Techscaler Programme 2022-2024: early evaluation - main report

8 Conclusions

8.1 Introduction

This chapter brings together the key findings and evidence presented throughout this evaluation report. It sets out our main observations and conclusions against the research objectives and acts as a lead-in to the recommendations outlined in the next chapter.

The overall aim of the early evaluation was to assess and evidence whether the Techscaler Programme has been delivered as intended and to measure its outcomes and impact over the period, July 2022 to December 2024.

Specifically, the objectives for the early evaluation of the Techscaler Programme were to:

• undertake a process evaluation of the Techscaler Programme to explore how the programme was designed and is being delivered and administered.
• undertake an early indicative impact assessment in relation to emerging and early outcomes achieved by the Techscaler Programme — and to demonstrate whether the programme is on the right trajectory to contribute to longer-term outcomes and impacts.
• identify areas for improvement and lessons learned of the programme’s delivery experience to date to inform future delivery.
• provide recommendations to the Scottish Government for consideration.

8.2 Main observations and reflections

Before presenting our conclusions against the evaluation objectives, we set the scene with our overarching assessment of the Techscaler Programme’s progress to date, and in recognition that the programme was only two years into delivery of an initial five-year contract.

We would also restate, as highlighted in the STER report, a key challenge lies in demonstrating causality at the ecosystem level — particularly when attempting to evaluate one part of the system in isolation and without considering its broader context.

Successes

Overall, the evaluation findings reveal a broadly positive picture. The Techscaler Programme has shown clear strengths particularly during its setup and mobilisation phase (July to November 2022).

CodeBase has successfully developed a comprehensive programme of activity that reflected the key recommendations of the STER report (for example, education and regional hubs to strengthen the sense of ‘community’), recruited effectively at pace, and demonstrated flexibility by adapting to shifting market dynamics. As a result of the flexible approach to procurement and programme management, CodeBase has also expanded and evolved the Techscaler Programme offer in response to need and learning.

The CodeBase team has also engaged actively with ideation, early-stage, growth, and scaling companies through the ‘community square’ approach to secure circa 1,400 members (as at December 2024) and to create an ‘energetic community of early-stage tech founders’.

Specifically, we would identify the early success of the programme in identifying and engaging with a large cohort of ideation and early-stage tech companies and founders, which may partly reflect CodeBase’s established reputation for working with early-stage companies through previous initiatives.

Survey feedback from supported businesses indicates high levels of satisfaction with the CodeBase team and the support provided, with over 80% of respondents rating their experience as either “very satisfied” or “satisfied”. Notably, mentorship support was consistently highlighted in survey responses as the most valuable element of the programme. Mentorship is also the most frequent reason people/ founders apply to CodeBase to become a Techscaler member.

Almost three-quarters of businesses (73%) who responded to the survey reported that the Techscaler Programme had helped them address key barriers to startup, growth, or scaling. Encouragingly, the programme is beginning to demonstrate success in less tangible but equally important areas such as capacity building. Our survey found that between 60% and 70% of both ideation and early-stage and growth and scaling companies reported increased confidence, motivation, and entrepreneurial mindset because of their engagement.

While it is still early in the programme's lifecycle to draw definitive conclusions around ‘hard’ quantifiable outcomes, there are emerging signs of positive impact. Some 40% of businesses surveyed indicated that Techscaler Programme support had directly contributed to them starting their business and similar proportions reported the support had helped support business growth.

In addition, if future growth forecasts (as reported in the member survey) are realised within the next ten years, the Techscaler Programme could support (net additional) turnover growth within the tech sector of circa £250 million.

Areas for improvement

There have been challenges that have impacted the Techscaler Programme’s overall effectiveness to date in achieving its intended outcomes and impacts.

While the STER report clearly set out the rationale for intervention — identifying key problems and barriers — the evaluation findings would point to a degree of ambiguity around what success looks like, both for the Techscaler Programme and the wider tech ecosystem.

As a result, external stakeholders felt this has led to a broad and sometimes confusing offer with regards the focus and balance of activity within the Techscaler Programme across ideation and early-stage companies and growth and scaling companies, respectively.

