As an illustration of irrational complexity, I can think of a rather obvious anecdote. Put a start-up and a market line in the same room and ask them to tell you their conversation separately. The start-up and the trading line will not have understood the same thing from this conversation. So, what is the mystery? I am happy to refer you to the work on Effectuation (1). In essence, start-up entrepreneurs “operate” in “execution” mode, i.e. the start-up assesses the resources at its disposal and asks itself what it can do with them. In short, it is not surprising that a start-up is always on the move and therefore perceived as fast. The way large groups operate would be more « causal ». The market line of the large group sets itself objectives and gives itself the resources to achieve them. These are two ways of thinking which, while not contradictory, remain different, some would say complementary in order to remain constructive. Start-up players would therefore not reason like market line players, particularly from a « mindset » point of view. The incubator or corporate accelerator is in the middle of the watch, and its effort is often that of alignment, of bringing together « mindsets » to avoid all kinds of slippage (timing, relational crisis, etc). A misunderstanding of the players can prove fatal for the start-up, and very damaging for the brand image of the large group…

As far as rational complexity is concerned, I can think of a very real illustration, but one that is nevertheless little or no emphasized in the relationship between start-ups and large groups. This is what a commercial partnership between a start-up and a large group ultimately represents. A commercial partnership, when it is successful, is only the written expression of a technological integration between the external solution and the internal Information System of the large group. For those in the know, it is already not easy to implement internal innovations (coming from R&D) within the large group. It should be imagined that the difficulty of implementing external solutions is even greater. This will require resources that have not necessarily been anticipated. Indeed, it is at the end of the year that the market lines negotiate their budget for the following year on the basis of well-argued product plans. However, the start-up “market” is a market of opportunities. What happens if the incubator or corporate accelerator presents a start-up in the course of the following year? Where do you find the resources to do so? The incubator or corporate accelerator will have to convince the company to allocate the resources needed to make commercial partnerships a reality. It would undoubtedly be advisable for large groups to show a certain amount of flexibility because one cannot both want to do in open innovation and believe that everything is plannable…

In the end, in my opinion, the « rational » complexity (resources) can be largely mastered subject to the company’s willingness to allocate the useful resources on a run-of-the-mill basis. « Irrational » complexity can be more difficult to overcome. Changing « mindset » within large groups will take time and it is human. The corporate accelerator or incubator must therefore understand its role: building bridges. It is through the ability of the corporate accelerator or incubator to properly design and practice these bridges that the relationship between the start-up and the large group will become more widespread.

(1) Sarasvathy Saras D., 2001, 2009