Give your programme a stronger reason to continue.
Your first mandate, next funding round or renewal discussion is approaching. You need an offer startups value — and a case for support you can defend.
By connecting mandate, incentives, funding and delivery, I evaluate, audit, co-design and redesign innovation programmes and initiatives
For incubators, accelerators, funders and policymakers.
Know what to retain, change or stop.
A good programme is NOT a reason to renew it.
A programme worth choosing is.
WHAT CHANGES FOR YOU
Make the case for your programme.
At the start. At renewal. When the mandate changes.
Whether you are seeking a first mandate, raising the initial funding or preparing for renewal, you need to explain why this programme should exist, what makes its offer relevant and what the evidence supports.
Before
You are defending a plan or a calendar.
The proposal sounds credible. The sessions look useful. Yet you still have to explain why this offer deserves support — what makes it distinctive, which assumptions hold, and whether it can deliver.
After the work
You can explain what deserves backing.
You have a clear case for support. You can explain who the offer serves, why it is worth choosing, and what the evidence supports — with priorities for what to retain, change or test before committing.
A CLOSER LOOK
Give the next mandate something solid to rest on.
Connect the mandate, the offer and the evidence. Keep what earns its place, redesign what weakens the offer, and explain what deserves support.
WHERE THE DESIGN CAN BREAK
Your offer is what people experience.
Not what the programme brochure promises.
The right startups do not see a reason to join.
The offer sounds interchangeable, or the participation costs outweigh the value. We examine who it is for, what they actually need and what your programme can credibly provide.
A useful intervention does not fit the budget cycle.
The right support arrives too late, stops too soon or cannot be redirected. We examine the funding and governance constraints that shape delivery.
Your targets pull the team away from your purpose.
It is easier to reward attendance, pitches or fundraising than the work the programme was meant to enable. We trace what the targets encourage and where that behaviour weakens the offer.
The review is finished. The programme has not changed.
The recommendations need owners, resources and permission to alter the routine. We turn selected findings into changes the team can implement.
FOUR DOMAINS. ONE PROGRAMME DESIGN.
Examine the conditions behind your offer.
Decision Architecture
→ Who can change the programme, on which evidence, and with what authority?
Reward & Incentive Structure
→ What behaviour do the KPIs, selection and recognition actually reward?
Capital Architecture
→ Does the funding arrangement support the offer you want to deliver?
Time & Governance Horizon
→ Do mandates, reporting and budget cycles give that design room to work?
The work connects these domains, helping to explain why adding a session or changing a KPI may leave the underlying difficulty intact. I also test the contribution behind the case for support: what becomes possible because of your offer, compared with a credible alternative without it? Participation costs, founder time, access and rights belong in that comparison.
INAM:
what the KPIs incentivize
“Arise Innovations conducted an analysis of our Advanced Materials Competition accelerator programme that helped identify a previously unclear bottleneck: how our KPI architecture shapes venture behavior – and where that creates mid-term risk. This is a different layer and quality of input than operational feedback and gave us a concrete basis to rethink what we actually want to incentivize. We recommend Arise Innovations to any programme operator or ecosystem that wants to understand if their current structure is built to produce the desired outcomes - not just how well it is being executed.”
– Oliver Hasse, Innovation Network for Advanced Materials
Know what to back, challenge or change.
For funders, commissioners and programme leaders.
Second Opinion
You need to fund, renew or change an initiative. The evidence points in different directions.
Get an independent assessment of the options and their supporting evidence, with a recommendation and explicit conditions for the next commitment.
Your part: existing documents and one focused call. Receive a concise decision brief without commissioning a full evaluation.
Red Teaming
You have a preferred proposal or plan. You need to know where it could fail.
Get a deliberate challenge to its assumptions, incentives and evidence, with the strongest objections and priorities to fix before approval or delivery.
Your part: the current proposal and one challenge session. Receive a written challenge brief with no new reporting exercise.
Evaluation & Design
You need to show what an initiative contributes — or commission a more relevant offer.
Get an independent evaluation, a new programme design or a targeted redesign, with priorities for what deserves funding, continuation or change.
Your part: existing material, key introductions and brief checkpoints. Receive the analysis and design recommendations.
Decisions changed
A busy programme is not necessarily moving ventures closer to market. The cases examine how selection, incentives, support and timing can enable progress – or obstruct the work teams need to do next. Discover how QUATISE diagnoses the mismatch and develops targeted changes within existing structures and constraints. Download a case to see what could change, why it matters and how to assess whether the programme adds value beyond the venture’s independent route.
INDUSTRIAL QUALIFICATION PROGRAMME
Protect the evidence work inside a shared programme
An accelerator wants to improve venture progression through a common curriculum, but its teams need different laboratory tests, industrial validation and customer evidence.
Underlying issue: Uniform attendance requirements can displace the very work needed for a team’s next decision. Programme activity may increase while the decisive uncertainty remains unresolved.
Risk reduction: QUATISE identifies where substitution is justified and defines an authorised evidence task, owner and review gate within the existing programme. Compared with continuing the same calendar for everyone, this can protect critical work while retaining useful shared support.