While some early ‘teething’ issues are expected in a large-scale and complex programme, feedback from stakeholders, mentors, and supported businesses was consistent — the core activities of the programme were not always clearly understood, and external communications were often seen as unclear or overly complex.

Specifically, one of the key issues raised about the programme’s focus and core activities relates to the types of businesses receiving support. Techscaler has made strong progress in serving ideation and early-stage companies, reflecting current market demand but its engagement with growth-stage startups has, so far, been more limited than expected by some stakeholders.

While this emphasis and balance of activity and resources in supporting early-stage businesses to ‘widen the funnel’ is common in developing less mature ecosystems, it has not always matched stakeholder expectations, which leaned more toward supporting growth-stage and scaling businesses.

Operationally, several additional challenges have affected progress in the first two years of programme delivery. These are summarised below:

• engagement with partners — approach to engagement seems to have been somewhat reactive with unclear roles and touchpoints.
• monitoring and evaluation — limited intelligence, evidence, and data shared with partners on success and progress. A recurring theme among stakeholders was around monitoring and reporting. While CodeBase’s annual reports offer high-level metrics — such as membership numbers, investment raised, and general case studies — these do not fully capture what is being delivered or achieved. Stakeholders want clearer data on impact and more visible celebration of success stories from across the ecosystem — where, anecdotally at least, there is much worth celebrating.
• data sharing agreements — inconsistencies between delivery partners, along with delays and elapsed time, meant some relationships had a staggered start.
• marketing and branding — a fragmented identity and mixed messaging have caused confusion. For example, overlapping branding between the Scottish Government, CodeBase, and the Techscaler Programme has blurred lines of ownership, accountability, and purpose.

While these challenges are not unusual and are relatively straightforward to fix, they do require focused effort and coordination.

That said, there are positive signs at the individual company level based on feedback and wider intelligence. According to the 2024 Annual Report, Techscaler member companies have raised £118 million in capital investment across 147 businesses. This suggests a solid foundation and early traction, which is explored further in the lessons learned and recommendations that follow. However, it is not clear to what extent these impacts are fully or partially attributable to the programme.

8.3 Review against detailed objectives

The following section provides a review of progress against the detailed evaluation objectives to:

• undertake a process evaluation of the Techscaler Programme to explore how the programme was designed and is being delivered and administered.
• undertake an early indicative impact assessment in relation to emerging and early outcomes achieved by the Techscaler Programme — and to demonstrate whether the programme is on the right trajectory to contribute to longer-term outcomes and impacts.

The following objectives are considered within the next chapter:

• identify areas for improvement and lessons learned of the Techscaler Programme’s delivery experience to date to inform future delivery.
• provide recommendations to the Scottish Government for consideration.

Process evaluation

As noted in the Magenta Book, the key areas for consideration within a process evaluation are:

• implementation fidelity: was the policy or programme delivered in the way it was originally planned? If not, what changed and why?
• reach and coverage: who received (or did not receive) the intervention and to what extent? were certain populations missed?
• delivery mechanisms: which delivery mechanisms or processes were most and least effective?
• contextual factors: how did external factors (for example, socioeconomic context, political environment, staffing, stakeholder engagement) influence delivery?
• resource use and efficiency: were resources (time, personnel, funds) used effectively in implementing the intervention?

These points are considered below.

Implementation

Overall, the Techscaler Programme is largely being delivered as intended, with no major shifts in policy or context that would require a change in direction.

The challenges highlighted in the STER report both at the ecosystem level and within individual companies persist, reinforcing the continued need for targeted intervention.

Techscaler member survey findings confirmed the top three barriers as:

• limited access to finance.
• weak professional networks.
• poor understanding of available support.

These issues underline the importance of sustained and focused support for Scotland’s tech sector.

Looking more broadly, recent market intelligence, including but not limited to Beauhurst's The State of Investment in Scotland (May 2025), shows that the country is performing well in startup creation and attracting equity investment. The tech sector, particularly in application software and data services — accounts for about one-third of all equity deals. While this is below the UK average (where tech makes up half of all deals), it is still a strong showing.

