondents. 45 per cent of the
respondents feels that a state with supporting government policies will create more successful
businesses. 37 per cent of the respondents opines Capital adequacy of the business is an
important factor contributing to the success of a business. Scaling up of business operations by
112
creating more products or services and attracting new customers was considered by 26 per cent
of the respondents as an important factor leading to the success of a business. 17 per cent of
the respondents informed that, time at which the business is established is a factor contributing
to the success of start-ups. Past research shows that personality traits of the entrepreneurs are
an important factor leading to the success of an enterprise.16 per cent of the respondents opines
that the crisis management ability of the entrepreneur can be a reason for the success of start-
up businesses. Starting with a business plan is informed by 10 per cent of the respondents as a
reason for success of business.
4.15 Concluding Remarks
This chapter explains in detail the demographic characteristics of the start-ups in Kerala and
the personal details about the entrepreneurs. The chapter also explains in detail the R&D
facility possessed by the start-up, market orientation of the start-up, method of market research
adopted and the source of financing. The chapter also examines the motivation behind starting
a business in Kerala and the steps taken to scale up their business in Kerala.
113

07 - Chapter 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

07 - Chapter 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER 4

START-UP ECOSYSTEM IN KERALA

4.1 Profile of Kerala Based Start-up Entrepreneurs

Status of previous Start-up One % Two % Total %

Table 4.3 Information About the Start-up

Government Procurement Number of Start-ups founded in Kerala

4.3 Primary Business Activity

Primary Business Activity

Source: Primary Data

4.4 R& D Facility

4.4.1 R&D Facility based on Growth Phase of Business

4.4.2 R&D Facility and Government Funding

4.6 Business Plan

A Business plan is a blue print of the activities proposed to be undertaken in a business. It is a

4.7 Market Research

Table 4.27 Cross table showing Profitability based on Mode of Business

Export % Domestic % Planning % Total %

4.9 Asset Development

Table 4.38 Cross table showing Asset Development on Profitability Position

4.10 How did the Start-ups Scale Up?

Establishing key relationship is the measure adopted by 10 out of 12 established start-ups to

4.11 Source of Funding

4.11.1 Source of Seed Capital

4.11.2 Source of Working Capital

Table 4.43 Motivation to Start Business

4.13 Factors Determining the Location of the Start-up

Table 4.44 Factors Determining the Location of the Start-up

Sl. No. Factors No. of Respondents Percentage

4.14 Reasons for Success of Start-ups

Table 4.45 Reasons for success of Start-ups

4.15 Concluding Remarks

You might also like