65b77ff9d2a2f5197c3441ea_The state of corporate venture building in 2024

The state of
corporate
venture
building
2024
Executive summary
Venture building has become a prominent innovation practice in the past years. Despite the economic
downturn (or especially in its light), large and medium-sized corporates recognize their leverage in exploring
opportunities outside their core business. In a recent study, McKinsey describes venture building as the
‘CEO’s choice for growth,’ with 50% of corporate leaders considering it a top 3 priority for new revenue
generation.1 As a leading Corporate Venture Builder, we constantly strive to learn about the developments in
this space and are eager to share findings together with our own perspectives with decision makers and the
broader venture building community. To shed the light on recent trends and learnings in the field, we have
interviewed more than 30 corporate venture building leaders in the DACH region.
CEOs ranking new business building as a top 3 priority, % © WhatAVenture
27% 23%
Top priority Top 3 priority
Share of surveyed CEOs selecting ‘the top priority’ or ‘top 3 priority’ to the following question: ‘Currently, how important
is new business building compared with other strategic priorities at your organization?’; n = 149.
Source: McKinsey Digital, CEO’s choice for growth: Building new businesses, November 9, 2023 (own representation)
Our key findings:
1. Top management commitment is the most crucial factor for successful venture building. This is because
venture building requires clear alignment with the organization’s overall long-term strategy, clear objectives
(e.g., what share of revenue you expect to generate with venture building in the next three to five years),
and sufficiently allocated resources to reach the set targets. Venture building activities without a clear
commitment from the top management struggle to access the resources necessary to get timely decisions
and lack the freedom to diverge from corporate processes, ultimately reducing effectiveness.
nother crucial success factor is the right proximity to the core business. Corporates must carve out
2. A
venture building from the organizational structure of the core business to ensure the sufficient speed
required to validate and implement new business opportunities. At the same time, new ventures should be
granted access to organizational resources that provide an unfair advantage compared to startups (e.g.,
functional knowledge, access to pilot customers, testing facilities, etc.).
3. L astly, you need top-level entrepreneurial profiles to validate new business opportunities and bring
them to scale. In most cases, core business employees will lack the entrepreneurial skills required for the
job. Collaborating with corporate venture building service providers or hiring venture architects for your
venture building unit can help you to cover these gaps.
Hence, as a decision-maker, you must ensure clear governance with top management involvement, define
strategic playing fields, and secure top-level entrepreneurial profiles. Collaborating with an external venture
builder might grant a successful setup in all three areas.
1
McKinsey Digital, CEO’s choice for growth: Building new businesses, November 9, 2023
2 The state of corporate venture building l 2024 l WhatAVenture

Table of contents
Introduction 3
About this study 6
Chapter 1: What, why and how of corporate venture building 7
Chapter 2: Key challenges and success factors 12

a. Securing top management commitment 14
b. Building a strong and diverse corporate venture team 18
c. Establishing venture building governance 23
d. Using the unfair advantage of the parent company 25
Conclusion: Key drivers for corporate venture building in 2024 27
Ventures in the spotlight 28
Introduction
Corporate venture building has emerged as a pivotal force in driving innovation strategies in recent years.
While some organizations have fully embraced the concept, establishing their own corporate venture
builders, like REHAU New Ventures, Schenker Ventures, and Enpulse of EnBW, others are cautiously
testing the waters with the occasional venture project. Some are still on the sidelines, contemplating
whether to get started.
Gartner positions venture building (or company building) as rising among the other innovation techniques
in 2023. It is also the first time Gartner has introduced venture building as an innovation practice.
The report underlines venture building’s ability to enable organizations to ‘overcome their innovation
limitations and their corporate heritage to rapidly innovate, develop and scale new ventures in a highly
efficient and targeted manner’.2
2
Gartner Research, Hype Cycle for Innovation Practices, July 24,2023

Hype cycle for innovation practices, 2023
Innovation Centers
of Excellence
Data-Driven Innovation Continous Foresight
Innovation Ecosystems
Visual Collaboration Applications
Design Sprints
Innovation Culture Hacks

Corporate Incubators
Expectations
Business Model Idea

Lego Serious Play Innovation Framework Challenges Innovation
Workshops
Pretotyping Innovation Training
Company Builder Scenario Hackathons
Planning
Virtual Innovation Labs Lean Startup
Effectuation Technology Trend
Moonshot Thinking Design Thinking Standards
AI Driven Innovation Innovation Labs
Innovation OKRs
Open Innovation
Innovation OKRs Microinnovations Idea Management Tools
Chief Innovation Officer
Innovation Intellectual Trendspotting
Speculative Design Property Management
(Adaptive) Innovation
Inclusive Innovation Governance
As of July 2023
Innovation Trigger Peak of Inflated Through of Slope of Plateau of

Expectations Disillusionsment Enlightenment Productivity
Time
Plateau will be reached: <2 yrs. 2-5 yrs. 5-10 yrs. >10 yrs.
Source: Gartner Research, Hype Cycle for Innovation Practices, November 24, 2023 (own representation)
According to McKinsey, organizations are building practitioners, we’ve conducted over

doubling down on building new businesses, 30 interviews with some of the key players in
even amid ongoing economic uncertainty. Chief the DACH corporate venture building domain.
Finance Officers (CFOs) see business building as The result, this study, offers insights to help
the most likely strategic action their organizations corporates learn from each other, navigate
will take in the next 12 months, beating challenges, and set the stage for success.
restructuring and capital structure changes.3
We trust you will find these insights both
At WhatAVenture, we have actively guided our informative and applicable to your unique
clients through the nuances of the venture circumstances. We hope they inspire you to
building journey. To deepen our insights explore the potential venture building offers
and contribute to building knowledge useful in setting your organization apart from the
for corporate decision-makers and venture competition.
3
McKinsey Digital, CEO’s choice for growth: Building new businesses, November 9, 2023

About the authors
Karyna Hornostai
Manager & Lead Venture Architect
Karyna is an innovation manager, venture architect, and project lead. She’s on

a mission to kick-start impactful corporate ventures and help them reach their
targets. She has a wide range of experiences in corporate innovation, covering
corporate-startup collaboration, intrapreneurship, and building corporate
ventures. She gets the ball rolling when it comes to operationalizing innovation,
managing multiple stakeholders, and getting things done.
Stefan Peintner
CEO & Managing Partner
Stefan is our innovation all-rounder. With more than ten years of international
experience in strategy and innovation, he advises our clients on setting up effective
venture governance and drives the validation and implementation of corporate
ventures. Stefan’s unique skillset combines an entrepreneurial mindset, a deep
understanding of the corporate world, and true cross-industry experience. His
passion for helping others succeed makes him a great leader for WhatAVenture
and advisor for corporate innovation.
Special thank you to all the participants and colleagues who made this
study happen: Andreas Müller, Daisy Ireton, Georg Horn, Lukas Novak,
Max Steindl-Ditzel, Petra Barbu, Philippe Thiltges, Timon Polacek.

