Research and analysis

Evaluation of the Cyber Runway programme

Published 4 August 2023

This was published under the 2022 to 2024 Sunak Conservative government

1. Executive summary

The Cyber Runway programme was initially funded by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) in 2021. It is delivered by Plexal as a bootcamp and accelerator programme for UK cyber sector businesses at different stages of the business lifecycle with three streams: Launch, Grow and Scale.

Launch: support to individuals to develop relevant entrepreneurial skills, meet potential co-founders, and establish new cyber businesses.

Grow: support to businesses to help them grow, access funding, and achieve commercial success.

Scale: support to help businesses grow rapidly in the UK and internationally.

The programme brought together three separate DCMS funded accelerators programmes - HutZero, Cyber101 and TechNation Cyber - into one single branded programme. This was enacted to enable a clearer application process for cyber companies; to deconflict the programmes and to maximise synergies and pathways between the cohorts.

In comparison to other challenge-based accelerator programmes the focus of Cyber Runway is providing entrepreneurs and cyber companies with the holistic skills, connections and development to launch, grow and scale their businesses. Cyber Runway also focuses on supporting both demographic and geographic diversity in the UK cyber sector to drive economic growth across the country.

The cohorts across the three streams demonstrated the diversity of the UK cyber sector with 40% of Launch, 42% of Grow and 65% of Scale companies having female co-founders and 55% of Launch, 55% of Grow and 40% of Scale having ethnic minority co-founders.

This evaluation report relates to the Cyber Runway programme in its initial year (2021/22).

Conclusions and recommendations against each of the core evaluation questions are outlined below.

1.1 Process evaluation

Was the programme delivered as intended? / How could it be improved?

The programme delivered the three phases of support as outlined in the contract between DCMS and Plexal. However, whilst there was sufficient demand for the Launch stream and overdemand for the Grow stream there was less demand for Scale. The higher numbers for Grow meant less tailored support was provided compared to Launch and Scale. This is reflected in participant survey feedback where more respondents in the Grow stream were dissatisfied with support in areas such as development of a personalised growth plan and indicated that the support provided was too general.

Recommendation 1:

We recommend that any future programme (1) limits Grow stream participants to a similar number as in Launch and Scale (approximately 20) or (2) re-designs this stream to provide more tailored support for participants.

While the programme was designed to be delivered virtually, it was impacted by COVID-19 which further limited the opportunity for face-to-face interaction and events. While virtual delivery generally worked well, participants felt they would have benefitted from face-to-face support which can be more intuitive, responsive, and personal. Participants emphasised that the opportunity to network with other businesses and with the mentors and experts provided them with the chance to exchange ideas and speak with those in similar positions.

What worked well, or less well, for whom and why? / Were there any unexpected or unintended issues in the delivery of the programme?

Several areas were identified as working well, including:

• the application process, which was assessed to be straightforward by participants
• the provision of opportunities for participants to engage with key industry figures and entrepreneurs (although more face-to-face needed – see below)
• meeting with a mentor and getting tailored advice from experts one-on-one
• the reporting arrangements – DCMS and the participating project teams were satisfied with the reporting arrangements, specifically monthly logframe reports which included data against the contractual key performance indicators (KPIs)

Several areas for development were identified, including the provision of:

• more mentoring and one-to-one support, including ensuring there is a consistent provision of quality mentoring and tutoring
• more access to potential investors and introductions to regional cyber hubs
• more face-to-face meetings with the programme team as well as the coaches and mentors
• an increased focus on internationalisation, and increased involvement of international partners
• greater clarity on timetables and content of each sprint, masterclass, or meeting
• more access to government stakeholders, to help businesses expand their network in the public sector
• better quality of information and planning in advance of mentor sessions, to help mentors better tailor their support

In relation to monitoring and data collection:

• targets were set for output measures in the Theory of Change (ToC), however the outcomes do not have targets and these should be developed
• Plexal collected data on the programme participants at the beginning and at the end of the programme via a participant survey, however this was not completed by all participants

Recommendation 2: we recommend that DCMS consider developing outcome targets for the programme with the delivery providers.

Progress should then be reported against these targets on a regular basis and should cover:

• enhanced business viability and short term investment (value of investments raised per company and total per cohort)
• increase in company revenue
• increase in productivity / revenue / profit
• self-reported changes in business knowledge / skills (both technical and business related)
• increased confidence, aspiration, and resilience to form and run businesses (such as using any business skills developed)
• additional measures to be developed for the individual Launch, Grow and Scale streams

Recommendation 3: we recommend a standardised monitoring template is provided by DCMS that includes the contractual KPIs, deadlines for delivery / achievement, and a RAG rating system to easily identify if KPIs and milestones are behind schedule.^{[footnote 1]} These should be completed monthly by the delivery organisation and returned to DCMS, if possible, via an online system to make it efficient to complete and centrally recorded.

What were the benefits/disadvantages of the programme being delivered virtually? What can be learned from the delivery methods used?

The programme was more accessible to those outside of the South-East of England due to it being delivered virtually. However, this also limited participants’ ability to network effectively.

Participants also felt they did not develop relationships with the programme leaders and the project team as well as they could have done face-to-face, while some also felt overloaded with material because of the online learning environment.

Recommendation 4: we recommend that any new programme considers if there can be a higher number of in-person networking events / opportunities designed specifically to build relationships between the programme leaders and mentors and participants.

How knowledgeable were trainers and mentors? How was their teaching? Did they have the right information to support businesses?

Most participants surveyed (80%, n=20) felt that the business knowledge of trainers and mentors was either ‘helpful’ or ‘very helpful’ in providing the right information and supporting firms in the programme.

However qualitative feedback was mixed, as while some highlighted the “quality of mentors and masterclasses was really good” others were less satisfied and felt “none of the team had substantial experience in the start-up world”.

Recommendation 5: we recommend the delivery partner collects ongoing feedback on the coaches, tutors, and delivery partners to ensure that participants are satisfied with the support provided and the programme is sufficiently tailored to their cyber security company and context.

Was the expected investment in time and resources for Cyber Runway manageable for businesses? Was this a fair investment for the benefit received?

Participant survey respondents felt the time and resources dedicated to the Cyber Runway programme was manageable and beneficial in helping them meet their objectives. However, this result may only be indicative as the sample size is small. One survey respondent stated they were unable to match the expected time commitment as event dates were often announced at short notice.

How did external factors influence the delivery and functioning of the programme?

The main external factor influencing programme delivery was COVID-19 (see above). However, another key factor was the budget available which limited the number and quality of speakers, often relying on volunteers. Therefore, the budget should be sufficient to cover these costs in the future.

1.2 KPI evaluation

Monitoring data was collated in logframe reports which included all KPIs specified in the contract between DCMS and Cyber Runway. The logframes include all ToC outputs and two outcomes (employee growth and revenue growth), however while the outputs have specific indicators the outcomes do not. Consideration should be given to incorporating outcome targets in the logframe reports.

It is not possible to assess the success of each programme stream in meeting their KPIs due to a lack of data on some of these as indicated in Table 9. However, out of the KPIs which have targets and consistent data:

• Cyber Runway Launch is most successful, having met four of five KPIs (it did not achieve 100% attendance at sessions)
• Cyber Runway Grow has met three of five KPIs (it did not deliver on getting 50% of participants from outside the South-East of England or 100% attendance at sessions)
• Cyber Runway Scale has met two of five KPIs (it did not deliver on 50% of candidates from outside the South-East of England, meeting the minimum number of applicants (40 per cohort), or 100% attendance at sessions)

All three strands have met or exceeded the target number of participants and diversity KPIs.

Has the Cyber Runway programme met its commitment to have 50% of candidates from outside London and the South-East of England?

Regional representation outside London and the South-East of England was achieved for the Launch stream (80%) however not Grow (42%) or Scale (40%). However in addition to this four regional events were held in Belfast, Scotland, Cardiff, and Sheffield to help address the regional imbalance in participation geographies. The targets were not met due to:

• there being a short timeframe to recruit a large number of companies for each stream
• Launch companies being more likely to be signposted from universities which are more regionally spread, leading to higher regional representation
• companies at the level of Scale being more likely to be based in the South-East and an insufficient number of regional companies applying

Has the Cyber Runway programme met its commitment to have a minimum of 30% female co-founders and 15% ethnic minority co-founders?

This was achieved across all of the 3 streams:

Launch	Grow	Scale
• Female co-founders: 40% • Ethnic minority co-founders: 55%	• Female co-founders: 42% • Ethnic minority co-founders: 55%	• Female co-founders: 65% • Ethnic minority co-founders: 40%

Has the Cyber Runway programme achieved a 90% favourable score on participant feedback questionnaire?

The Plexal participant feedback questionnaire did not collect data on favourability scores and the data available within the Plexal final report suggests this target has not been met.^{[footnote 2]} Specifically it outlines that:

• Cyber Launch presentations received an 8.2 out of 10 average “feedback score”
• Cyber Grow content “usefulness” was rated as an average of 5.6 out of 10
• Cyber Scale content “usefulness” was rated as an average of 8 out of 10 These figures reflect RSM participant survey feedback which found that 77% (n = 20) of 26 respondents were either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the overall structure of the programme, less than the 90% favourability target.

Did Cyber Runway achieve 100% attendance across the three streams?

This was not achieved in any month for any of the streams, however access to video recordings and materials was provided to all participants. This was not achieved in any month for any of the streams, however access to video recordings and materials was provided to all participants.

Launch	Grow	Scale
• 98% in November • 67% in December (live attendance) • 65% in January (live attendance) • 60% in February (attendance at coaching sessions)	• 88% in November • 42% in December (live attendance) • 40% in January (live attendance) • 60% in February (live attendance)	• 80% in November • 80% in December (live attendance) • 50% in January (live attendance) • 40% in February (live attendance)

While the RSM participant survey did not collect data specifically on reasons for non-attendance, a ‘mid-point’ participant survey completed by Plexal reported that Grow participants in particular thought the sessions were too general and would like more tailored content / material.^{[footnote 3]}

Recommendation 8: we recommend that:

(a) the programme becomes more focused on delivering the outcomes in the ToC where it has had a negligible contribution to date, specifically: increased revenue, increased internationalisation, increased investment and progression to an initial public offering (IPO)

(b) funding is provided to track the outcomes and impacts from the programme. It should be a requirement within the delivery partner contract to provide evidence of the longer-term outcomes being achieved at regular checkpoints, for example 1 year, 2 and 3 years after they complete the programme to provide evidence of the longer-term benefits.

What are the additional or unintended benefits of the programme? (Brand boost for participating on a government approved scheme)

Participating companies highlighted a number of key unintended benefits including:

• developing an understanding of how to apply for government frameworks
• adding new services to their portfolio by connecting with other companies via the programme and building a trusted network
• collaboration opportunities with other cohort members to bring together technologies and ideas

To what extent has the programme delivery improved under the Cyber Runway brand

Cyber Runway compares favourably to the predecessor programmes (HutZero, Cyber 101, and Tech Nation Cyber) with 42% (n=5) of the 12 coach and mentor survey respondents describing it as better while 50% (n=6) felt that bringing programmes together under the Cyber Runway brand had improved either visibility, consistency, or quality. However, the low number of coach and mentor survey respondents limits the strength of this conclusion.

1.4 Data collection

The evaluation survey received a low response rate, in part due to the survey fatigue of participants who had already completed a programme survey delivered by Plexal as well as feedback for other programmes they were participating in. Furthermore, as contact details were not collected it was not possible to complete more targeted telephone follow-ups of non-respondents.

Recommendation 9: we recommend that any future delivery organisation is required under their contract to:

• report on baseline performance metrics and track progress throughout the programme (this would allow for a robust assessment of whether the scheme is meeting its objectives)
• collect contact details (such as telephone numbers) for programme participants and their consent to be contacted at the end of the programme and 6 months later to track outcomes and impacts, and make them aware this is a requirement of participating in the programme
• collect contact details for applicants who were not successful and their consent to be contacted

Consideration should also be given to harmonising delivery partner and any external evaluation activities.

Recommendation 10: we recommend definitions of KPIs need to be set to ensure data provided is equivalent across all participants.

2. Introduction, terms of reference and methodology

2.1 Introduction

RSM Consulting LLP were commissioned by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS)^{[footnote 4]} to undertake independent evaluations of the CyberASAP, Cyber Runway and UKC3 programmes. The evaluations will help DCMS to understand the impact of these programmes and the findings will be used to inform the development of future interventions. This evaluation report relates to the Cyber Runway programme in its initial year (2021/22).

The Cyber Runway programme was funded by DCMS as a bootcamp and accelerator programme for UK cyber sector businesses at different stages of the business lifecycle. It is delivered in a series of online sessions across three strands and supplemented by regional bootcamps. Its first year (cohort) of delivery took place from October 2021 to March 2022.

2.2 Terms of reference

The specification for this evaluation stated that comprehensive evaluations of the CyberASAP, Cyber Runway and UKC3 programmes are required. The aims of the three evaluations are to:

• establish the success of each programme in meeting programme aims
• capture learning that contributes to the institutional knowledge base in the cyber security growth and innovation space
• inform decision making on future iterations of the programmes and feed in options to our business planning process for the suite of programmes to be run by the DCMS in the next financial year
• identify gaps in programme delivery
• outline recommendations on how each programme could be improved further
• identify current policy restrictions or barriers to growth in this space
• identify appropriate metrics to define success in future years

Specific research questions for the evaluation are outlined in Appendix A – evaluation questions.

2.3 Methodology

The evaluation methodology was agreed with DCMS and includes the following stages:

Scoping phase

(1) Project initiation meeting: the project commenced with a project initiation meeting involving the evaluation team and DCMS to review and agree the stages of the work, approach and timetable, access to information, and finalise arrangements for project management and progress updates.

(2) Desk research and analysis: review of the strategic and delivery context for the programme and mapping was conducted to identify other sources of funding available to support cyber security companies at different stages of growth.

(3) Review of programme documentation setting out rationale for funding measures: review of the programme business case, contract between DCMS and Plexal, project initiation document, and previous research / theories of change relating to the Cyber Runway predecessor programmes (HutZero, Cyber 101 and Tech Nation Cyber) to identify the rationale for the intervention and the outputs and impacts expected from it. Based on this, an evaluation framework was developed using a ToC approach detailing the activities, outputs, outcomes, and impacts expected to be delivered.

(4) Development of ToC: an online workshop was facilitated with DCMS staff involved in both the business case for funding and the design and management of the programme, to test and refine the draft ToC and associated metrics. The final ToC (see Appendix B – Theory of Change was used to inform the research tools that were developed, specifically the participant, unsuccessful applicant and coaches / mentors survey guides for the delivery partner and case study interviews.

(5) Evaluation plans for each programme: an evaluation plan was developed detailing the design and approach being taken to address the evaluation questions.

Data collection phase

(1) Analysis of programme monitoring information / impact information and published data: to inform the assessment of programme performance against its core KPIs (as per the Invitation to Tender) and those in the agreed ToC.

(2) Surveys and consultations: this involved - a survey of participants with 26 responses (response rate = 24%) (see survey used in Appendix C – Participant Survey - a survey of coaches and mentors with 15 responses (response rate = 33%). The survey group was weighted towards mentors (12) rather than coaches (4)^{[footnote 5]} (see survey used in Appendix D – Coaches and Mentors Survey) - an interview with delivery partner Plexal

Survey Methodology: the surveys were designed by RSM UK Consulting in collaboration with DCMS to collect evidence against the key evaluation questions and ToC metrics. Online survey links were distributed via Plexal, with three subsequent reminders by both Plexal and RSM.

Note: where ‘n=’ is used during survey analysis, it is signifying the number of respondents responding in a certain way / to a specific answer choice, rather than the entire respondent base. Where applicable, a base number has been provided in figure titles or in text to provide more general information on total number of respondents. This base number will occasionally vary from the overall survey participant number depending on relevance of the question and if respondents chose not to answer.

Participants survey profile:

Table 1: Cyber Runway participants respondents by region (base number = 26)

Region	Sample of Cyber Runway participants survey respondents - frequency[footnote 6]	% of survey respondents
Scotland	3	11%
Wales	1	4%
Northern Ireland	0	0%
North-West England	5	19%
North-East England	0	0%
Yorkshire and the Humber	2	8%
West Midlands	0	0%
East Midlands	0	0%
East of England	1	4%
South-West England	2	8%
South-East England	5	19%
London	7	27%

Table 2: Cyber Runway participants respondents by stream (base number = 26)

Stream	Sample of Cyber Runway participants survey respondents - frequency	% of survey respondents
Launch	4	15%
Grow	14	54%
Scale	8	31%

Coaches and mentors survey profile:

The professional background of coaches and mentors is presented in figure 1, with the most common answers being technical experts (47%, n=7) and founders or co-founders of a start-up (40%, n=6). Examples of backgrounds listed by those who selected ‘other’ included investors, university staff, and advisory board members.

Figure 1: Professional backgrounds of surveyed Cyber Runway coaches and mentors (base number = 15)

Coaches and mentors were also asked to provide their reasons for becoming involved in the programme. The most common reasons, cited by 73% (n=11) of the 15 coaches and mentors surveyed, were the enjoyment of mentoring others and the belief they could support participants using the professional skills they had developed.

The least selected reasons for involvement were being asked to participate by their employer and wanting to develop their own mentoring / coaching skills, with both being selected by 13% (n=2) of the 15 coaches and mentors surveyed.

(3) Counterfactual: a survey was issued to companies that were unsuccessful in their application to the Cyber Runway Programme (see survey used in Appendix E – Unsuccessful Applicant Survey. Due to the low response rate there were no material findings to include within the report (n=5; response rate = 12%).

(4) Case Studies: 5 in-depth case studies were developed to provide qualitative insight into the benefits of participating in the programme. These were selected to provide a representative sample across regions, sectors, level of engagement with the training provided, and project idea.

Table 3: Case Studies

Project	Sector	Engagement with training[footnote 7]	Project idea
Askari Blue	Cyber defence	Not known - monitoring data for Launch attendants does not include attendance per participant.	Idea uses nudges to help employees and individuals to avoid common cyber security pitfalls that attackers can exploit. They offer consultation, incident response, and various threat intelligence supports.
Cynalytica International Ltd	Internet of Things (IoT) / Operational Tech, Threat Intelligence, Security Ops and Incident Response	All four themes, 8 sessions.[footnote 8]	Cyber security and machine analytics technologies
Praeferre	Retail, travel, banking, insurance	All four themes, 13 sessions	App that enables individuals and businesses to manage the data they share and consent around this
CyberHive	Mobility, industrial IoT, Finance	100% of training	Cyber security technology provider, including VPN
Secure Impact	Offensive, Defensive and Consulting cyber security services	76% of training	Cyber security services: consulting, operations and incident response, threat intelligence

Analysis and reporting phase

• monitoring data for each programme by sector, geography, and company size: to assess performance against targets and to identify variations between cohorts, universities, and cyber security sectors
• analysis of secondary data: to supplement analysis and validate findings – Plexal’s data on programme participants’ KPIs was cross referenced with data sets such as Beauhurst, which tracks the funds raised by Cyber Runway companies, and the Orbis database, which provides detailed financial information about participants (in addition, the validity of the data was cross-checked with that obtained from the participant survey responses)
• contribution analysis: this was completed as an experimental exercise to determine the feasibility of completing a full contribution analysis in future years. It involved 3 key steps:

(1) the evaluation team developed contribution which describe the outcomes the Cyber Runway programme intends to achieve, and how the Cyber Runway programme intends to achieve them. The statements are based on the ToC outcomes and impacts (2) based on the data collected in the previous stages the strength of evidence was assessed against each contribution statement, as well as evidence of any other factors that have contributed. The evaluation then identified how strong Cyber Runway’s contribution to each statement was.

The strength of evidence was determined by reviewing:

• clarity
• frequency of a particular theme
• diversity of the stakeholders who provide the evidence (across cohorts, for example)
• emphasis placed on the evidence by stakeholders, for example if the stakeholder stressed that what they said was important to them
• the sources of evidence reported by stakeholders
• availability of the evidence across primary, monitoring, and monitoring information data

High strength of evidence includes:

• evidence that is articulated clearly and frequently, by different stakeholders without the need for probing
• where the survey findings show high rates of “strongly agree / disagree” and similar responses across different measures

(3) the contribution of the Cyber Runway programme to the expected results as described by each contribution statement was then assessed as strong, some, or negligible, with:

• strong contribution meaning that Cyber Runway programme activities contributed substantially to the observed results
• some contribution meaning that Cyber Runway programme activities contributed to the observed results but not substantially
• negligible contribution meaning that the Cyber Runway programme had no or minimal contribution to the result

The results are in Appendix F – Contribution Analysis, however as this is the first year of the programme and as the evidence on outcomes and impacts was not fully developed the contribution analysis results would not have provided an accurate measure of performance and therefore is not included within the findings.

• reporting: includes a progress presentation, interim and final reports, a final presentation, and a closing workshop with DCMS which will act as a learning event

Limitations

Participant survey challenges and limitations included:

• the small number of respondents, in part due to survey fatigue amongst Cyber Runway participants as:

  • Plexal had previously completed a separate survey of participants a few weeks prior to fieldwork commencing
  • some participants were also involved in the London Office for Rapid Cybersecurity Advancement (LORCA) evaluation project, meaning that they would have received several survey requests within a short timeframe

Actions to increase response rates included Plexal sharing the survey link via the alumni Slack channel and RSM directly issuing a targeted reminder to participants (it was not possible for RSM to complete telephone follow-ups as participant telephone numbers were not collected by the delivery partner).

However, as a result of the small number of respondents, survey findings are indicative and should not be taken to be representative of the whole population of the programme participants.

Reporting on impacts was limited due to insufficient data. With the programme in its primary year substantial outcomes and impacts are yet to be realised.

3. Rationale and programme overview

This section details the rationale for the Cyber Runway programme, the strategy and delivery context as well as an overview of other programmes in this space.

3.1 Review of the strategic and delivery context

3.1.1 Policy

The Cyber Runway programme was expected to, or had the potential to, contribute to several key national strategies, as set out below:

Table 4: Strategic context

Strategy	How the growth and innovation programmes are expected to contribute
National Cyber Security Strategy (2016 - 2021) - supports the creation of a growing, innovative, and thriving cyber security sector in the UK National Cyber Strategy 2022 – focuses on strengthening the UK Cyber Ecosystem	The Cyber Runway programme was expected to contribute to these strategies by supporting companies at each stage of their development and providing training and mentoring to entrepreneurs that will help to ‘create a cyber ecosystem in which cyber start-ups proliferate, get the investment and support they need to win business around the world [and], to provide a pipeline of innovation that channels ideas between the private sector, government and academia’. It was also expected to: • help improve the business skills and survival rate of early-stage cyber businesses and provide them with the skills to grow (pitching to investors, for example) • provide small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with access to investors and national / international networks
DCMS UK Digital Strategy (2022)	The Digital Strategy has a core vision to ‘make the UK the best place in the world to start and grow a technology business’, with a focus on the acceleration of tech start-ups and scale-ups. The Cyber Runway programme can contribute to this by supporting entrepreneurs, start-ups, SMEs and scale-ups across the UK to grow their cyber businesses. In addition, the Digital Strategy includes a focus on spreading digital prosperity and levelling up which is also reflected in the UK government 2022 White Paper ‘Levelling Up the United Kingdom’. This includes a commitment to stimulate innovation and productivity growth outside of the South-East of England. Cyber Runway is contributing to this by supporting innovators and entrepreneurs outside London and the South-East to export, network, and grow.

3.1.2 The UK cyber security sector growth and innovation space

The UK Cyber Security Sectoral Analysis published in 2022 suggests the UK cyber security sector is growing rapidly with:

• approximately 52,700 full time equivalents working in the cyber security sector (a 13% increase from the previous year), of which 64% work in large firms with over 250 employees
• an estimated revenue of £10.1 billion (an increase of 14% compared to the 2021 publication)

The UK has a reputation as a global leader in cyber security research, with 19 Academic Centres of Excellence in Cyber Security Research, four Engineering and Physical Research Council (EPSRC) - National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) Research Institutes, four Centres for Doctoral Training, the Centre for Security Information Technologies (CSIT) and the PETRAS National Centre of Excellence in Cyber Security of Internet of Things. The 2022 UK Cyber Security Sectoral Analysis also notes that investment in cyber security firms has increased, with over £1.4 billion being raised in 2021 across 108 deals. In addition, the sector is playing a critical role in responding to emerging cyber threats and challenges, and the rapid proliferation of connectable products.

However, research in 2020 found that significant long-term investments in other nations, especially the USA, France, and Germany, are leading to the development of large clusters of research excellence. This can pose a threat to maintaining the UK’s position as a leading nation for research and innovation in cyber security, given a potential brain drain from the UK. It suggests a need for the UK to further invest in cyber security research in various forms, including clusters of research excellence in cyber security, doctoral research funding to train future research and development leaders in cyber security, and national research facilities.

Challenges within the sector and the innovation landscape include:

• investment being skewed to larger companies - start-ups and SMEs receive considerably less investment than larger, more established firms as the 2022 Sectoral Analysis found that 85% of the total 2021 investments targeted large-medium firms
• a regional divide in the cyber security sector – for example, 33% of job postings are in London, with only 2% in Wales and according to the 2022 Cyber Sectoral Analysis, 53% of Cyber Security firms are registered in either London or the South-East, with only 2% of the firms in Northern Ireland
• the UK no longer having access to EU cyber security funding - this would have amounted to approximately €1.65 billion (available across the entirety of Europe) over the period 2021 to 2027^{[footnote 9]}
• difficulty commercialising academic research into cyber security – as it faces barriers related to access to funding, ability to dedicate time to market research and validation, and the need to balance teaching, research, and commercial activity^{[footnote 10]}
• the sector not being diverse – the cyber security skills in the UK labour market report for 2022 highlights that 22% of the cyber security workforce is female (compared to 30% across the digital sectors as a whole), but ethnic minorities make up 25% of the cyber security sector workforce, which is higher than 12% in the overall workforce, and 15% in the digital workforce, that ethnic minorities represent^{[footnote 11]}

3.1.3 Mapping of other programmes

Cyber Runway is part of a wider ecosystem of cyber security growth and innovation programmes across different stages of the ‘innovation pathway’.

Figure 2: Cyber security growth and innovation programmes^{[footnote 12]}

Cyber Runway supports companies at different stages of the business lifecycle through the Launch, Grow, and Scale strands. This follows the first stage of the innovation pathway, which focuses on pre-seed and proof of concept ideas. This area is covered by the CyberASAP programme, which supports the commercialisation of UK cyber security research into fully rolled-out commercial projects. Some participants of CyberASAP have moved on to Cyber Runway following completion of the programme. These interventions are also complemented by other government and private sector initiatives with a cyber security element, as illustrated in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Mapping of other programmes

Project name	Target group	Start and end date	Funders and funding	Expected outcomes
NCSC For Startups	Start-ups at all stages of maturity. Applicants must be registered as a UK company, with an active presence in the UK with technology and solutions that meet challenge areas.	The NCSC For Startups began receiving applications from 10 June 2021, and onboarded new companies over the course of 2021 and into 2022	NCSC and Plexal in partnership with Deloitte, CyNam, Hub8 and QA.	The aim is to bring together innovative start-ups with NCSC technical expertise to solve some of the UK’s most important cyber challenges. This programme supports NCSC’s mission to make the UK the safest place to live and work online. Through a combination of technical and commercial mentorship and introductions, the programme works with start-ups to: • develop and communicate their core product or service • facilitate introductions to companies and investors • create commercial growth opportunities
Tech Nation rising stars	Early-stage businesses that meet certain criteria.	Ongoing (start date n/a).	Tech Nation	Businesses benefit from significant profile raising on both a national and international level, as well as the opportunity to put the business in front of leading investors, influencers, and corporates. The programme works with other businesses to ensure the business is investor ready (via training and support).
Upscale	Promising tech companies headquartered in the UK.	Ongoing (start date n/a).	Tech Nation	Helps the UK’s most promising (mid stage) tech companies to accelerate their growth and unlock the key to scaling successfully by providing coaching, content, community, and connections.
Innovate UK smart grants	UK based innovative businesses that are destined for early, successful commercialisation, growth and exports.	Competition opened on Monday 17 January 2022 and closed Wednesday 13 April 2022	Funding is from Innovate UK, part of UK Research and Innovation - organisations can apply for a share of up to £25million.	Investing up to £25 million in the best game-changing and commercially viable innovative or disruptive ideas. All proposals must be business focused.
LORCA / LORCA Ignite	High potential British cyber start-ups.	LORCA was initially launched in 2018 and LORCA Ignite launched in 2021. The programme has now closed.	Launched by Plexal with funding from DCMS.	LORCA Ignite was an intensive scale-up programme aiming to accelerate the growth of a new wave of British cyber start-ups by combining government support with innovation expertise and access to investors/leaders to help businesses raise investment and generate revenue.

Cyber Runway contrasts with other programmes due to the breadth of support across different strands, with support available from concept and pre-revenue up to growing revenue and scale up.

3.2 Programme overview and funding

3.2.1 History / background to the programme

Cyber Runway was preceded by three distinct programmes that were funded by DCMS (HutZero, Cyber 101 and Tech Nation Cyber). A brief description of each programme is provided below.

• HutZero - a bootcamp aimed at transforming early-stage ideas into viable propositions and potential new businesses
• Cyber 101 - targeted at cyber security start-ups and aimed to refine business skills and strategies, along with creating connections between start-ups, industry and investors
• Tech Nation Cyber - a national scaleup programme aimed at accelerating the growth of smaller cyber security firms

Cyber Runway combines the benefits and lessons learned from these programmes into a single scheme, with three strands: Launch, Grow and Scale. To inform development of the programme, the Cyber Runway design team:

• reviewed reports and programme evaluations from HutZero, Cyber101, Tech Nation Cyber, as well as other programmes such as LORCA and CyberASAP
• undertook desktop research and interviews with cyber security companies, investors, and stakeholders to produce an analysis of what budding entrepreneurs/start-ups/SMEs and scale-ups need and to get an understanding of the target audience, course content, and the delivery format that suits them

3.2.2 Key outcomes / impacts expected

After the completion of each cohort, immediate KPI outputs can be measured and stipulated in the business case as:

• regional representation – 50% of candidates from outside London and the South-East
• diversity – a minimum of 30% female co-founders and 15% ethnic minority co-founders
• minimum delivery of cohort size – Launch (20), Grow (120), Scale (20)
• 100% attendance and completion of the course
• 90% positive feedback from attendees

Qualitative outcomes expected include new networks of companies developed in and between cohorts, companies developing business skills to support product development, and connections from companies to mentors, government, and investors. These are shorter term outcomes that are expected to be observable in the months following completion of each cohort.

Over the longer term (1-5 years), there is expected to be an economic impact on the companies involved, including on:

• revenue
• growth
• investment

No specific targets were set for the longer-term metrics. However, they can be measured against the baseline of companies not taking part in the programme, along with the general growth of the cyber security sector.

4. Cyber Runway process evaluation

This section details the Cyber Runway programme governance structure, key stakeholders, the application process, how the programme was delivered, and reporting requirements. It focuses on assessing whether the programme was delivered as intended and what could be improved in delivery.

4.1 Governance structure

The governance structure for the programme is outlined below:

Figure 3: Cyber Runway governance structure

Roles and responsibilities

Table 6 below provides further detail on the roles and responsibilities of each organisation.

Table 6: Roles and responsibilities

Stakeholder	Role
DCMS	• approval of course programme, structure and design • oversight management of the Cyber Runway programme, including regular logframe reviews, milestone evaluations and funding approval • participation in events and engagement with members to ensure strategic alignment with National Cyber Strategy

Core delivery team

Plexal	Plexal leads the delivery of Cyber Runway. Plexal Cyber is the digital platform used to deliver content and host events. As the supplier, they undertook research and consultations with cyber security stakeholders to understand and analyse needs of entrepreneurs, start-ups, SMEs and scale-ups. Drawing on the analysis, Plexal planned and then built a tailored programme; recruited participants; and delivered the programme. Plexal were also responsible for reviewing the programme’s impact.
Deloitte	In addition to the support Deloitte provided as a consortium member, they also provided access to their Ventures team and the 12 teams with specific Cyber domain expertise. This included Industrial (Operational Technology/IoT), Privacy/Data Security and Cloud/Infrastructure Security.
CSIT	A cluster of CSIT engineers provided automated and intimate sessions to Launch and Grow programmes to soundboard and test new initiatives in real time, advise on technical decisions and the direction of product development roadmap. CSIT also contributed to various areas across the Scale programme including academic masterclasses and value creation workshops.
CyLon	CyLon was a dedicated delivery partner for the Launch programme, delivering support to UK cyber entrepreneurs and early-stage businesses. The CyLon team worked with participants to identify who from within the global network would be best placed to help participants achieve their goals. Presenters were available to answer any questions during the session and after if/when needed through the CyLon team.

Source: Cyber academy phase 2: build / Plexal (city) Ltd (2021): Cyber Growth and Innovation Programmes Limited Technical Response

Overall mobilisation and delivery was led by Plexal and supported by programme managers across all three strands. The Launch strand was delivered by CyLon and supported by CSIT’s cross-academy team led by their academic liaison in residence. The Grow and Scale strands were led by Plexal and supported by CSIT and Deloitte’s technical, engineering, and academic resource. Other stakeholders such as Specialisterne and Seidea supported the delivery of the programme, ranging from the provision of mentors to the delivery of workshops.^{[footnote 13]}

Roles and responsibilities

The reporting structure and accountability mechanisms included:

• Plexal’s Cyber Advisory Board (formed from senior representatives of the previous LORCA Industry Advisory Board), which provided strategic advice and guidance and allowed alignment of approaches to aspects of the programme (such as equality diversity and inclusion content) with other Plexal initiatives and structures in place
• governance requirements (such as project delivery monitoring and risk mitigation, KPI reviews and participant feedback) being recorded and discussed as part of Logframe review meetings with DCMS, which took place monthly (this was in addition to bi-weekly project update meetings between Cyber Runway delivery team and DCMS)
• a Cyber Runway all-streams weekly check-in with representative leaders from Launch (CyLon and CSIT), Grow (Plexal) and Scale (Plexal)

4.2 Programme delivery

4.2.1 Key phases / stages

Table 7 below outlines the key phases of the Cyber Runway Programme.

Table 7: Cyber Runway key stages of design, development and delivery

Phase	Date planned	Actual date
Design of programme	May – September 2021	May – September 2021
Sign off of design	August 2021	August 2021
Go live	September 2021	October 2021
Application Timings	August – September 2021	August – October 2021
Delivery	September 2021 – February 2022	October 2021 – February 2022
Completion	25 February 2022	25 February 2022 (and graduation event on 1 March 2022)

There were no delays to the design stages and, while the application window closed one month later than planned, delivery was completed on time. Plexal feedback indicates the reason for this delay was a slippage in the contracting timeframe, with this extra time being used to ensure Plexal could meet the recruitment targets.^{[footnote 14]}

Plexal highlighted there were lessons throughout the process which were used to constantly update the programme design. For example, the introduction of more networking opportunities and one-to-one mentorship as a result of feedback received from participants. Specifically, more sessions were added for the cohort to meet each other and discuss their challenges, while the Cyber Runway team also added regular office hours to supplement that of the speakers to provide more one-to-one guidance.^{[footnote 15]}

4.2.2 Communications and promotion

Plexal pre-programme promotion included:

• an ongoing recruitment campaign on their social media platforms (Twitter and LinkedIn)
• promotion and virtual events held on their website, in an internal and external newsletter, and on the cyber portal
• external channels such as PR and media being used to promote the programme via a press release while partner outreach promoted recruitment to their audiences

Cyber Runway was promoted to candidates outside London and the South-East of England by accessing the cyber security sectoral analysis database to identify target companies, working with CSIT to access university networks, engaging with other programmes in the cyber security ecosystem such as CyberASAP and UKC3, and by working with corporate partners.

During the programme, Plexal had a ‘spotlight on members’ featured on their social platforms; posted milestone moment news stories to their website, promoted milestones on their internal and external newsletter, and shared news and milestones on their cyber portal. External channels also promoted the programme, with partners also sharing Plexal content on their channels.

At the end of the programme, Plexal posted a project wrap-up: highlights on their social media channels, their website and on the cyber portal as well as a press release. Overall: the programme had 18 pieces of press coverage, the website received over 7,000 unique page views^{[footnote 16]}, and social media posts made over 45,000 impressions.

Cyber Runway participant findings:

Awareness of the Cyber Runway programme

Data gathered from the programme participant survey indicates that Plexal’s pre-programme promotion and recruitment campaigns were effective in making cyber companies aware of the programme and attracting them to join. Most of the 25 respondents (60%, n=15) stated that their first introduction to Cyber Runway was through the delivery partner, Plexal. Other respondents (20%, n=5) were first made aware of the programme by DCMS and to a lesser extent (12%, n=3) by CyLon, whilst only 4% of respondents (n=1) were made aware directly from the government website and from the NCSC (National Cyber Security Centre).

Figure 4: How participants became aware of Cyber Runway programme (base number = 25)

4.2.3 Application process

Eligibility

Participant organisations must be a UK registered company or individuals with the right-to-work in the UK and have a commitment to grow their UK presence. Specific eligibility criteria applied to each programme is detailed below.

Launch criteria included:

• feasibility of the business idea / evidence to show it is worth pursuing
• skills and experience of the individual and team and how likely to deliver on the proposed idea
• programme fit relative to ability / desire to absorb support, attend sessions regularly, be coachable and contribute
• diversity of leadership team relative to the sector and other applications

Grow / Scale criteria included:

• how innovative relative to existing market solutions / how unique is the solution compared to competitors
• sustainability of the business relative to revenue generation and business model
• capacity relative to team strengths, ability to deliver solution and scale
• programme fit relative to ability / desire to absorb support, attend sessions regularly, be coachable and contribute
• diversity of leadership team relative to sector and other applications, especially underrepresented groups such as women and ethnic minority co-founders / executives

Other requirements for the Scale programme included:

• 10+ Employees
• revenue of £500,000 (n/a if seed funded)
• 2 Years, 20% Year-over-Year (YoY) growth

Application process

Recruitment emails were sent out to groups of potential participants including start-ups, investors, alumni, international cyber companies, and those who registered an expression of interest. These emails provided details on the programmes on offer, including deadlines and a hyperlink to book in a meeting to speak about their application.

Once application forms were received, they were scored based on agreed criteria and using the Monday.com platform. Recruitment for the Launch and Scale programmes involved follow up interviews while the Grow programme made selections based solely on the application process.

Selection criteria was applied using a scoring matrix to develop a shortlist of companies to take through to the assessment stage for each programme. The matrix assesses 5 core factors, including:^{[footnote 17]}

1. impact (relative to challenge area(s))
2. innovation (relative to existing market solutions)
3. sustainability (potential of business model/revenue)
4. capacity (team, leadership, ability to deliver)
5. programme fit (coachability, need and desire to engage)

Assessors reviewed applications and provided a score for each category on a one to five star rating (1 star = No, does not meet criteria. 3 stars = Maybe meets criteria or an average answer. 5 stars = Yes, definitely meets or exceeds criteria). Once the score threshold was met, the applicants would move to the next stage of the process. This next stage depended on the Runway programme stream, with:

• Grow applicants being subject to a final internal review amongst the team
• Scale and Launch applicants being subject to interviews with programme staff (through this process, the top 20 applicants progressed based on their combined interview and written application score)^{[footnote 18]}

Participants had access to the digital platform at all times for content and communications. Office hours and coaching provided individual, tailored support to Cyber Runway members.

Launch: Entrepreneurs received support with launching their business, building a minimum viable product, and creating a network. Programme content was intended to support individuals to develop relevant entrepreneurial skills, meet potential co-founders, and establish new businesses.

Grow: start-ups and SMEs received business support to help them grow, access funding, and achieve commercial success. This programme provided local activity, working with influencers across the UK such as clusters, universities, local enterprise partnerships (LEPs), and Chambers of Commerce. It addressed the business basics and covered other areas that are essential to the growth of cyber security businesses including guidance on areas such as:

• market validation
• access to finance
• marketing
• pitching
• sales techniques
• technical support
• HR and culture building

Scale: Scale-ups accessed support (including 1:1 mentoring) to help them grow rapidly in the UK and internationally. This programme aimed to target potential high-growth cyber security firms for inclusion in a single cohort to support them to address barriers to growth nationally and abroad. The cohort, a virtual accelerator, provided peer-to-peer learning, masterclasses led by expert scale coaches, virtual meetups, and targeted introductions to international opportunities.

Alongside a core curriculum, the Plexal team worked with participants to identify who from within the global network was best placed to help them achieve their goals. Participants also had access to mentors, the CSIT cyber range and technical and engineering support.

Post-programme support will also be available for start-ups and there are defined pathways for alumni enabling ongoing collaboration and impact with DCMS and its partners. These pathways include:

• careers and employment support
• referral or extension
• regional collaboration opportunities and go to market support
• the alumni programme

Cyber Runway participant findings:

Programme satisfaction

Survey respondents in the Grow stream were less satisfied with the support provided than those in the Launch and Scale streams.

Cyber Grow

Respondents were asked to provide their level of satisfaction with key areas of the programme. As shown in the following table, the aspects with the highest and lowest satisfaction ratings are the business masterclasses and industry introductions respectively.

Table 8: Participant satisfaction in areas of the programme where support was provided (base number= 14. However, base number is lower in some categories due to participants skipping the question)

Aspects of programme	% Not sure / not applicable	% Very dissatisfied	% Dissatisfied	% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	% Satisfied	% Very Satisfied
Business masterclasses (base number= 14)	0%	7% (n=1)	21% (n=3)	21% (n=3)	36% (n=5)	14% (n=2)
Virtual events (base number= 13)	23% (n=3)	0%	8% (n=1)	46% (n=6)	8% (n=1)	15% (n=2)
Presentation practice (base number= 12)	25% (n=3)	8% (n=1)	8% (n=1)	33% (n=4)	17% (n=2)	8% (n=1)
Industry introductions (base number= 12)	8% (n=1)	33% (n=4)	25% (n=3)	8% (n=1)	17% (n=2)	8% (n=1)
Support to develop your personalised growth plan (base number= 13)	8% (n=1)	15% (n=2)	15% (n=2)	62% (n=8)	0%	0%
Commercial support (base number= 13)	8% (n=1)	15% (n=2)	15% (n=2)	38% (n=5)	23% (n=3)	0%

Cyber Launch

Due to the small number of survey responses received from the Cyber Launch stream (n = 4) a detailed breakdown is not provided

Participants who responded to the survey were generally satisfied with all aspects of the programme. As per the analysis conducted on Cyber Grow respondents above, the three aspects of the programme with the highest level of satisfaction for Cyber Launch participants are:

• the one-to-one advice component of the programme (71% (n=5) were very satisfied and 29% (n=2) were satisfied)
• business masterclasses (57% (n=4) were very satisfied and 43% (n=3) were satisfied)
• the resource library (57% (n=4) were very satisfied)

Cyber Launch participants responding to the survey indicated no dissatisfaction on any aspects of the programme except for a respondent being dissatisfied with investor pitches.

Cyber Scale

• due to the small number of survey responses received from the Cyber Scale streams (n = 7) a detailed breakdown is not provided

Respondents expressed the highest level of satisfaction with:

• business masterclasses (of the 4 total responses, 75% were very satisfied and 25% were satisfied)
• the mentoring component (of the 4 total responses, 75% were very satisfied)
• the regional events (of the 4 total responses, 50% were very satisfied and 25% were satisfied)

Only one respondent from the Cyber Scale stream was very dissatisfied with the mentoring aspect of the programme.

However, it is important to note that the views expressed from responses to the survey questions above, while offering insight on satisfaction levels for the programme, should not be considered representative of the population of participants due to the small sample size of respondents.

Participant assessment of the capability of trainers / mentors / subject matter experts to support them

As shown in figure 5, 80% (n=20) of participants from all three programme streams felt trainers / mentors / subject matter experts were either capable or very capable.

Figure 5: Participant description of the capability of mentors / trainers / subject matter experts in providing support (base number = 25)

Although most respondents (80%, n=20) felt mentors and trainers were capable of providing support during the programme, qualitative responses regarding the quality of support provided by the project leads and coaches / mentors were mixed:

Some respondents expressed positive views of the coaches / mentors involved in the programme, including: “1-2-1 mentorship was great because you get guidance tailored towards your specific situation”.

However, others were less satisfied and one respondent noted: “the programme leads were equally clueless. This is quite opposite to my experience [on other programmes] a couple of years ago where the whole organising team were giving out cyber security-specific, sound advice. They had also brought in mentors at the time whose advice works till this date. None of that over here.”

Cyber Runway coaches and mentors findings: In response to a survey question asking how satisfied they were with the experience of being a coach or mentor on Cyber Runway, 93% (n=14) of the 15 coaches and mentors stated they were either satisfied or very satisfied.

Qualitative feedback on how their experience could have been improved included developing a stronger framework for mentors involved in the programme (introducing guidelines and expectations) and increasing the amount of information available to mentors on participants prior to contact with them.

Having a set of guidelines and expectations from mentors and more up-to-date information/background of the programme participants.

– Cyber Runway coaches and mentors survey respondent

I would have liked to have had more information about the specific expectations and challenges facing the individual companies to be able to tailor the 121’s better.

– Cyber Runway coaches and mentors survey respondent

Quite inconsistent with the amount of information available in advance of meeting the innovators - this is largely up to them to provide - but I could do better if I was given more information in advance of the sessions.

– Cyber Runway coaches and mentors survey respondent

This suggests a need to improve the quality of information provided by participating businesses. According to survey respondents, this would have allowed for an increase in the effectiveness of their sessions and therefore improve the quality of the programme itself.

When asked if they were satisfied with the information provided about the role of coaches and mentors, 73% (n=11) of the 15 respondents indicated they were satisfied or very satisfied and the remaining 27% (n=4) of respondents felt neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. Mentors and coaches had similarly positive views when asked if they were satisfied with the support they received, with only 7% (n=1) of the 15 respondents feeling dissatisfied. However qualitative feedback suggests that one potential area for improvement is the provision of ongoing feedback during the programme. Quotes from coaches and mentors include:

It would be good to find out how useful the companies found the sessions and also to get feedback over time on their progress.

– Cyber Runway coaches and mentors survey respondent

Perhaps more in the moment feedback from the audience after each session.

– Cyber Runway coaches and mentors survey respondent

Case study insights

In case study interviews, Cyber Runway participants were asked if and how support provided by the programme could have been improved. Potential areas for improvement identified by the participants include (1) more face-to-face meetings while not losing the virtual element of the programme, (2) increased focus on internationalisation, for instance through involvement of more international partners, (3) greater clarity on timetables and content of each sprint, masterclass or meeting, and (4) Plexal could make more use of its connections within government to bring more government stakeholders to the programme. This would be beneficial to participating businesses as it would allow them to expand their network in the public sector as well as the private sector. They suggested these improvements could help companies access more potential clients / markets and help plan their attendance better.

4.2.5 Data and reporting

Plexal collected monitoring information on participants at the beginning, midway point, and end of the programme, including information about the participants and their goals for participating in Cyber Runway, as well as feedback data on the delivery of the programme after each session.

Monitoring data was collated in logframe reports which included all KPIs specified in the contract between DCMS and Plexal. As such, there are no apparent gaps in the level of monitoring data that is required to be collected. The logframes specify targets for these KPIs and assess success or failure based on achievement of these targets.

The logframes report on all ToC outputs and on two outcomes (employee growth and revenue growth), however while the outputs have specific targets the outcomes do not. Consideration should be given to incorporating outcome targets in the logframe reports and progress reported against these on a regular basis.

DCMS feedback suggests the logframe reports provided a satisfactory overview of delivery. Where underperformance in KPIs was identified, for instance lower participation rates in the Grow element of the programme, DCMS were able to discuss this with Plexal to identify causes and possible solutions. Participants were also engaged via a mid-point survey to identify remedial actions for the future delivery of the programme and DCMS staff attended sessions delivered as part of the programme to gain first-hand understanding of the quality of delivery. Feedback from Plexal indicates in this instance the solution was to decrease cohort size, enable more tailored sessions on key challenge areas and facilitate more networking. As well as this, a desire for ‘meet the buyer’ / investor sessions was highlighted, with all of these aspects intended to be implemented in the next iteration of Cyber Runway.^{[footnote 19]}

Cyber Runway participant findings:

Reporting processes

Participant survey respondents were satisfied with the reporting arrangements for the programme, mirroring the results obtained for the questions about the application process.

A majority of the 24 respondents provided positive feedback when asked to rate their satisfaction with the frequency of reporting, the amount of information required, and the clarity of reporting requirements. However, as illustrated in figure 6, several respondents did not express a positive experience of the reporting arrangements set out for the programme. This is shown by:

• 29% were ‘neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’ (n=6), or very dissatisfied (n=1) with the frequency of reporting
• 33% were ‘neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’ (n=7) or very dissatisfied (n=1) with the amount of information to be provided
• 35% were ‘neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’ (n=7) or very dissatisfied (n=1) with the clarity of requirements (note - 23 respondents provided answers to this option)

Figure 6: Participant satisfaction with the reporting arrangements of the programme (base number = 24)

4.2.6 Factors impacting on programme delivery

Views on the impact of COVID-19 on programme delivery were mixed, with 10 survey respondents indicating it had no impact, while 8 respondents felt it had at least a moderate impact. Although survey respondents reported satisfaction with the virtual delivery of programme content, they were less satisfied with the reduction in face-to-face interactions and networking. Views of the coaches and mentors were also mixed on the impact of COVID-19 on programme delivery as 33% (n=5) of the 15 felt it had impacted delivery to a moderate extent, 27% (n=4) felt there was no impact at all, and 7% (n=1) felt it was impacted to a small extent. The remaining 33% (n=5) were unsure.

While 80% (n=12) of the 15 coaches and mentors were either satisfied or very satisfied with virtual programme delivery, it was also highlighted that interactive and networking-focused elements of the course were negatively impacted by virtual delivery:

Lack of emulation among entrepreneurs and networking opportunities to mingle and share experiences (moral support).