Taken together, these signals continue to justify a dedicated, high-impact support programme to grow and accelerate Scotland’s tech sector.

The Techscaler Programme was developed to provide an agile end-to-end service for tech businesses, that importantly, would be responsive to demand. As such, within the first two years the Techscaler Programme has engaged a larger proportion of ideation and early-stage founders/companies — with the split (based on membership), approximately 60% ideation and startup and 40% growth and scaling^[20].

It is worth noting that, while the programme did not have intermediate measures/metrics (such as defined targets) to assess progress and performance against (that is, metrics beyond activity and output measures) it was designed to be agile and responsive to evolving market demand. The Scottish Government and CodeBase reported that the profile of participating businesses was broadly in line with expectations. This focus was seen as a deliberate strategy to widen the funnel, pump-prime future demand, and build a healthier long-term pipeline of scale-ready businesses.

For the period up to December 2024, there was no data available to determine what proportion of the programme’s resources or budget was allocated to each cohort.

Focusing resources and responding to the high (and sustained) level of demand from the ideation and early stages companies is a reasonable strategy in the early years of the programme, however, it has led to unintended consequences that have impacted programme delivery, namely:

• increased demand and resource pressure. Support for ideation and early-stage founders/companies has been well received with the Techscaler Programme having a well-known and positive profile. This has created ongoing high demand and the programme has responded to meet this.
• there has been a narrowing perception of the programme’s purpose, amongst some tech businesses and stakeholders within the wider ecosystem. The high demand from ideation and early-stage support has reinforced a perception that the Techscaler Programme is less suitable for more advanced startups and scaleups.
• a sense that there is an element of duplication/overlap with current provision — while not always viewed as negative, it adds to the wider confusion.
• the programme’s promotional narrative on the website and in marketing materials have leaned heavily toward ideation and early-stage support.

That said, while there has been a focus on ideation and early stages companies during the initial years, it is important to acknowledge that growth and scaling companies are widely recognised as difficult to engage across the ecosystem. Several stakeholders and mentors noted that other support providers face similar challenges, suggesting this issue is not unique to the Techscaler Programme.

Changes in activity

It is also important to consider how specific activities and deliverables have evolved and adapted since the programme’s inception and over its first two years of delivery.

The programme was originally built around three core pillars: building core startup and scaleup skills, fostering social infrastructure development, and increasing investor connectivity and internationalisation. Points to note include that:

• education programmes have been revised and updated since programme launch. Some of the original courses have stopped and been replaced with revamped or new courses as the programme moved into year three of delivery — in part to offer guided progression aligned to founder stage, pace, and ambition. Further, existing modules have also been updated to incorporate newer developments (the impact of AI would be a good example).
• the programme has supported and funded participation for 35 unique companies in international visits, including to San Francisco and Japan. These visits aim to expose companies to global ecosystems and opportunities.
• a mentor network has been further developed to offer more one-to-one mentoring support — CodeBase now has a pool of 150 mentors (up from 25 when the programme launched) who can support Techscaler Programme members.

By and large, these changes were made in response to a changing demand and need within the founder/company base, and they appear to be both well-positioned and well-received. It is to the credit of both CodeBase and the programme that they have maintained a flexible and agile approach to delivery.

It was noted by several stakeholders that this agility is one of the key benefits of engaging a private sector supplier to deliver the Techscaler Programme.

One area of delivery that has seen mixed success and which the programme is now beginning to address relates to the physical regional hubs.

Establishing these hubs and adopting a pan-Scotland approach was a key recommendation of the STER report and a core contract deliverable. However, these recommendations were made during the COVID-19 pandemic. Since then, major macroeconomic shifts, particularly in the rise of flexible and remote working have fundamentally changed how people engage with workspaces.

While regional hubs remain a valuable part of the ecosystem (peer to peer engagement and networking, etc.), full-time, dedicated incubation spaces may no longer be the most appropriate or effective model.^[21] Additionally, as discussed below, regional hubs can be relatively resource-intensive to manage and deliver.

