MIT Start-Ups Ecosystem and Greek Start Ups Reality: An Ecosystem Comparison

  • Theocharis SpyropoulosEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)


The study examines and compares the Entrepreneurship and Start-Ups ecosystems of MIT and Greece. Despite the major differences in size and maturity, the studies identify key difference between MIT and Ecosystems, especially in terms of a deeper understanding of entrepreneurial education and its value in identifying and successfully pursue business opportunities. Other key differences between MIT and Greek Start Up Ecosystem approach include early finance opportunities, the number of founders and serial entrepreneurship; start-uppers who continue in establishing new ventures, fully exploiting their network, knowledge and experiences. These differences can have significant impact in the future survival and success of the start-up companies. Furthermore, the basic economic foundations are also very different: MIT excels in Entrepreneurship educations and is one of the most effective ecosystems for innovation and start-up companies worldwide. Greece, on the other hand is an economy and society struggling to survive from a decade of economic decline. The Greek start up ecosystem evolved during the last 10 years, however both the economy as a whole and Start-Up ecosystem, as well as start-up companies have a lot to learn from a comparison with MIT Innovation and Start-Ups ecosystems.


Innovation management Start-ups Entrepreneurship 


  1. 1.
    Roberts EB, Murray F, Kim JD (2015) Entrepreneurship and innovation at MIT, continuing global growth and impact. Martin Trust Center for MIT Entrepreneurship, MITGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aulet B (2013) Disciplined entrepreneurship 24 steps to a successful start up. WileyGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Spyropoulos TS (2019) Greek I.T. start-ups, an analysis of Founder’s perceptions. Sci Bull Econ Sci 18(1):3–16Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amit R, Zott C (2012) Creating value through business model innovation. MIT Sloan Manag Rev, Spring. Accessed 20 Mar 2012
  5. 5.
    Chesbrough H (2010) Business model innovation: opportunities and barriers. Long Range Plan 43:354–363. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gambardella AM, McGahan A (2010) Business-model innovation: general purpose technologies and their implications for industry structure. Long Range Plan 43:262–271. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaleka A, Morgan N, Vorhies D (2009) Market orientation, marketing capabilities, and firm performance. Strateg Manag 30:909–920. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Raj R, Srivastava KBL (2016) Mediating role of organizational learning on the relationship between market orientation and innovativeness. Learn Organ 23:370–384. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Evers N (2003) The process and problems of business start-ups. ITB J 4. Available from:
  10. 10.
    EIT Digital - Start-Ups in Greece 2018 (2018) A maturing ecosystem points to a brighter future EIT digital in partnership with velocity partnersGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kavoura A, Andersson T (2016) Applying Delphi method for strategic design of social entrepreneurship. Libr Rev 65:185–205. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Makarona E, Kavoura A (2019) Redesigning the ivory tower: academic entrepreneurship as a new calling supporting economic growth. Malopolska Sch Econ Tarnow Res Pap Collect 42:15–26. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Perrotis CollegeThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations