Techscaler Programme 2022-2024: early evaluation - main report

6 Partner and stakeholder views

6.1 Introduction

This chapter provides an overview of the key themes and messages from the 47 scoping interviews and wider partner and stakeholder interviews undertaken as described in Chapter 2. Please also see Appendix B and Appendix C. Where appropriate we have provided quotes from stakeholders to provide greater insights and also highlight the wide diversity of views.

6.2 Interaction with CodeBase and awareness of the Techscaler Programme

All stakeholders had interacted with CodeBase since or before the Techscaler Programme was established. While some had partnered with CodeBase prior to the Techscaler Programme, others had developed their relationship with CodeBase as a direct result.

Engagement has been highest with those stakeholders that operate across the central belt, and most specifically those linked to the hub infrastructure which, as per the funding model, was funded by the partner.

Levels of awareness of the programme and its objectives were viewed as mixed across both the entrepreneurial support ecosystem and the tech business user community, however the vast majority of stakeholders saw this as improving. Most noted there was still room for improvement and saw the Techscaler Programme as on a journey, especially at a sectoral support level. Some felt that there was still limited awareness across potential beneficiaries (companies), noting the lack of clarity and mixed messages around support eligibility as a key reason.

6.3 What success for the Techscaler Programme looks like

Across stakeholders, how success for the programme was defined varied based on their background, organisation, and broader role in the ecosystem, as summarised below.

CodeBase — emphasis was placed on creating businesses that were both investable and sustainable — driving more investment into Scottish tech companies. As one stakeholder noted:

“Most Scottish companies don’t make it past Series A funding.”

Success was also linked to shifting behaviours and encouraging ambition in the ecosystem:

“We need to help normalise entrepreneurship as a career path.”

Scottish Government — the priority for government was on growth and scale, particularly in relation to investment and deal flows (risk capital, seed, angel). Demonstrating that companies could raise capital and positioning Scotland as attractive to venture capital and other funders was seen as key. Diversity and inclusion in the tech sector were also highlighted as an important outcome of the programme.

Other public stakeholders — emphasised a focus on enabling (and promoting) more startups to grow and scale, building a supportive ecosystem and community so that:

“Scotland is viewed as the place to start and grow a tech business,” and

“Creation of a vibrant tech community to work across the sectors — supporting the startup and scaleup community.”

“To ensure Scotland has a vibrant and supportive scaleup environment — supporting new and existing companies with tech solutions that will help all sectors grow and develop. To help minimise failure rates and help make Scotland a good place to do business and an attractive investment proposition.”

Those in rural areas saw success as extending beyond the central belt.

Investors — stressed the importance of better educated entrepreneurs who understand the growth journey (and their options), with the need to generate genuine scaling companies valued at least £100 million to boost ambitions. Interestingly, some investors challenged the use of investment levels as the only measure of success for the Techscaler Programme. They noted that:

• many venture capital deals are unannounced or confidential, making them hard to track.
• while raising capital is positive, it does not in itself equate to success. True success is achieved when a company exits or becomes profitable and self-sustaining — generating lasting value for customers, employees, society, etc.

6.4 Strategic drivers

Stakeholders agreed that the key driver remains plugging a gap in the existing infrastructure to support and increase the number of tech startups in Scotland. This would widen the funnel and help create a pool of tech companies with high growth and scaling potential. Stakeholders believed the STER report remains a strong driver, albeit the focus on physical infrastructure had changed post-COVID.

“The STER report was well received and importantly gave Scottish Government the confidence to back the recommendations”.

The rise of AI and productivity challenges were seen as additional drivers to support the need for a vibrant tech community.

“AI and medtech will be a key focus for tech companies and the Techscaler Programme in the next few years”.

Despite the challenges around development and usage of physical hubs (with some questioning their sustainability in the current format), stakeholders viewed having some form of physical space as important in bringing people together, supporting peer-to-peer interaction and creating that critical mass and buzz to support the wider community broadening that funnel. This would help put Scotland on the map, being seen as a place to do tech business and an attractive place to start and grow a business. However, it was noted that the ‘communities’ that coalesce around the hubs were variable in terms of their tech maturity.

No one specifically noted new policies on the horizon, however, some cited uncertainty following the election planned for next year. A few mentioned the new digital and AI strategies as having an impact on the tech sector.

6.5 Barriers to tech start up

The barriers to tech startup, in general, were not viewed as specific to tech and as relevant to all startups and businesses of all sizes and locations. Stakeholders most frequently mentioned barriers such as:

• access to funding, specifically scaleup/later stage funding.
• skills shortages and gaps.
• Scottish culture — resistance to failure, and a lack of ambition and role models.
• inability to keep up with the pace of change.
• lack of commercial/business knowledge at the founder level.
• market awareness and route to market development.
• Scottish startups are good at developing products, processes and services, with less emphasis on markets and customers.

6.6 Techscaler Programme fit within the wider ecosystem

In general, the ecosystem was described by stakeholders as cluttered with many routes into accessing support. This resulted in mixed views on the fit with and uniqueness of the Techscaler Programme, with some viewing it as a niche offering and others seeing overlap with what was already on offer in Scotland.

It was also noted that the wider perception is that there has been an element of ‘scope creep’ with what the Techscaler Programme was initially intended to deliver and what has been delivered on the ground — with greater focus on ideation and early-stage founders and companies.

Where overlap was highlighted, stakeholders did not always view this as a concern for the business base, however, they did highlight potential challenges in developing and maintaining relationships. Those who saw the Techscaler Programme as unique at the outset noted its early focus on startups as driving the potential for overlap.

“It’s a cluttered landscape — lots of programmes and challenging to understand what you need and at what stage of the journey. Still gaps in the commercial areas and the Techscaler Programme could do more here.”

"Tech companies are a bit different and have different needs. There may be some duplication in some services offered (for example mentoring) but they do things differently as part of the Techscaler Programme. However, this landscape is quite mature and already cluttered with lots of support — so could this have been delivered in a different way using pre-existing infrastructure — time will tell.”

Some stakeholders felt unable to comment on how the Techscaler Programme was regarded. For those able, views on uniqueness were mixed. Some cited the delivery model, including the international programmes and the fact that a private sector company who had "skin in the game" was delivering the support as a big positive.

Stakeholders felt that the Techscaler Programme was now better known, and perceptions had improved over time. They noted that there remains confusion over the difference between the Techscaler Programme and CodeBase, noting "blurred lines".

“CodeBase and the Techscaler Programme are well-known by startups, and they have a reputation for good early-stage education — if your embedded in the ecosystem, you will know CodeBase, but if not then don’t think it’s well known or understood”.

”How the Techscaler Programme is viewed will depend on the stage of the founder — if they are early-stage (and first-time founders) then they usually speak very highly of the programme as they experience the most tangible benefits….if it’s a growth or scaling company, I’m not sure they will know of the Techscaler Programme.”

6.7 Views on CodeBase as delivery partner

CodeBase was described as well-connected across the tech ecosystem in Scotland and the rest of the UK. They were also seen as a respected delivery provider, with an easy-to-work with motivated and knowledgeable team who were close to the market, specifically in support of early-stage and startups.

Some did however view them too techy and too rigid in their approach and noted the impact of the big jump in team size as having an impact on delivery — some questions were raised as to whether they had the right staff and mentor pool to deliver for growth and scaling companies.

While stakeholders acknowledged this had improved recently, there were early challenges with building stakeholder relationships, with this being undertaken on a more ad hoc basis.

“As an investor it would make sense to get together with CodeBase and the Techscaler Programme but initially had to make it work and chase them — didn’t know who to approach and what companies they were working with….Now have a better relationship and a named contact to coordinate events.”

“Known them for a long time and lot of respect but the Techscaler Programme reflects CodeBase in terms of informality and lack of structure…I am relatively close to the organisation, and I still struggle to know who to speak to and get any kind of insight into what’s coming up.”

Overall, having a private sector delivery partner was viewed favourably with many noting CodeBase as having more flexibility, agility, and an independence from the structures of the existing enterprise support ecosystem. CodeBase was viewed as well aligned with the original goals and purpose of the Techscaler Programme (as per the STER).

“A lot of CodeBase staff are previous founders so that gives them a level of respect in the community that public sector doesn’t always have”.

“CodeBase had a good base to grow and were close to the market. Strong delivery partner who had lots of accelerator experience. They were however a small player, so the size of the Techscaler Programme is quite a jump for them as is the pan-Scotland delivery model.”

Some stakeholders raised concerns that the ‘coolness’ of CodeBase was being eroded as they now needed to work on the governance and scrutiny aligned to public funding. Other concerns included the spending on staff costs which was viewed by some stakeholders as very high.

6.8 Views on reach and support provided

Reaching and engaging tech startups and scaleups in Scotland

Stakeholders were generally of the opinion that the Techscaler Programme was reaching and engaging very early-stage tech startups in Scotland but not as effective at penetrating the market for growth-orientated and scaling companies.

It was viewed as having built strong community reach and awareness, with a broad sign-up base of mostly micro businesses and smaller SMEs. They saw it as reaching pre-start and early-stage startups and as beginning to extend beyond the core tech community into wider sectors.

However, some questioned whether it is adding to what could have been done already with existing infrastructure. Recent international activity (for example, taking games companies to Japan) was considered to show promising outward engagement. However, stakeholders felt that more could still be done to fill the funnel, especially in attracting later-stage companies that had more potential to scale and targeting growth sectors with lots of spinouts (for example, health technologies and clinicians).

“They are moving the dial — but these things take time — we need at least three years. Hard to tell what would have been achieved without the Techscaler Programme.”

“They are reaching a lot of prestart and startups, seem to have focused on this area — less on scaleup but understand this is changing.”

“Based on numbers it certainly seems to be making more than a dent but should they be doing more? This is a huge market which is still to be segmented in a meaningful way — seems to be a bit scattergun to date. The programme annual reports are very colourful and full of big numbers but what is additional and attributable to the Techscaler Programme?”

Right type of support

Some stakeholders could not comment on whether the Techscaler Programme was providing the right type/range of support at different stages of the journey for tech startups and scaleups. For others, they believed that the programme has strengths, particularly in mentoring and early-stage support stating that they are:

“Strong at the early-stage but there are gaps in the pre-scale and true scaleup phases”.

Stakeholders felt there was a need to find the balance of support between the new and those ready for scaling now that the latent demand is part of the funnel. Furthermore, Deep tech companies and certain sectors (for example, medical and life sciences) were viewed as not well supported with specialist support lacking.

“The programme offers support that can bring real value to companies — mentoring and international programme are real points of difference”.

“We know what the support requirements are, what we don’t know until we try is the mix and balance of the support — will work until it doesn’t then we need to reevaluate”.

“Not sure — there are clear support gaps in terms of sector and stages of development — at the top end of scaling is an issue and the middle bit pre-scale is a gap.”

“There needs to be more sector specific support — recognising the development hurdles for say medical technologies and other sector technologies — they have a different trajectory.”

Is CodeBase evolving the support the Techscaler Programme provides

Stakeholders believed that the Techscaler Programme support was evolving based on the recent annual report and anecdotal feedback. They are starting to see a shift in focus to growth and scaling and condensing early-stages with changing language being used, merging together the skills programmes, and introducing more ways to access mentors.

With that said, many stakeholders noted that there was more to do in both the startup and scaling agenda. There is a need to move people through and out of the funnel (particularly if they lack the ambition and potential to grow/scale) to support more new and existing businesses to develop and scale. There also needs to be more bespoke and sectoral support to help scale — and a need to support leadership development and system leadership within these businesses.

“Techscaler has evolved and changed. It is possibly moving further up the funnel because supporting those in the early-stage is too early for internationalisation (that is, where the company can truly scale). Techscaler has also changed their language with a focus on scaling. I suspect it’s because those companies that are further up the funnel are better funded and therefor better able to take advantage of the support.”

“The early years were always going to focus on widening the funnel and bringing more companies through and then pivot in later years.”

“They seem to have started to evolve the support — but we need more bespoke and sectoral support to help scale — need to support leadership development and system leadership.”

Contribution to the tech ecosystem in Scotland

Views on whether the Techscaler Programme could ‘widen the funnel’ and enable the realisation of more viable startups and scaleups was mixed with many saying it has the potential too, but it is unclear at this stage whether it has — there is limited data available other than the annual report.

This was partially due to some stakeholders’ lack of real knowledge and visibility of performance with many relying on what’s in the annual report. To date the perceived focus has been on prestart/early-stage but stakeholders are seeing a move towards more scaleup support.

There was also an element of timing (this takes time) and metrics, in order to widen the funnel you can’t solely rely on producing more businesses year-on-year, they need to be supported to sustain and grow. There were questions about whether the current metrics captured this adequately.

“CodeBase is contributing to the development of startups and widening the funnel but not sure to what extent over and above what it says in the annual report — we don’t get any further information and we have not seen many of those in the funnel.”

“Yes, supporting the ecosystem but not sure on the attribution as company will receive lots of different support.”

“The journey for true scaleups is 10+ years and most will fail so we won’t see any change in the wider ecosystem in the short term.”

“We shouldn’t underestimate how hard it is to do ecosystem building, as soon as you start the need and demand of the company base shifts due to market dynamics ….the blueprint was the STER report but the ecosystem will be different in five years.”

“Wider challenges in the ecosystem are driven by more macro-economic factors, not sure how realistic it is for one programme to have a notable influence.”

Physical delivery hubs

Stakeholders were asked whether the current Techscaler Programme physical hub delivery model was the right approach. It was generally agreed that having some physical locations/space at a regional level was positive and hubs seemed like a good approach, however, some questioned the extent to which they are currently being used and the resource cost to operate them (that is, staffing).

They were seen to work well in ‘busy’ regions as there is more critical mass of tech companies in these geographies, however, were deemed harder to establish in more rural locations — where do you put it and how do you achieve critical mass to make it viable? There were suggestions that an accelerator and hub hybridisation could be a better alternative and also digital or pop-up models.

“A hub is only as strong as its weakest members — regions where there are less talent and the companies are not as mature will not deliver the same benefits.”

“The hub model is important — when it works it works well. The CodeBase hub in Edinburgh works really well, strong community, lots of events, encouraged a wide range of people into one location. Places like Aberdeen and Dundee less so. It has to be predicated on the spaces being open and accessible and supplemented by virtual spaces that support the connections between the hubs.”

“The hubs are a great resource. Not been without its challenges as Scotland is so geographically spread. Seeing people in Inverness and Stirling hubs that might not have been engaged if no central place to go to.”

6.9 Outcomes

Some stakeholders felt they had little insight into the outcomes being delivered other than what was published in the programme annual report or what they were hearing anecdotally. There was a view that the Techscaler Programme needed to do more in terms of communicating its successes and achievements both at a Scotland level and internationally. For others they were starting to see outcomes, but it was still early days and more focused on activities.

Many noted attribution challenges with the Techscaler Programme being part of a bigger support offering. There was also a view that different strategies and metrics were required for each hub based on the maturity of each local community in order to better support regional gaps.

When asked about the type of ‘soft’ outcomes and impacts they would expect to see from the Techscaler Programme, stakeholders noted the following:

• reputational recognition of the programme.
• signposting to new and existing support.
• collaborative events/range of events.
• building a community of practice.
• increasing skills and confidence.
• increased training available.

‘Hard’ outcomes and impacts included:

• businesses created.
• improved business survival rate.
• business growth — both turnover and jobs (including those not on the payroll and part time).
• investment (series A onwards).
• product development.
• market entry — national and international.
• percentage of members that are from wider diverse backgrounds.
• customer satisfaction, that is Net Promoter Score (NPS).

“We have lots of members — but how many are really active? Are all sectors represented? We need KPIs to enable us to track and keep the paymasters happy, we need to show ROI. Overall, now sure what has occurred beyond what is in the programme annual report. The journey has been fast and now we need to deliver more outputs and outcomes rather that activities and we need to be capturing what they are.”

“The outcomes will come, probably delayed slightly due to the development that the Techscaler Programme needed. Companies will get impact and no doubt aligned to economic indicators, but it will be difficult to attribute to the programme due to the range of supports companies’ access.”

Views were mixed on the impact the Techscaler Programme has had to date on equalities groups.

Some stakeholders had no visibility of this, while others were aware that CodeBase, via the Techscaler Programme, was working with females and female focused partner organisations, for example, AccelerateHER but were not aware of other diversity groups being engaged. Others noted the links to partners to broaden interaction with groups such as black professionals and migrants. Some had seen diversity through showcasing work or grant applications. Many noted the challenges in reaching these groups.

“We are better than other places, doesn’t mean we are good as we could be. Need to think about economic diversity as well as neurodivergence.”

“Still early days on the equality angle — still a bit generic — but partners can provide the non-specialist support — for example, for immigrants, we need to work together and maximise the resources we jointly have.”

6.10 Successes, achievements, and enabling factors

Stakeholders listed a range of Techscaler Programme successes including:

• strong progress in scaling-up the team with the right people in key roles, including many former founders who bring real-world experience — their presence is helping to establish a meaningful regional footprint and enabling trusted one-to-one relationships with founders and entrepreneurs.
• the Techscaler Programme is a flagship Scottish Government funded intervention — this highlights a national commitment to innovation and entrepreneurship and signals strong government backing.
• effective engagement with key partners — such as Enterprise Agencies, the NHS, etc has been good — while the scale and visibility of the contract naturally creates some tension and overlap, there is a clear need to invest more effort in strengthening stakeholder relationships (for example, with universities), building trust, and aligning goals to ensure collaborative success.
• boosting awareness of the entrepreneurial sector across Scotland, engaging more founders, and strengthening the startup pipeline.
• providing broad and inclusive support, initially focused on startups and now expanding into scaleup support, with evolving offerings and strong delivery partnerships that encourage knowledge sharing.
• building valuable networks and creating a sense of community by linking people to a broader ecosystem of support and advice - not just direct assistance.
• the programme is delivered by a private sector company which brings practical, real-time experience to participants.

Key enabling factors identified by stakeholders included: financial investment; backing from the public sector; supportive policies and government alignment; and the prior involvement of Professor Mark Logan — an experienced leader with a clear vision and firsthand entrepreneurial insight, rather than a political figure.

6.11 Challenges

Some of the key challenges experienced by CodeBase and the Techscaler Programme noted by stakeholders included:

• branding — confusion between the Scottish Government, CodeBase, and the Techscaler Programme — should have had these discussions earlier on.
• ecosystem development — it took time for partners to understand “what the Techscaler Programme is” — wider ecosystem buy-in was considered essential but still lacking, some organisations remain resistant — possibly due to funding perceptions or lack of clarity in mission.
• poor communication — has led to confusion around goals and priorities, alienating parts of the ecosystem; the Techscaler Programme was seen as too narrow, limiting engagement to pure tech ventures; the niche focus may have unintentionally limited the pipeline from certain regions or sectors.
• duplication of support — the Techscaler Programme was seen in some cases to be re-inventing the wheel (for example, overseas visits/learning journeys) rather than building on learning.
• support for emerging and scaling businesses — stakeholders said that many early-stage businesses have been engaged, but now need expert guidance to grow and scale; the focus should shift to developing high-potential individuals while managing resource use by not over-supporting those who aren’t progressing. However, stakeholders recognised that there was only so much the Techscaler Programme could do and that other ecosystem partners have a role to play. They see the Techscaler Programme as having a key role but need to map out what the process looks like.
• organisational growth and management — stakeholders said that CodeBase was required to scale rapidly and is now facing internal challenges (for example, staffing, governance, housekeeping); resource distribution was considered to lack transparency and regional equity; and there was felt to have been limited performance measures/KPIs but improvements were said to being made here.

6.12 Lessons learned

Lesson learned from the Techscaler Programme to inform its future delivery and to maximise impact for the tech sector were identified by stakeholders as:

• collaboration — co-creation with industry is essential — actively engaging sector participants and making people feel involved/learning from others.
• move to scaling — early stage vagueness about offerings can be beneficial to build broad initial appeal, creating a welcoming, “club-like” atmosphere but now need to focus on scaling/scaleups; while certain sectors show real scale potential, this is often concentrated in specific regions. To drive meaningful growth, CodeBase may be a need to adopt a more selective, 'back the winners' approach; however, it's unclear how this aligns with broader policy objectives around inclusivity and balanced regional development.
• communication and visibility — purpose and offering need to be clearer and more visible, especially in a competitive landscape; the customer journey should be well defined, with a clear sense of ‘what’s next’ for participants.
• hub model and accessibility — physical hubs are catalysts for bringing people together however they must be open, accessible, and regionally grounded; currently, there’s no clear marketplace effect — connections between stakeholders remain weak.
• focus and specialisation — need to avoid trying to be all things to all people — concentrate on areas where real value can be delivered; greater emphasis on commercial leadership — tech businesses often lack this in-house; recognise that tech companies often have small footprints unless they scale massively — support models must reflect this.

6.13 What could the Techscaler Programme do more of, less of, or do differently

When asked what stakeholders would like to see more of, less of or done differently, the majority focused on what they would like to see more of and this was wide and varied, including:

Process-related

• clarity on offer — what’s available, who it’s for, and how to access it.
• formal relationship manager structure to drive value with the real propositions.
• collaborative delivery models by working closely with existing partners and leveraging their expertise.
• more focus on stakeholder management going forward — looking to segment partners to dedicate resources and approaches, governance is important here — paperwork, regular meetings, etc.

Delivery

• more focus on the growth and demonstrable benefits and impacts for the level of investment committed.
• sector-specific support tailored to the needs and maturity of each industry.
• investment-readiness focus, supporting businesses to access and secure funding.
• regular networking events (for example, monthly breakfasts, fireside chats, etc.), with consistency and occasional variation or additions to maintain momentum and reach.
• targeted support for commercial and system leadership development to strengthen executive and strategic capabilities.
• guidance to help founders navigate public sector engagement, procurement, and collaboration.
• bespoke approach for rural areas, acknowledging their unique challenges and opportunities.
• flexibility in support models including access to mentors to meet varied business needs and stages.
• targeted, in-depth mentoring, rather than a flat allocation (for example, four hours for all).
• focus on scaleup support for growth and scaling companies.

Duplication of offering was the main area some stakeholders mentioned that they would like to see less of.

“Always potential for overlap and duplication — the landscape is very busy, it’s a massively congested area — last count around 160 organisations in the Scottish ecosystem — this is so confusing for the company.”

“Bit of duplication but not a bad thing as one-size doesn’t fit all. Some go to Smart Things Accelerator Centre (STAC) — telecoms tech —maybe be a bit of overlap here. Overlap with some accelerators given the pervasiveness of tech across other sectors — no reason why can’t have both as long as the market doesn’t become too saturated.”

“There may be some duplication in some areas (for example, some of the services offered — mentoring and the support from some Business Gateways — but they do things differently through the Techscaler Programme. However, this landscape is quite mature and already cluttered with lots of support — so could this have been delivered in a different way?”

6.14 Suggestions to improve the management and delivery of the Techscaler Programme

Stakeholders who were able to comment noted a wide range of areas to improve the management, delivery and monitoring of the Techscaler Programme (beyond 2024) including:

• data sharing agreements with partners to ensure reciprocal sharing of outputs and impacts resulting from support.
• provision of increased technical advice.
• approach that extends beyond the central belt.
• improved governance and management processes and systems to support branding, marketing, stakeholder relationships, evaluation/measurement and communication across partners and the wider ecosystem.
• refreshed branding and communication plans.
• new approach to stakeholder engagement.
• increased flexibility in the service offering to support the needs of the changing membership base.
• more clarity on the differentiation between the Techscaler Programme and CodeBase.
• staffing and recruitment - ensure CodeBase has the right staff and mentor pool to deliver the growth and scaling support required.
• creation of an outcome focussed KPI framework to measure and assess progress against.
• sector specific delivery — tailored as appropriate.

“More visibility and accountability — set goals and deliver them and make the process more visible, who are the team, how do you contact them, make sure CodeBase is visible from the outside and the goals and KPIs are there for everyone to see.”

“Too many staff — they are now a bit top heavy, and this has an impact of spend and returns.”

“KPIs and really demonstrate VFM — this is key for this next phase — if they are going to get funding beyond the initial five years this needs to be demonstrated.”

“Improved partnership agreements and data sharing agreements should have been agreed at the outset. Need to plan with their partners and share what they are doing to ensure there is a coordinated approach and businesses are not bombarded.”

“There are over 2,000 scaleup businesses in Scotland — and 1,000 in the pipeline. There are plenty of businesses in the pipeline. Healthy ecosystem requires a mix of things to be part of it, everyone has a role to play. Need to frame who the target audience is.”

6.15 Gaps in the entrepreneurship and enterprise landscape

There were mixed views among stakeholders on the extent to which gaps still existed in the entrepreneurship and enterprise landscape for startups and scaleups. The following points were mentioned:

• events for pre-founders including those aligned to academic institutions.
• accessible technical expertise including Deep tech support.
• lack of Deep tech investors in Scotland, those who want to invest £20 million plus.
• sectoral support.
• skills gaps.
• geographic support across rural Scotland.
• promoting entrepreneurship at school and Further/Higher education.
• accessible technical expertise including deep tech support.
• need for coordination across providers rather than more support.
• funding/investment support for scaleup — better linkages between companies and investors.
• knowledge of what support is available.
• team and leadership development.

Some stakeholders were unable to comment, others said there were no major gaps.

“Funding remains the biggest issue and gap — how do we get smart capital into Scotland?”

“Commercial development to support the ability to scaleup — we need more leadership capabilities in this space. We need to recognise where scaling companies fit in. What size do companies need get too to be ready to scale and when do they need to have a commercial CEO rather than just a technical one.”

“There are still gaps in sectoral related support — supporting the companies that use and develop tech to deliver their business e.g. food and drink, creative, etc they are not tech companies but need it.”

“No, the landscape is already cluttered, we need to make sure it’s more seamless for businesses and help them to access the right support for them.”

“Definitely — lots of gaps, not found the right way to connect investors and founders, very reliant on pitches, we have been experimenting with more collaborative ways of bringing them together.”

6.16 Importance of evaluation

Continuous monitoring and evaluation of the Techscaler Programme was viewed by most as ‘essential’, primarily to understand:

• how the programme has performed against targets and objectives.
• what is the return from the Scottish Government investment.
• how benefits and impacts were distributed across Scotland and the impact at a regional level.
• what the attribution of the Techscaler Programme is over and above what would have happened anyway.
• how the Techscaler Programme has leveraged the existing support.

It was noted that for monitoring and evaluation to be successful the right impact measurement framework needed to be in place as well as time to demonstrate successes and failures. Using the current programme logic model to better define interim and longer-term outputs and outcomes was highlighted.

At the same time there was recognition that it is hard to evidence causality at the ecosystem level, with lots of other support/funding and companies going through different iterations. Evaluating one part of the system in isolation and out of context was seen as challenging.

Stakeholders stated that monitoring and evaluation would also inform how the model could flex and change as the Techscaler Programme develops — this ability to adapt was highlighted as one of the benefits of the programme being delivered by a private sector company. For stakeholders it was about the balance between managing the relationship more closely and allowing sufficient flexibility.