Reach and coverage

CodeBase monitoring data identifies that as a headline figure, the Techscaler Programme has 1,411 individual members (this includes 978 key company contacts).^[22] Further analysis shows that:

• while 648 (66%) of the 978 key company contacts have formally engaged with the programme to varying degrees, 330 (34%) have not.^[23]
• many of the wider individual membership are a mix of additional employees from the 978 companies, or ideation or very early-stage members with most of this latter group unengaged, either because they are too early in their journey to access Techscaler Programme formal services and support, or their interaction has been minimal to date.

Geographic distribution^[24]

The main points to note include that:

• over two-thirds (69%) of the 1,411 Techscaler membership are based in the central belt — this is unsurprising as this is where the main population and business bases are located, and tech businesses typically coalesce alongside the R&D and university base.
• there has been strong growth in Techscaler Programme membership across all regions in Scotland since year 1 (2023) — the highest growth has been in Glasgow and West, followed by Dundee and Tayside. The regional events (both hosted and attended by the CodeBase team) are a key driver for new memberships.

Wider memberships data shows that:

• 36% of Techscaler members are female — this is a positive outcome and somewhat higher than the industry average where 20% of SME employers in Scotland are women-led.
• medtech and edtech businesses are the main sectors represented in the Techscaler membership base — combined 24% of total membership (each account for 12%).

As considered in the recommendations, while the Techscaler Programme is designed to be sector agnostic and some partnerships exist with, for example medtech, gaming, creative industries, there is perhaps an opportunity to either recruit, or partner, with other organisations that have sector expertise and track record/ credibility in certain sectors.

Segmentation

Data on segmentation shows that:

• there is variation at a regional level with Edinburgh and Lothians and Glasgow and the West having larger concentrations of members at the growth and scaling stages.
• most of the membership typically have annual revenue of less than £500,000 (this includes those members located in regions with larger concentrations of members at the growth and scaling stages).

Our general observations include:

• the membership remains weighted toward the ideation and early-stages.
• the programme demonstrates reasonable geographic coverage, though there is a noticeable central belt bias — this is expected given the business base distribution and location of Higher Education Institutions.
• Techscaler Programme engagement with under-represented groups:
• female founder members of the Techscaler Programme has shown strong progress — the 2024 annual report notes that this now stands at circa 36% of total membership.
• Techscaler Programme applicants who identified as from an ethnic minority background was reported as 37% in the 2024 annual report —however, data is not currently available on the proportion of Techscaler Programme founders who are from an ethnic minority background.^[25]

Delivery mechanisms

In terms of the delivery mechanisms that have been most and least effective, survey feedback from Techscaler member companies and individuals indicates high levels of satisfaction with the overall support received — over 80% of survey respondents said that they were either “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with their experience.

However, a more nuanced finding emerged regarding the effectiveness of the delivery model: 43% that had accessed more than one form of support felt that the overall package of support had been valuable. The majority reported that only a single type of support had been beneficial to their needs. This suggests the potential value of a more effective screening and triage process to ensure businesses are matched with the right level and type of support as they move through the pipeline.

Among the various support activities, mentoring was identified as the most valuable component by Techscaler members who responded to the survey (and is further reflected in stakeholder and mentor feedback). This is an area where CodeBase has scaled up significantly from a relatively limited pool of mentors to 150.

In addition to company feedback, stakeholders also shared their views on the programme, albeit many were less directly involved in day-to-day delivery:

• education: members/stakeholders recognised the broad reach and high quality of the education offer, in particular access to prestigious resources such as Reforge membership. However, not all stakeholders considered the other education courses as adding most value, in particular for scaling companies due to the level of maturity of these companies.
• regional hubs: there was a consensus that while maintaining a regional presence remains important, the current model, particularly the pan-Scotland approach for the hubs is misaligned with evolving market dynamics — flexible and home working. Stakeholders suggested alternative delivery models, such as more flexible digital or pop-up models, which could better meet the needs of the target audience.
• mentorship: mentoring was considered valuable and helps ensure a ‘founder centric’ approach. Nonetheless, some points were raised about the mentor matching process, the need to ensure high quality across the mentor pool, and in particular recruiting mentors with startup and scaleup experience, and how to foster ongoing relationships between mentors and mentees to add more value.
• international programmes: this was one of the most positively received elements of the programme. Stakeholders supported the value of immersing companies in other ‘entrepreneurial cultures’ and international tech ecosystems, noting its potential to raise ambition and shift entrepreneurial mindsets. That said, given the cost and profile of the international programmes offer, some called for more transparency and scrutiny in selecting companies, so that those with the most to gain were prioritised. As well as stronger coordination and shared learning between partners (which is now taking place).

Contextual factors

Policy environment

At the time of the Techscaler Programme’s initial implementation, the policy environment was highly supportive, and it remains so.

Key strategic frameworks such as the NSET and the Programmes for Government 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 placed strong emphasis on entrepreneurship, R&D, and innovation, boosting productivity, and attracting inward investment to Scotland. In addition, inward investment activity to Scotland has been positive and remains the second highest performing region, outside of London.

This provides a strong foundation for the Techscaler Programme.

The STER report provided the blueprint for the Techscaler Programme. From a theoretical standpoint, (for the first time) it mapped out the wider tech ecosystem in Scotland, identified key constraints, and proposed how to address gaps through structured pathways and linkages to reach the “tipping point”. The rationale for intervention was well established and defined and the document remains a valuable and strategic reference point.

However, some feedback captured through the evaluation process suggests that while the STER report was timely and influential, it may have leaned too heavily on theoretical models and international case studies without fully accounting for the nuances of the ‘local’ Scottish context and culture.

As a result, certain recommendations were adopted wholesale by the Scottish Government but have since proven less suited to ‘local’ conditions. For example, as noted above, the implementation of regional hubs have faced practical challenges in delivery and alignment with local need. In several cases, the local ecosystems lack the critical mass of successful peers or visible entrepreneurial champions to inspire others.

Engagement with partners

To date, CodeBase has forged over 60 partnerships related to the Techscaler Programme, including with universities, innovation centres, local authorities, support providers, sector bodies, and organisations from the investment community.

Some of these relationships have been particularly valuable in raising the organisation’s profile, driving referrals, supporting signposting, enabling knowledge transfer, and expanding networks. For example, the partnership with the NHS/Chief Scientist Office, and universities with active business development and technology transfer teams. While some of these partnerships are still in early stages and not fully scoped, their existence is nonetheless a positive indicator of potential.

However, stakeholder engagement and relationship management have been a challenge for the CodeBase team at times. Especially during the early stages of programme delivery, engagement was largely reactive. In hindsight, the process would have benefitted from upfront relationship mapping — identifying key stakeholders, understanding the nature of those relationships, and determining how best to engage. In addition, in putting place partnership agreements that outline the purpose, aims, and outputs.

CodeBase acknowledged that they may have underestimated the level of resource and ongoing input required to maintain and service these partnerships. Without a defined engagement strategy, initial outreach primarily focused on organisations already known to the organisation, rather than targeting those that were most strategically important (although this is not to say that no strategically important stakeholders were engaged). As a result, relationships can be more person-centric rather than strategically or organisationally driven, which limits consistency and long-term value.

The main drivers for these partner engagement challenges can be summarised as follows:

• there is currently no consistent view among stakeholders about the Techscaler Programme’s role or core activities. Its position within the broader ecosystem is not well understood or clearly communicated — leading to “categorisation error”.
• the wider support landscape in Scotland is crowded, with many organisations delivering overlapping interventions, projects, and programmes. This creates confusion for stakeholders and companies, who often do not know where to turn.
• there is a degree of tension between agencies, especially where there is perceived duplication or competition. This is not unique to the Techscaler Programme - it reflects a wider culture in the public and publicly funded sector, where organisations often compete for a limited pool of companies and increasingly constrained funding.
• while there were initial challenges in establishing relationships with partners, it was noted that some are now functioning more effectively. However, this is not consistent across the board. Feedback has highlighted that referrals and signposting often remain one-way — primarily directed toward the Techscaler Programme — with little reciprocal engagement, even though data sharing agreements are already in place.
• the absence of a data sharing agreement with key agencies in the early stages limited opportunities for collaboration and cross-referral. This has made it harder for CodeBase to identify companies with growth and scaling potential. As a result, they have relied heavily on outbound one-to-one outreach and Beauhurst data, both of which are resource intensive.