About this
study
Over the past ten years, WhatAVenture has 30+ participants
partnered with over 250 clients, tackling diverse
innovation challenges and navigating the unique
hurdles of venture building within corporate
structures, with a strong footprint in the DACH
region and northern Italy.
In this study, we gathered insights based on

interviews and a survey with over 30 corporate
venture building managers and venture
architects across mid-sized to large corporates.
Our study focused on companies with over
500 employees and more than 1 billion Euro in
revenue with either an active corporate venture
builder or a few implemented or running venture
building projects.
53%
with >10,000
employees
17%
10,000 - 5,000
employees
23%
5,000 - 1,000
employees
7% (Some of the study participants wished to remain anonymous)
under 1,000
employees
Our examination centered on fundamental
elements critical to corporate venture building
success. We explored the goals guiding
corporate venture initiatives, the mechanics of
37% 37% 26% an efficient setup and governance, the strategic
Over 10 billion 1-10 billion Under 1 billion
Euro in Euro in Euro in allocation of resources, a pragmatic analysis
revenue revenue revenue of success cases, and a candid look at the
challenges.

Chapter 1
What, why and

how of corporate
venture building
What is corporate venture building?
Corporate venture building is a strategic initiative where established corporations actively engage
in creating, developing, and scaling innovative ventures outside their core business.
Why do companies start building ventures?
Companies embark on corporate venture building for various strategic reasons, as our research
data reveals.

Notably, 76% of participants highlighted ‘generating new revenue streams,’ underscoring
a primary focus on financial outcomes.

Simultaneously, 40% character a desire to cultivate an ‘innovation culture,’ recognizing
corporate venture building’s role in fostering forward-thinking organizational dynamics.

Another 12% emphasized ‘digital transformation,’ signaling a commitment to staying at
the forefront of technological developments.

Chapter 1 What, why and how of corporate venture building
Reasons participants started corporate venture building, % © WhatAVenture
Generating new revenue streams 76%
Tapping into innovation culture 40%
Digital transformation 12%
Other mentions: Desire to fill a market gap, wanting to tackle projects that don’t have a ‘home’ in the current
organizational setup, building sustainable solutions outside of the core business, or simply exploring venture building as
an approach.
Share of participants mentioning displayed reasons when asked: ‘Why did your organization start with corporate
venture building?’; multiple answers were possible.
How do companies set up venture building in their organizations?
54% of study participants have chosen to establish a dedicated venture building unit or team,
while 43% have executed one or more stand-alone venture building projects.
A dedicated team vs. a case-by-case approach, % © WhatAVenture
54% 46%
Dedicated venture Case-by-case venture

building unit or team building projects
Share of mentions by participants when asked: ‘How does your organization manage corporate venture building:
is there a dedicated unit or team, or are corporate venture building (CVB) projects being tackled on a case-by-case
basis?’; single choice question.

Chapter 1 What, why and how of corporate venture building
For many companies, the decision to establish

dedicated venture builders or teams stems from
‘We did the whole carve-out of ‘New
the need for: Ventures’ from the REHAU Group
to have the necessary freedom to
Operational autonomy: Aiming to surpass implement our strategy: get out of the
process hand book, get out of the SAP
the lengthy approval processes and gain the
system, get out of the project reviews
speed required for the validation and scaling with established business KPIs made
of ventures. for the core business. Now, we have the
freedom to e.g., very quickly establish
Safeguarded budget: Securing resources a new brand for an innovative product
from potential budget constraints within the and make innovation happen.’
broader organizational structure.
Alice Lottes
Head of Venture Services
at REHAU New Ventures
An interesting trend emerges among companies with dedicated units – they often embark on the venture
building journey through initial experimentation. Having previously tested the waters with one or a few
projects or having run intrapreneurship programs, these companies recognized the need to separate
ventures that are further from the core business into a dedicated setup.
The approach is more opportunity-driven for companies without a dedicated venture building unit or team.
They address topics as they arise, opting for a sandbox environment for a specific venture project rather
than a governed setup to assess multiple opportunities in parallel.
Several companies cited specific reasons for not

opting for a dedicated unit setup from the outset:
‘Doing corporate venture building
binds a lot of resources, particularly
ecent resource constraints driven by
R
if the ventures are far from the core
the economic decline: As a response, the business.’
decision was made to centralize resources
around the core business to navigate Georg Baumgartner
economic uncertainties effectively. Head of Digital Innovation
at Salzburg AG

A desire to learn from individual projects
before committing to a streamlined process.

Our take
As a corporate leader, venture building should be on the

top of your innovation agenda
Companies today are navigating a business landscape characterized by rapid changes

and increased competition. The S&P 500 turnover rate is increasing, with only 12% of the
companies on the list fifty years ago still in existence today.
From our point of view, in his book Lean Scaleup, Frank Mattes accurately characterizes the evolving
business landscape as being marked by:
lurred industry boundaries: For example, Amazon has moved into everything, from retail to
B
movies to cloud services and logistics.

Emerging value pools: Innovations solve problems never solved before or serve an entirely
unaddressed customer base, for example, Apple’s launch of iTunes, enabling consumers to
legally buy digital music assets.
xisting business models losing relevance: Even the most profitable business models have
E
life cycles. Nowadays, service-centered business models are gaining importance due to the lock-
in effect they offer.4
Six of the world’s top ten companies are serial business builders, launching multiple significant
businesses in the past two decades.
Hence comes the conclusion: companies must rejuvenate their business models continuously to stay
relevant.
As disruption rarely comes from known competitors but from fundamental changes in customer preferences,
often addressed by green-field VC-backed startups, corporate innovators face the challenge of ensuring
the company against irrelevance. To do so, they must identify new business models and leverage corporate
assets (that regular startups could only dream of) for an ‘unfair advantage’.
To build these capabilities, companies should implement a robust validation and scaling framework, creating
a supportive environment for new business opportunities, which is statistically the best organic growth
option.5 Notably, building organic growth capabilities is more valuable than M&A, where failure rates range
from 70-90%.6
Speaking of the right environment, at WhatAVenture, we strongly recommend the establishment of a clear
Our take
venture governance and a carved out venture building unit or team to explore radical or semi-radical
opportunities outside of core business.
4
Franke Mattes, Lean Scaleup, 2021
5
McKinsey & Company, The value premium of organic growth, January 19, 2017
6
Harvard Business Review, The Big Idea: The New M&A Playbook, March, 2011

Business opportunities that require a safeguarded setup © WhatAVenture
Semi-radical Radical
risk & technology Where to use
New
many unknown unknowns

uncertainty high uncertainty
venture building
Technology
Business opportunities that

Near to existing
leverage different business

Incremental Semi-radical models where risk can’t be
known unknowns risk & market predicted or measured
risk, but no uncertainty uncertainty
Near to existing New
Market / Business model
Source: Davila, Epstein, Shelton, 2006 (own representation)
According to a 2022 Global Startup Studio Network (GSSN) report, venture studio startups have a 30% higher
success rate than traditional startups.7 We firmly believe that only with a clear, safeguarded setup can you
harness the organization’s unfair advantage, ensure the operational autonomy essential for a thorough
exploration of new opportunities, and achieve maximum effectiveness and, ultimately, higher success
rates. All the while helping to maintain the right proximity to the core business. These topics will be further
elaborated upon in the upcoming chapters.
As the business landscape evolves, companies investing in venture building will be better equipped to
overcome the innovator’s dilemma, secure market share, stay relevant, and outpace the competition.
In the upcoming chapters, we will walk you through the key success factors, the biggest challenges, and the
specific corporate venture examples drawn from our in-depth interviews.
Our take
7
Global Startup Studio Network, Disrupting the Venture Studio Landscape, October 28, 2022

Chapter 2
Key challenges
and success
factors
As indicated by participants, there are several key challenges commonly faced in corporate venture building.
Most of these challenges are linked to the absence of top management commitment and, predictably, closely
mirror the essential factors necessary for success.
These challenges include: The success of corporate venture building

hinges on the following key factors:
A shortage of resources for venture
pursuits faced by 40% of participants, Top management commitment emerges
Recruitment of suitable entrepreneurial as a pivotal one, with 85% of participants
profiles is challenging for 36%, underscoring its importance,
A lack of leadership support, A well-structured and capable team is

acknowledged by 28%, deemed crucial by 54%,
And a lack of operational autonomy Corporate venture building governance

highlighted by 16%. is mentioned by 23%,
Lastly, 12% of the study participants
recognize the strategic value of leveraging
the unfair advantage of their organizations’
core businesses.

Chapter 2 Key challenges and success factors
Key challenges in corporate venture building, % © WhatAVenture
Lack of resources 40%
Struggling to find the right 36%

entrepreneurial profiles
Lack of top managament support 28%
Lack of operational autonomy 16%
Share of participants mentioning displayed challenges when asked: ‘Which challenges are you currently facing on the way
to success with CVB in your organization?’; multiple answers were possible.
Success factors in corporate venture building, % © WhatAVenture
Top managament commitment 85%
The right team setup 54%
Venture building governance 23%
The unfair advantage of 12%

the core business
Share of participants mentioning displayed factors when asked: ‘What do you believe to be the most important factors to
achieve success with CVB?’; multiple answers were possible.
In the subsequent sections of this chapter, we will explore each success factor:

First we will look at the dimensions of consistent top management commitment, including significant
budget combined with patience, granting of operational autonomy and adopting a portfolio management
approach.

Followed by a deep dive on the set-up of a strong and diverse corporate venture team, covering the types
of profiles required and options to secure them.

Next we will cover the topic of venture building governance, including the types of goals commonly used
by the study participants.

Lastly, we will dissect the use of unfair advantage parent organizations can provide to their ventures with
an overview of the different types of resources that should be made available.
We will always start with presenting key insights derived from study participants followed by
recommendations drawn from our own experience.

Chapter 2 Key challenges and success factors: Securing top management commitment
a) Securing top management commitment
While 20% of the study participants’ teams are structured to report to specific departments such as
innovation, strategy, or business development, the majority of participants (80%) report on their corporate
venture building activities directly to the management board or top leadership, highlighting the central role
of high-level decision-makers.
How corporate venture building activities are reported, % © WhatAVenture
80% 20%
Report directly to the Report to specific

top management business units
Share of mentions by participants when asked: ‘Who are the CVB activities in your organization being reported to: top
management or a specific business unit?’; single choice question.
What does top management support look like? In our interviews these dimensions emerged:
1. S ignificant budget combined with patience: Providing a substantial budget without immediate return
on investment expectations, recognizing the longer period often required for corporate venture building
initiatives to bring results.
2. Operational autonomy: The freedom to set up a separate unit and deviate from central organization’s
processes, structures, resources, and values, allowing for greater adaptability and innovation.
dopting portfolio management approach: Embracing a portfolio management approach to corporate
3. A
venture building, acknowledging the need for multiple ideas in the funnel to achieve strategic goals.
Trusting the venture building unit with the budget rather than making them pitch for each early-stage case
needing to be validated.
The 3 dimensions of top management commitment © WhatAVenture
Operational
autonomy
Significant budget Adopting portfolio

combined with management
patience approach

1. Significant budget combined

with patience
As confirmed by the study participants, corporate

ventures often require a more extended
‘If you don’t have the time-span of
timeframe for return on investment, spanning five to seven years, maybe venture
three to five years compared to the shorter one building is not for you.’
to two years that corporate leaders might expect.
This extended horizon necessitates consistent Florian Schenk
management support as a long-term investment. Corporate Venture Building Lead
at Walter Group
There also needs to be an understanding that
venture building budget is risk capital, and it may
take a long time to see significant revenue results.
According to the study participants, in the earlier stages of the ventures’ lifecycle, initial validation,
venture building units, and teams have dedicated budgets they can allocate freely. In the later stages,
though, leading up to and past Minimum Viable Product (MVP), budget approval for corporate venture
building is predominantly steered by the top management board. This is true in 82% of the cases we
spoke to.
When it comes to the early stages of initial venture assessment, according to the study participants,
there is a clear common budget range of 30k-100k Euro on average. On the later stages though there
is a division, with 59% investing 1-10 million Euro, and another majority (of 29%) investing less than
0.5 million Euro.
This data underscores the necessity of sustainable top management commitment.
Who approves later stage budgets, % © WhatAVenture
82% 18%
The management Individual units or a venture

board building unit
Share of mentions by participants when asked: ‘Who approves the budget for the later stages of your CVB projects (after
the initial validation, leading up to product-market fit): top management or a specific business unit/venture building unit?’;
single choice question.

Budget ranges at later stages of the innovation funnel, % © WhatAVenture
1 - 10 million Euro 59%
0.5 - 1 million Euro 12%
<0.5 million Euro 29%
Share of participants mentioning displayed ranges when asked: ‘What are the average budget ranges for the later stages of
your CVB projects (after the initial validation, leading up to product-market fit), including employees’ salary costs.?’; single
choice question.
Our take
WhatAVenture has guided numerous venture assessments. Below, you can see the minimum budget ranges
required for a successful business opportunity evaluation in our experience. This orientation is primarily
for digital business models; technical breakthroughs and (industrial) hardware development have different
timelines and requirements. In our experience, ventures that receive less than 1 million Euro in funding at
later stages (after Minimum Viable Company) are at a high risk of failure.
Typical budget ranges required for corporate ventures © WhatAVenture
Discover Launch Grow
Growth areas & Assessment & Validation & Minimum viable Minimum viable
business opportunities enrichment Proof of concept product company Scale/Exit
Established team Sustainable value

Business Concept and Detailed Value proposition
Results
and processes with creation and

opportunity validation roadmap business plan delivered
customer growth strong growth
Our take
Resources Duration
2-3 months 3-6 months 4-8 months 12 months+
75k-150k Euro 250-500k Euro 500-1.000k Euro >1.000k Euro

project specific
Several study participants positioned securing external investments as a significant milestone in their venture
building journey. In their view, the top management’s decision to attract external funding is a powerful
indicator of their openness to innovation and a growth mindset.
In our experience, engaging external investors is a complex decision organizations undertake for various
reasons. There are two main scenarios where it makes sense to engage investors: Firstly, you are looking for
a valuable strategic partner at the early stages of your venture. Secondly, you are looking for scaling funds. It
does not make sense to seek investors if it is driven by an unwillingness to make tough decisions, particularly
regarding shutting down projects. This approach can send misleading signals to the market and hinder the
venture’s potential. Hence, assessing the rationale behind seeking external investment is essential.

2. Operational autonomy
An autonomous setup is paramount in achieving success with corporate venture building. It enables two key
benefits:

Firstly, it separates new ventures from the core business budgeting process, preventing the diversion of
funds to prioritize core business operations.

Secondly, it allows new ventures to escape the restrictions of the company’s processes (e.g.,
communication, legal support, procurement, IP management, and IT), facilitating agility and speed in
decision-making and execution.
This operational and process freedom is vital

for navigating the challenges of venture building
by ensuring a dedicated focus. That being ‘Doing corporate venture building needs
to be top priority on c-level and it is
said, alignment with top management remains necessary to enable autonomous teams
crucial in order to ensure that the unit and with clear focus and 100% dedication.’
its ventures stay strategically relevant within
the broader organizational goals. This balance
Georg Baumgartner
between autonomy and alignment creates Head of Digital Innovation
a symbiotic relationship where the venture at Salzburg AG
building efforts contribute meaningfully to the

overall corporate strategy.
3. Adopting a portfolio management approach
Understanding the importance of diversifying risks in corporate venture building is crucial. While one
successful venture can contribute significantly to financial goals, the reality is that the innovation landscape is
unpredictable. To hedge against uncertainties, participants in the study recognize the need to have multiple
ventures entering and exiting the innovation funnel. On average, participants had six ventures in their funnel.
This portfolio strategy increases the chances of discovering successful, high-impact ventures.
Participants reported having four decision-making gates from ideas to Minimum Viable Companies on
average. You can find our approach and gates in our Business Idea Journey.8
The average number of corporate venture projects across the innovation © WhatAVenture
funnels of the study participants
5-7 Ventures that entered the

innovation funnel: 5-7
Ventures that exited the

Ventures that exited the
innovation funnel and
1-2 1-3 innovation funnel and got
re-integrated into core
established as spin-offs: 1-3
business: 1-2
8
WhatAVenture, Your 6-step guide to corporate venture building, July 2023

Chapter 2 Key challenges and success factors: Building a strong and diverse corporate venture team
b) Building a strong and diverse corporate venture team
In this sub-chapter we will highlight the aspects mentioned as important by the study participants for a
strong corporate venture team, and dive into the benefits of collaborating with a corporate venture builder.
A robust and diverse venture team is a vital success factor for corporate venture building. Participants
highlighted the following dimensions as crucial:
1. Diverse core team: Comprising a mixture of subject matter experts and generalists. A successful formula
often involves having at least two key players leveraging diverse skills and perspectives.
2. Entrepreneurial profiles: Entrepreneurial experience is essential for navigating the challenges unique
to venture building. In most cases, employees of the parent company have been cited by the study
participants as not being fit for the challenge.
3. Commitment and passion: Participants stressed the significance of a team’s commitment and passion
for the chosen topic. A team deeply invested in the venture’s mission is more likely to overcome obstacles
and drive sustained success.
How to set up a successful corporate venture team © WhatAVenture
Entrepreneurial
profiles
Diverse
core team
Commitment
and passion
Staffing of the key roles in corporate ventures, % © WhatAVenture
59% 20% 17%
Organization’s employees Only internal Only external

& external hires employees hires
Share of mentions by participants when asked: ‘How do you staff key roles in your CVB projects: with only internal
employees, with only external hires (including service providers) or with a mixture of both?’; single choice question.

Study participants highlighted the drawbacks of exclusively staffing key roles with internal employees, citing
two main concerns:
deficiency in essential entrepreneurial skills and,

1. A
2. P
otential disruptions to the core business when these profiles are lost.
‘There is still this kind of thinking that we ‘While intrapreneurship is a very good
can just create intrapreneurs; we can way to identify new opportunity
take someone who has done 15 years areas and innovation potentials, as
of operative business and put them in a people involved have a lot of industry
venture building unit, and they will start experience and usually have a clear
a venture. This understanding harms the picture of the market, I believe that
venture building unit because people it is not the right approach to exploit
don’t have the skills to do that. It’s a those opportunities. Having their
totally different approach, it’s a totally expert opinion and access to their
different way of thinking, and that needs tremendously rich knowledge, for
to be clear for top management.’ sure, but working part-time on a
venture does not work out in the end
if you have a job within the efficiency
Florian Schenk machinery of the core business.
Innovation Manager & Corporate Additionally, the ones with the best
Venture Building Lead at Walter Group ideas often are the ones who are really
good at their jobs and, usually, the
organization has a problem when they
are doing something else but what they
are really good at and what creates the
most value for the organization at the
moment.’
‘The more critical the whole situation

becomes, the more we need to shift Richard Luetzner
into professional venture building Head of Innovation and Venture
and leave the learning part (speaking of Building at REHAU New Ventures
development of innovative skills of core
business employees) behind.’
Ina Nordsiek
Director Intrapreneurship
at Miele
‘We cannot afford to lose the
knowledge of individual employees in
our niche market.’
Stefan Steinhauser
New Business Development Manager
at Frequentis AG

Collaborating with corporate venture building service providers
81% of the study participants collaborate with corporate venture building service providers. Participants
articulated various compelling reasons for collaborating with venture building service providers.

Notably, they underscored the providers’ invaluable entrepreneurial expertise, emphasizing the speed
and increased likelihood of achieving strategic goals.

Engaging with venture builders was seen as a means to challenge existing approaches while maintaining
neutrality, offering a fresh and external perspective.

Collaboration was also driven by the practicality of addressing capacity challenges and handling
fluctuating workloads, ensuring a consistent pace of progress.

Venture building service providers played a crucial role in interim positions and were instrumental in
determining the optimal setup for future ventures, including assistance in recruiting key c-level profiles.
Have worked with a venture building service provider, % © WhatAVenture
81% 19%
Worked with a Have not worked with

service provider a service provider
Share of mentions by participants when asked: ‘Are you currently or have you previously worked with a venture building
service provider?’; single choice question.
Services outsourced to external providers, % © WhatAVenture
Hands-on support with 54%

business idea assessment
(Validation methodology, market and user research, marketing, sales, defining the setup)
Product development / IT 36%
UX / UI design 11%
Share of participants mentioning displayed services when asked: ‘What are the services or capabilities you have so far
outsourced to external providers?’; multiple answers were possible.

Companies with a dedicated venture building unit or team leverage their team’s employees for hands-on
venture architecture, covering everything from ideation to scaling, as well as for coaching and strategic
venture steering. They typically engage employees from the core organization for subject matter expertise
and occasionally for support functions like IT, legal, HR, R&D, and product development.
Several participants in the study provided flexibility for venture unit employees to join the scaling or spin-off
phases of the venture they contributed to. Alternatively, employees can stay within the unit and work on a
different venture.
Our take
Experienced venture architects and top-level entrepreneurs

are needed to make a venture successful
Success is achievable with various team setups – whether exclusively comprised of the organization’s
employees, external hires, or a combination of both. However, our experience has shown that these two
profiles are paramount:
xperienced Venture Architect in the early phase: This individual should have a track record
E
of leading several validation projects. The role is instrumental in ensuring efficient and effective
validation, strategically allocating resources at the right moments, and choosing the appropriate
validation approach. Such a role can be covered with internal talent or by bringing in external
expertise.
op-level Entrepreneurs, to drive the venture past product-market fit: Ideally, these
T
individuals have a history of building and managing successful companies with dozens of employees
and bring valuable market-tested expertise. While attracting such experienced entrepreneurs can be
challenging, seeking them after the validation phase is essential.
We emphasize the importance of recruiting individuals with genuine entrepreneurial experience, as they
bring a wealth of knowledge and skills to the table. However, attracting these experienced profiles can
Our take
be challenging, given their ability to selectively choose opportunities. Hiring such profiles early in the
venture building journey is typically ineffective, as the opportunity might not appear sufficiently attractive
to them. Instead, aim for these seasoned entrepreneurs after the validation phase but before achieving
product-market fit. This will increase the likelihood of securing the best and most committed profiles.
Our take
An illustrative case is Wood_Space, the versatile modular building made of solid wood, a corporate venture
initiated by Rubner (European leader in timber construction) in collaboration with WhatAVenture.
The venture’s success story involves the contribution of an experienced entrepreneur, Stefan Perkmann-
Berger, who validated the concept and helped the venture to achieve product-market fit, generating
a substantial turnover, reaching several million euros. Subsequently, Thomas Gschwendtner, former
Managing Director at a multi-billion packaging and carton company, assumed the role of scaling the
venture further. This case exemplifies the strategic combination of entrepreneurial expertise at different
stages of the venture building journey.
The Pioneer The Optimizer
Dr. Stefan Perkmann-Berger Thomas Gschwendtner
Background: Founder of Background: Former Managing

WhatAVenture, PhD, 10+ years Director for the Operations of the
entrepreneurial and consulting Board & Paper Division of Mayr-
experience Melnhof Karton AG, a company
with over 4 billion Euro in turnover
Our take

Chapter 2 Key challenges and success factors: Establishing venture building governance
c) Establishing venture building governance
Corporate venture building governance refers to the structured framework and processes that guide the
planning, execution, and management of corporate ventures within an organization. It encompasses a
set of rules, policies, and decision-making mechanisms designed to ensure that corporate ventures align
with the company’s overall strategic goals and operate efficiently. It also encompasses the parameters
and constraints for venture building initiatives, outlining adherence to corporate guidelines and specifying
areas where deviations are permissible. This extends to procurement, cybersecurity, intellectual property,
legal, and branding considerations.
Key components of corporate venture building governance include:
1. S trategic goals: Ensuring that corporate ventures are aligned with the overarching strategic objectives
of the organization and helping to maintain focus on initiatives that contribute to the company’s long-
term vision.
ecision-making processes: Defining roles, responsibilities, and authorities to ensure that decisions
2. D
are made efficiently and aligned with the company’s goals. Plus, it defines the extent of operational
autonomy and exceptions from the core business process.
esource allocation: Efficiently allocating resources, including financial and technological assets, to
3. R
corporate ventures. Governance helps optimize resource allocation to maximize return on investment
and strategic impact.
4. Interfaces with core business: Framework for leveraging or circumventing supporting functions like
procurement, legal, IT, etc.
5. Risk management: Identifying, assessing, and managing risks associated with corporate ventures.
Governance structures provide mechanisms for proactive risk management (such as regular audits
and reviews, key performance indicators (KPIs), scenario planning, engaging external expertise, etc.),
ensuring that potential challenges are addressed promptly.
erformance monitoring: Defining KPIs and metrics to monitor the performance of corporate
6. P
ventures. Governance facilitates regular performance assessments, enabling organizations to evaluate
the effectiveness of venture strategies.
Therefore, corporate venture building governance is essential for ensuring that ventures contribute
positively to the organization’s innovation and growth objectives.
32% of the study participants have not (yet) defined quantitative goals for their venture
building efforts.
This was primarily because they started with corporate venture building quite recently and wanted to first
learn which realistic goals they could set. Nevertheless, they have KPIs defined for specific ventures.

Chapter 2 Key challenges and success factors: Establishing venture building governance
Some participants worry that setting rigorous goals and targets from the start might harm the development
of venture units. They fear that some revenue and performance metrics could be unattainable, especially
at the early stages of the venture development, and lead to the overall shutdown of their organizations’
corporate venture building efforts.
Participants who had defined the quantitative goals for their venture building efforts categorized them into
several key themes:
1. Financial performance 2. Portfolio development 3. Operational efficiency
Achieving portfolio Adding new ventures to Bringing the portfolio

valuation targets the portfolio regularly to break-even within a
defined timeline
Attaining revenue and Selling ventures to Managing the number

break-even goals for achieve liquidity or of projects per phase
ventures and venture strategic goals effectively
building units
Securing external
Building a diverse and Establishing clear
investments and
extensive portfolio of quantifiable goals for
considering Return on
companies venture development
Investment (ROI) metrics
Establishing a certain
number of spin-offs
per year
Our take
Defining governance setup and clear goals for corporate
venture building is vital
Clear goals help to:
acilitate decision-making: Selecting the ventures with the highest growth potential and terminating
F
Our take
others early through validation,
etermine the direction for ventures: Through revenue targets, profitability, and margin objectives,
D
tay in alignment with the core organization’s strategy and top management.
S
The fear of goals being unattainable due to the exploratory nature of venture building is fair. In our
experience, the solution to this dilemma is setting appropriate goals tailored to different stages of the
business idea journey.9 In the early stages, the focus should be on discovery and learning, while in later
stages, the emphasis shifts to scaling, revenue, and growth. Clear goals, even if they are ambitious stretch
goals, are crucial guidance. In addition, the remaining elements of the venture building governance – the
clarity on the resource allocation and mechanisms for collaboration with the core business – will help to
secure the unfair advantage and reach your desired targets.
9
WhatAVenture, Your 6-step guide to corporate venture building, July 2023

Chapter 2 Key challenges and success factors: Using the unfair advantage of the parent organization
d) Using the unfair advantage of the parent organization
In theory, companies have access to resources that can enable a pivotal advantage compared to regular
startups. In practice, a prevalent form of support that corporate ventures receive nowadays is often limited
to exchanges with individual subject matter experts from the core business.
Here is an overview of the resources and support formats that can be extended beyond that:
inancial resources: Early access to substantial funds.

F
perational capabilities: financial controlling, HR, IT, legal, procurement, production (including
O
facilities), quality management, sales (including points of sale), supply chain management, etc.
etwork and partnerships: Access to existing customer base, channel partners, regulatory
N
environment, access to opinion leaders and influencers.
xpertise: Core product development, cyber-security, market insights, machine learning models.
E
I ntellectual property: patents, trade secrets, recognizable brands.
ata: AI, transactional data.
D
While some companies are inherently adept at leveraging the advantages of their parent organizations,
others find it more challenging. In our experience, there are several strategies to leverage the unfair
advantage of the parent organization:
1. Strategic alignment: Determining the role of venture building and the strategic alignment between the
corporate strategy and the venture builder’s strategy.
mbedded support: Embedding support by design (a common practice among study participants)
2. E
involves creating service contracts between the parent organization and ventures to facilitate the sharing
of resources. However, challenges may arise due to limited resources in business units. Therefore, such
collaboration should be beneficial for both sides. Adjusting business unit targets, compensating used
resources, or having a clear target to support venture building initiatives ensures a mutually beneficial
relationship. Without such measures, support may resemble under-the-radar assistance.
etwork utilization: Identifying a person with knowledge of the organization and a good reputation,
3. N
mandated by top management to make introductions and garner support from units, enhances access to
resources. Having this network link to the core organization is crucial.

Our take
Corporate ventures should strive for a higher success rate compared

to regular startups, leveraging their access to unfair advantages and
abundant resources
While corporate ventures may not always match the speed of startups, it is essential to
note that, with the correct setup, they have the potential to operate at an accelerated pace.
A corporate venture equipped with the appropriate resources, efficient decision-making
processes, and ample funding should be positioned to move swiftly.
Green-field startups vs. corporate ventures © WhatAVenture
Distinguishing features Startup Corporate venture
Decision-making Very fast Significantly slower
Unfair advantage No corporate structures Synergies with the corporate
Financing Always short ‘runway’ Long-term financing and sufficient

funding from the corporate
Up to series A: Broad range, +/- comparable with

Salary level
depending on funding corporate salary
High (no reserves, Low (salary, financing,

Personal risk
no safety net) return option)
Profit sharing High Low
60-90% fail; the successful

Founder profile ones develop the Top-profiles recruitable
necessary skills
Interest from financial

investors
High Very low
Our take
Factors that create the unfair advantage for corporate ventures compared to the green-field startups.

Conclusion
Key drivers for

corporate venture
building in 2024
Based on the collective insights from the study and our long-standing experience, we believe that venture
building should be on every CEO’s agenda in 2024. Large organizations can achieve genuine success
in corporate venture building, characterized by meeting revenue targets and establishing and scaling
prosperous ventures, by prioritizing two fundamental building blocks:
Top management commitment coupled Top-level entrepreneurial profiles on all

with clear governance: phases of the idea journey:
stablish venture building as part of
E ork with company venture builders in
W
the overall company strategy, not just a the early stages of venture assessment
specific unit or innovation department. to leverage an entrepreneurial mindset,
et precise and achievable goals for
S external perspective, and a strong
each stage of the venture building network.
process. ecure high-caliber entrepreneurial
S
ecure sufficient financial and personnel

S talent once the business model is clear
resources to facilitate successful venture and the product-market fit has been
development. achieved.
reate a supportive organizational

C nderstand that recruiting these top
U
culture, allowing ventures to leverage profiles must be prioritized over broader

the unfair advantage. employee development initiatives.
By implementing these two fundamental components, companies can create an environment conducive to
successful corporate venture building, ensuring that ventures thrive and contribute significantly to the overall
business objectives and revenue targets.

Ventures in
the spotlight
In this section study participants provide a closer look at their
select ventures. Delve into insights they provided us with on
their team setups, funding, challenges and lessons learned.
Parent company Venture Description
Open smart locker network in

Austria and Germany, which can be
used by parcel couriers, regional
logistics companies, e-commerce
players, retailers, and consumers.
A Bavarian brand of
functional yet aesthetic
products for the garden.
A smart mattress that

Sleep & Relax improves sleep by
Project managing the microclimate
in the bed.
The versatile modular building

made of solid wood.
Self-storage in the areas close

to users’ living locations.
A solution for an easy in-store

shopping experience for retail
shoppers.
A tool for a holistic transport

emissions analysis and
recommendations on a more
sustainable transport network.

Ventures in the spotlight
myflexbox
Open smart locker network in Austria and Germany, which can be used by parcel couriers, regional logistic
companies, e-commerce players, retailers, and consumers.
Established: 2018
Current stage: Scaling
The initial team setup: Three founders: software development, business development
with focus on locations, business modelling and product with focus on volume
Funding received: 75 million Euro in the last round
Current traction: Double digit growth rates in locations and volume
Why the venture was pursued in External partnerships relevant for

the first place: success:
esire to innovate outside of the core

D ational parcel carriers such as DPD,
N
business, actively encouraged and UPS, GLS, DHL Express
supported by the Board members arge location partners in retail
L
he growing online business
T esidential building companies
R
(e-commerce) and increasing
challenges for delivery services Infrastructure provider
indicated market potentials
anted to generate a best practice
W Key challenges:
inside the company (from idea to
Building the physical infrastructure
corporate startup and new business)
and developing the digital platform
including carrier integrations at the
Key milestones: same time
et up the first 50 locations in Vienna

S
Key learnings:
Integrated important national carriers
such as DPD, UPS, GLS, DHL Express Focus, be very clear about what you
chieved national coverage in Austria
A do and even more what you will not
with 500 locations do.
pun-out of Salzburg AG and received

S
additional expansion funding
uccessful market entry in Germany
S
Team is key, hire exceptional people
and give them enough responsibility
and freedom.
Value your team culture as one of
spotlight
with 100+ locations
the most important assets, and
don’t compromise it for short-term
KPIs used to measure success: potentials.
Number of new locations per month
Parcels per locker per day

LIVLIG
A Bavarian brand of functional yet aesthetic products for the garden.
Established: 2020
Plan to spin off: 2025
The initial team setup: Business owner, marketing manager, product manager, logistics
Funding received: 6 to low 7-digit in 2023
Current traction: Year to Date (YTD) 0.5 million Euro sales online, retention of 10% re-purchase rate

esire to gain experience with D2C

D ollaboration with a core business
C
sales channels unit that developed and produces the
xperimenting with starting a D2C
E garden hoses according to LIVLIG’s
brand with core products specs
esire to create a new business model

D
for an existing product group Key challenges:
Corporate Enterprise resource

Key milestones: planning (ERP), internal procedures,
and regulations slow down or even
arve out of the organization
C hinder the business
o-live of the brand’s store
G
xpansion to the US in 2023
E Key learnings:
Team and the right competencies

KPIs used to measure success: make the difference
Net sales, gross profit, retention rate, Don’t shy away from the big changes
conversion rate, Total Advertising Cost if you want to achieve great success
of Sales (TACoS) Start with an easy business idea to
gain first experiences and have first
small successes spotlight

Sleep & Relax Project

A smart mattress that improves sleep by managing the microclimate in the bed.
Established: 2022
Plan to spin off: Mid 2024
Current stage: Validation / Pre-product-market fit
The initial team setup: Venture lead market, venture lead technology, scientific affairs manager
Funding received: Low 7-digit
Current traction: Initial letters of intent, ongoing team recruitment, and lead generation strategy setup

xploring a new business field

E oaching by a corporate venture
C
builder
ngineering services provider
E
Key milestones:
xchange partners in deep tech
E
roof of efficacy achieved
P
arket associations
M
working prototype
A
roduct partners
P
Installed their own sleep lab
leep lab suppliers
S
ained a convincing market
G
understanding
Key learnings:
trong positioning in the value chain
S
There needs to be a strong
understanding by the partner
KPIs used to measure success:
organization of why venture building
Securing follow-up investments, is being done
degree of certainty, and trust in the
Implementing ‘wild card’ promising
team
ideas beyond core business is vital
You need to be ready to adopt your
Key challenges:
Convincing the management to grant

follow-up investments was achieved
through the technical proof of efficacy
approach due to corporate culture if
necessary
Team motivation is key
You need the trust of the
spotlight
in our own sleep laboratory management board to develop such
Development of a joint vision with an idea to a relevant maturity level
regard to the question: ‘What is best
for the case?’ through support in
building entrepreneurial competences
with regard to business development

Woodspace
The versatile modular building made of solid wood.
Established (also as a spin-off): 2019

The initial team setup: A venture partner, a senior venture architect, and a junior venture architect with a
focus on sales, later joined by a technical planner and wood industry expert
Funding received: Low 7-digit
Current traction: The pipeline exceeds the production capacity
Why the venture was pursued in Key challenges:

the first place: In the pre-product-market fit stage:
trong product-zeitgeist fit (a big trend
S It’s not the type of solution where
with significant VC investments in the you can ‘fake it till you make it.’ The
US) customer expects a high-quality
product, and you need to achieve that
It was seen as a solid business and
without investing millions
investment opportunity
Fitting a new concept in an existing
idn’t fit RUBNER’s core product
D
production facility
portfolio and positioning
In the scaling stage:
UBNER lacked resources and
R
people with complete focus to build it Finding the most attractive niche. In
internally the beginning, they received many
requests from B2C customers,
whereas the economically viable
Key milestones: group ended up being mid-sized B2B
eached 7-digit revenue in the first full
R clients
fiscal year Finding people with the right industry-
ttracted a top-level CEO profile
A relevant experience
(Thomas Gschwendtner)
uilt their own production site
B Key learnings:
instrumental in scaling
Revenue, cashflow, sales pipeline

Full operational autonomy is required
from the very beginning to show
impressive speed and growth
A full-time, committed team is needed
spotlight
to deliver such results
External partnerships relevant for

success:
roduction partner
P

Gewobag Lagerraum
Self-storage in the areas close to users’ living locations.
Established: 2022
The initial team setup: Two employees: one with nearly full-time commitment and one with 60%
capacity, plus external support in the beginning
Funding received: Mid 5-digit
Current traction: 95% utilization of the existing storage facilities

everaging the organization’s assets

L ervice providers in the areas of
S
(e.g., unused spaces) security, smart locks, fire emergencies
eeing the demand on the market
S Internal support from IT, asset
management, legal, and other
departments
Key milestones:
5% space utilization (higher than the

9 Key challenges:
market average)
Unforeseen complications with
roved technical feasibility
P
operations
ow expanding storage facilities
N
Finding the right setup internally
Lack of operational autonomy
Storage utilization (booking rate), Key learnings:

pricing (compared to competitors),
revenue and costs (an own profit A big cultural learning for the
center for each location) organization is that it’s possible to
build something up in a new area with
a few dedicated people
Venture building process learnings
can also be transferred to other
departments
spotlight

Scan & Go
A solution for an easy in-store shopping experience for retail shoppers.
Established: 2020
Plan to spin off: 2027
The initial team setup: Product owner, business representatives, developers
Funding received: n/a
Current traction: ~6.700 downloads, ~1.630 registered users, and over 1.280 in-store purchases
made with Scan & Go
Why the venture was pursued in Key challenges:

the first place:
Team formation during the Covid-19
xploring new business models and
E pandemic
driving innovation Insufficient technical resources,
everaging cross-selling opportunities
L particularly the availability of
and expanding current markets developers
Decision-making within the team was
Key milestones: impacted by the time required for the
team to get into the performing stage
olution operational in two largest
S
hypermarkets in Albania
Key learnings:
KPIs used to measure success: Embracing the mindset that values

experimentation, welcomes calculated
Downloads, registrations, transactions risk-taking, and adopts swiftly to
changing circumstances is crucial
Addressing issues in time and
External partnerships relevant for
involving management to support and
success:
prioritize
close collaboration with a
A
corporate venture builder providing
methodologies and frameworks spotlight

NxtLog
A tool for a holistic transport emissions analysis and recommendations on a more sustainable
transport network.
Established: 2022
Plan to spin off: As soon as possible; currently in discussions
The initial team setup: Initially: one venture architect and external execution support;
Currently: one CEO & co-founder, CPO, CTO, and a freelance developers team
Funding received: High 6-digit
Current traction: First paying customers, filled pilot funnel, filled sales-qualified leads funnel

ustainability in logistics is a huge

S Initial collaboration with a venture
trend: new regulations starting from builder
2024 force customers to look for more ater, collaboration with a freelancer
L
environmentally friendly solutions and matching platform
report their emissions on shipment
level
Key challenges:
Key milestones: Data quality of transport data
hree recurring customers with a

T Ensuring sufficient quality of
concierge product prototype to enable buying decision
wo times funding for pre-seed and

T Need to prove financial business
seed from the management board model quickly
KPIs used to measure success: Key learnings:
# of transport data shared by You should involve the sales

department if you have one. Finding
customers with our platform,
# of emission reports created,
# of accepted recommendations by
customers, Daily Active Users (DAU),
3-4 supporting salespeople with
friendly customers helps a lot to
bridge the gap between an idea and a
first concierge service prototype that
spotlight
Monthly Active Users (MAU), ARR, Unit is sellable
Economics, Customer Acquisition Furthermore, leverage Large
Costs (CAC), Customer Lifetime Value Language Models and OpenAI API
(CLTV), etc. together with Workflow Automation
Tools like n8n to create very powerful
tools in a short time
Corporate venture building is complex
if you are not directly connected to
your board. The more filters you have,
the slower you are and the less likely
your ventures will succeed against the
fast market competitors

At WhatAVenture, we are happy to assist you in your venture building endeavors. Contact us to exchange
knowledge, discuss your thoughts, or participate in next year’s study.
To our study participants: Our sincere gratitude for your generous contribution. Your valuable insights
and experiences have greatly enriched our understanding of corporate venture building. This collaborative
effort is instrumental in advancing knowledge within the industry and will undoubtedly benefit others seeking
to navigate the complexities of venture building.
To our readers: Armed with the insights and knowledge shared in this study, we trust that you will propel
venture building forward within your organizations and enjoy success along the way. Best of luck on your
journey!
Get in touch
karyna.hornostai@whataventure.com
+43 664 3900721
Vienna, Austria Bolzano, Italy

WhatAVenture GmbH WhatAVenture srl
Markhofgasse 19, 1030 Wien Piazza Fiera 1, 39100 Bolzano whataventure.com

65b77ff9d2a2f5197c3441ea_The state of corporate venture building in 2024

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

65b77ff9d2a2f5197c3441ea_The state of corporate venture building in 2024

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The state of

CEOs ranking new business building as a top 3 priority, % © WhatAVenture

Top priority Top 3 priority

Our key findings:

2 The state of corporate venture building l 2024 l WhatAVenture

About this study 6

Chapter 1: What, why and how of corporate venture building 7

Chapter 2: Key challenges and success factors 12

Conclusion: Key drivers for corporate venture building in 2024 27

Ventures in the spotlight 28

3 The state of corporate venture building l 2024 l WhatAVenture

Innovation Culture Hacks

Business Model Idea

Innovation Trigger Peak of Inflated Through of Slope of Plateau of

According to McKinsey, organizations are building practitioners, we’ve conducted over

4 The state of corporate venture building l 2024 l WhatAVenture

Karyna is an innovation manager, venture architect, and project lead. She’s on

5 The state of corporate venture building l 2024 l WhatAVenture

In this study, we gathered insights based on

7% (Some of the study participants wished to remain anonymous)

6 The state of corporate venture building l 2024 l WhatAVenture

What, why and

What is corporate venture building?

Why do companies start building ventures?

7 The state of corporate venture building l 2024 l WhatAVenture

Reasons participants started corporate venture building, % © WhatAVenture

Generating new revenue streams 76%

Tapping into innovation culture 40%

Digital transformation 12%

How do companies set up venture building in their organizations?

A dedicated team vs. a case-by-case approach, % © WhatAVenture

Dedicated venture Case-by-case venture

8 The state of corporate venture building l 2024 l WhatAVenture

For many companies, the decision to establish

Several companies cited specific reasons for not

9 The state of corporate venture building l 2024 l WhatAVenture

As a corporate leader, venture building should be on the

Companies today are navigating a business landscape characterized by rapid changes

10 The state of corporate venture building l 2024 l WhatAVenture

many unknown unknowns

Business opportunities that

leverage different business

Near to existing New

Market / Business model

Source: Davila, Epstein, Shelton, 2006 (own representation)

11 The state of corporate venture building l 2024 l WhatAVenture

These challenges include: The success of corporate venture building

A lack of leadership support, A well-structured and capable team is

And a lack of operational autonomy Corporate venture building governance

12 The state of corporate venture building l 2024 l WhatAVenture

Key challenges in corporate venture building, % © WhatAVenture

Lack of resources 40%

Struggling to find the right 36%

Lack of top managament support 28%

Lack of operational autonomy 16%

Success factors in corporate venture building, % © WhatAVenture

Top managament commitment 85%

The right team setup 54%

Venture building governance 23%

The unfair advantage of 12%

13 The state of corporate venture building l 2024 l WhatAVenture

a) Securing top management commitment

How corporate venture building activities are reported, % © WhatAVenture

Report directly to the Report to specific

A lack of leadership support, A well-structured and capable team is

And a lack of operational autonomy Corporate venture building governance

deficiency in essential entrepreneurial skills and,

inancial resources: Early access to substantial funds.