Staffing

As highlighted throughout the evaluation, one of the early successes of the Techscaler Programme was the speed and effectiveness of the mobilisation and setup phase. CodeBase successfully recruited and onboarded a significant number of new staff within a short timeframe, and feedback from supported founders/businesses has largely been positive regarding the quality of both staff and mentors.

Looking ahead, feedback suggests that five-years post STER, that demand is shifting and while the evaluation team is not in a position to directly assess the current staffing or mentor pool, feedback from a wide range of stakeholders raised questions about whether the existing team has the necessary capacity and capabilities to support businesses aiming to grow and scaleup, rather than just startup.

Importantly, there are distinct differences between supporting entrepreneurs at the ideation or early-stage and providing effective support for growth and scaling. Founders further along the pipeline are less likely to engage with mentors or advisors who lack real-world experience in scaling, trading, or operating in the private sector. Ensuring the team includes individuals with credible, hands-on experience will be critical to engaging and delivering value to this cohort.

Resource use and efficiency

The Scottish Government has committed £42.4 million (excluding VAT) over the initial five-year contract for delivery of the Techscaler Programme — a significant investment that reflects a clear short- to medium-term commitment to supporting entrepreneurship.

This makes the Techscaler Programme’s investment a significant investment for entrepreneurship support in the innovation/tech startup space, particularly notable in the current fiscal climate, where many economic development services face real-terms reductions and delivery challenges.

To date, total programme delivery costs stand at £22.8 million (excluding VAT)^[26], including £1.8 million (excluding VAT) (4% of the total budget) allocated to mobilisation and setup. Of the operational budget, £20.5 million (excluding VAT) (49%) has been spent or drawn down.

This is in line with expectations, although typically programme spend ramps up in later years (with demand) and is not a flat annual profile — see earlier comments regarding higher levels of demand from ideation and early-stage companies which may explain the profile.

While this evaluation is not an audit of expenditure, we note the following caveats on our conclusions:

• there are no formal targets for expenditure. Instead, financial outlooks, budget updates, and variation proposals are reviewed quarterly by the Scottish Government. This remains, in our view, an effective approach — allowing for flexibility without imposing arbitrary annual spending targets.
• both the Scottish Government and CodeBase have strengthened financial reporting and oversight processes (for example, regarding eligible spend) since programme inception. However, in looking at the period to December 2024 we consider that there is still room for improvement, particularly around clarity and granularity of reporting as this would support both Scottish Government and CodeBase to better understand where expenditure was occurring in terms of market segmentation.

The Scottish Government is leading changes to financial reporting to strengthen contract management, improve transparency, and enable more detailed evaluation.

Nonetheless, based on the available data, we offer the following observations on resource allocation and efficiency:

• a significant portion of funding, £13 million (excluding VAT) or 63% of total spend has gone toward ‘staff costs’ ^[27] — a more detailed breakdown would be useful to enable further interrogation.
• there is limited capital expenditure for regional hubs, with the accommodation costs totalling around £660,000 (excluding VAT) (3% of spend), most of which supports CodeBase’s Edinburgh HQ. CodeBase’s proposal to absorb major accommodation costs was a key differentiator in its contract bid and has enabled redirection of funds toward other delivery areas. However, regional hub operations remain resource intensive, with 26 staff involved, not including central management or administrative support, or costs for delivering and marketing regional events and meet-ups.
• delivery of the education programme has cost £1.65 million (excluding VAT) (although this also includes ‘event space, speaker costs and marketing’). As much of the content focused on ideation and early-stage support and is now online, we would expect costs associated with this to reduce going forward, with only periodic updates and refreshes required. While also recognising that there may be a requirement for new/refreshed courses that better reflect founder intent.
• the daily and hourly rates for mentors are relatively high, so it is essential that the CodeBase team ensures two things:
• the mentor pool is made up of high-quality individuals with relevant experience and credibility.
• mentor support is targeted toward companies that stand to gain the most from it.
• external stakeholders felt that the international visits are a valuable part of the programme’s offer, but the perception is that they are expensive to deliver^[28] which underscores a need to ensure these are targeted toward companies where it will add the most value.

8.4 Assessing outcomes and impacts

In a process evaluation, the focus is on how the programme is implemented, rather than quantifying outcomes and impacts. Nonetheless, a process evaluation can still capture a range of hard (quantifiable) and soft (qualitative or perceptual) impacts to assess the effectiveness of delivery and help us better understand whether the programme is on the right trajectory to contribute to longer-term outcomes and impacts.

Outcomes

Feedback on outcomes achieved has been provided by both supported companies and stakeholders.

It is important to reiterate that this early-stage evaluation was not expected to produce significant “hard” outcomes such as major revenue growth or job creation.

While emerging economic outcomes have been captured and reported, the primary purpose of this evaluation was to assess whether the programme is on track to deliver these in the longer-term.

Accordingly, the focus here in this section on the “softer” impacts such as increased skills, stronger networks, improved confidence, and other indicators of early-stage progress.

We would note the following key findings.

Motivation and confidence building:

• survey participants reported increased confidence and motivation through the programme.
• peer engagement is valued.
• visibility of success stories could be better promoted to help individuals aspire to more than just a ‘lifestyle business’.

Peer-to-peer mentoring and community building:

• strong peer networks are forming across the regions and across some subsectors.
• a sense of community is a major strength, especially across ideation and early-stage founders/companies.
• growing and scaling companies can also get a lot from connections with their peers (other founders).
• regular events, meet-ups, and informal gatherings are key drivers of this community feel.

Culture and mindset shift:

• shifting culture and mindset is difficult, but there are early anecdotal signs of progress.
• more focus is needed on celebrating wins and amplifying internal success to inspire others.

Value perception and stakeholder clarity:

• companies value the support, though perceptions of where and how the Techscaler Programme adds value vary.
• the majority of stakeholders are unclear on the full impact or benefits - more communication and alignment is needed.

Partnerships and strategic thinking:

• new partnerships have been formed, which is leading to more collaborative working and referrals, albeit this could be improved by developing cross-referral models.
• there is growing awareness of the need for more strategic collaboration to scale impact.

Impacts

The impact assessment identifies that the Techscaler Programme has generated the following impacts and benefits to date against a real term cost (uprated to 2025) of £23.6 million:

Net additional economic impacts^[29]:

• FTE jobs: 100 — 130.
• GVA: £16 million — £19 million.
• Turnover: £27 million — £33 million.

From the data, we would also note the following observations:

• additionality (considered as the net additional impact set against the gross impacts) is 23%. This is relatively low and reflects the early stage of the programme — not many companies have generated an impact so the absolute attribution to the Techscaler Programme is limited.
• level of engagement with the programme — almost four of every five companies (80%) in the survey sample were classified as engagement level 2 (some) or 3 (a lot). Only 2% of the sample were classified as level 4 (most engaged).
• stage of company — 69% were ideation/early-stage companies, which broadly reflects the membership base.

In recognition of the longer lead in times for support programmes of this nature to generate quantifiable benefits, using the SNIB definition of a ‘scaleup’ company a) at least 10 employees initially, and b) growth in staff or turnover of ≥20% per annum, on average. A total of 12 companies (17% of the survey sample) would meet the criteria for scaleup over the next ten years if they were to deliver against their forecast performance.

If future forecasts are realised, over ten years the support delivered to date could help raise (net additional) turnover in the tech sector by £250 million.^[30]