– Cyber Runway coaches and mentors survey respondent

More difficult to gain interaction between different members of the group.

– Cyber Runway coaches and mentors survey respondent

Less able to get to understand the personalities of the individual entrepreneurs

– Cyber Runway coaches and mentors survey respondent

What worked well in programme delivery

Participants valued the opportunity to engage with key industry figures and entrepreneurs as well as meeting with a mentor and getting tailored advice from experts one-on-one. Qualitative feedback highlights that those who accessed these supports felt they benefited from engagement with industry and discipline experts, as well as participating in networking events and masterclasses, for example:

The mentoring sessions and masterclasses. The founders speaking to us were clearly speaking from experience. And they are very willing to help when you reach out to them. 1-2-1 mentorship was great because you get guidance tailored towards your specific situation.

– Cyber Runway survey respondent

In person meet-ups gave by far the best opportunity to meet new people and establish business relationships

– Cyber Runway survey respondent

Feedback from the delivery partner suggests that, because of virtual delivery in response to COVID-19, the programme was able to reach people in the north of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, and international participants, noting “reaching people and for diversity and inclusion, getting people who don’t need to come to London to participate made a big difference”.

What worked less well in programme delivery

Participant survey respondents suggested the virtual delivery of the programme worked less well, noting that it limited the opportunity to develop relationships with the delivery team and meant there was a lack of human interaction and connections. Qualitative feedback included issues around a lack of awareness from programme leads on issues facing the coaches and mentors as well as a lack of person-to-person interaction, for example:

…In a real life environment, maybe the programme leads would have picked up that we are having difficulties. In a virtual setting, we haven’t really managed to develop any relationship with the programme leaders and project team.

– Cyber Runway survey respondent

Too much screen time. Not enough person to person interaction and networking.

– Cyber Runway survey respondent

In addition, 92% (n=12) of the 13 coaches and mentors who answered this question felt there were no gaps in the delivery process for the programme.

What improvements could be made to programme delivery

Areas for improvement highlighted by participant survey respondents included the need for more fundraising, marketing, one-to-one mentoring, and networking support. Qualitative feedback included:

Fundraising is one of the most important issues for start-ups in their quest for growth. This was not a priority of the program…

– Cyber Runway survey respondent

I think there was a lack of networking participation or introductions to potential prospects who might have been interested in our company and solutions. The programme seemed to be geared towards start-ups with an engineering or product focus that could be capitalised on by investors.

– Cyber Runway survey respondent

…I think the content of the programme could have reflected the specific difficulties minority founders are struggling with, even if this would have meant that speakers would have been recruited from the minority founders community, who share our experiences…

– Cyber Runway survey respondent

However, areas highlighted by the coaches and mentors survey respondents included an increased emphasis on engineering in future versions of the programme, and an expansion of its focus beyond the ‘Scale’ element of Cyber Runway:

Engineering support offered to more than just Scale - one company I mentored on another programme would have really benefited from it

– Cyber Runway coaches and mentors survey respondent

4.2.7 Delivery of predecessor programmes^{[footnote 20]}

Cyber Runway was preceded by three distinct programmes that were funded by DCMS: HutZero, Cyber 101, and Tech Nation Cyber.

HutZero

Delivered by CyLon in partnership with CSIT, HutZero supported cyber security start-ups and projects with week-long bootcamps including workshops and mentoring from 2016 to 2021. Following the bootcamp, participants were supported with three months of mentoring from experts in academia, business, government, and investors.

Cyber 101

Cyber 101 was delivered by Digital Catapult in partnership with Inogesis, CSIT, and The Accelerator Network. It ran from 2017 to 2021 and supported small to medium sized cyber security companies to help them improve their financial strategies, go-to-market approach, and to build their networks. Support offered to participating companies in each programme year included business skills bootcamps, deep dives, mentoring and expert time to build and share knowledge, and demo days for selected participating companies to pitch their solutions.

Tech Nation Cyber

Tech Nation Cyber was designed and delivered as a six-month programme for cyber security companies that already had over 10 employees and a minimum revenue of £500,000 or existing seed funding. The programme was run in two years, 2019 and 2020. Each year, Tech Nation Cyber identified and encouraged companies that met the criteria to apply. Following application, the most promising – those with the potential to grow fastest – were selected to take part. The programme itself consisted of workshops, meetups, cohort trips in the UK and internationally (albeit delivered virtually in 2020 due to COVID-19), and networking opportunities. The content of the events was determined by a ranking of challenges that participants said they faced, so that the programme’s offer was tailored to the actual needs of companies.

Cyber Runway coaches and mentors feedback

As shown in figure 7, 58% (n=7) of coaches and mentors surveyed for this question had worked on HutZero, 17% (n=2) had worked on Cyber 101, and 8% (n=1) had worked on Tech Nation Cyber. In addition, 67% (n=8) had also participated in other programmes. The most common answers include:

1. London Office for Rapid Cyber Security Advancement (LORCA)
2. CyLon
3. National Cyber Security Centre Accelerator

Figure 7: Which programmes these coaches and mentors worked on outside of Cyber Runway (base number=12)

Reviews of how Cyber Runway compared to the other programmes were relatively positive, with 8% (n=1) describing it as much better and 42% (n=5) of the 12 respondents for this question describing it as better. However, it is important also to recognise that 42% (n=5) felt that Cyber Runway was neither better nor worse than the other programmes.

As shown in figure 8, respondents were asked to provide reasons for their response, with the results from the 10 survey respondents demonstrating that:

• 60% (n=6) of respondents felt that bringing programmes together under the Cyber Runway brand improved either visibility, consistency, or quality
• selections outside of these improvements listed above were rather dispersed, with better coordination at 20% (n=2) as well as improved content and improved awareness amongst entrepreneurs and businesses both at 10% (n=1)

Figure 8: Reasons for the coaches and mentors’ opinion on Cyber Runway programme delivery (base number= 10)

4.3 Summary of key findings

The programme has been delivered effectively with positive feedback from participating businesses and from mentors and coaches. In particular, participants valued masterclasses and mentoring support which provided practical advice founded in experience. Participants also stressed that the opportunity to network with other businesses, and with the mentors and experts, provided them with the chance to exchange ideas and speak with those in similar positions.

The main external factor affecting delivery was COVID-19 which limited the opportunity for face-to-face interaction and events. While virtual delivery generally worked well, participants felt they would have benefitted from face-to-face support which can be more intuitive, responsive, and personal.

Minor improvements to the programme delivery include an even stronger focus on mentoring and one-to-one support as well as more access to potential investors and introductions to regional cyber hubs.

5. Cyber Runway impact evaluation - performance

This section provides an overview of the performance of Cyber Runway against its KPIs, delivery objectives, and outputs as specified in the programme ToC. The sources used are based on monitoring information which Plexal submitted to DCMS, including logframe reports as well as survey, interview, and case study data.^{[footnote 21]}

5.1 Performance against key performance indicators

The programme logframe and wider data provided by DCMS suggests that Cyber Runway’s performance is varied across its three component parts, Launch, Grow and Scale. The number of participants and their diversity are as expected or better, while regional representation and attendance rates are below levels initially targeted. The following table assesses performance against the delivery partner contracted KPIs based on data submitted in the logframes to DCMS.

Table 9: Performance against KPIs (2021/22)

Indicator	Launch	Grow	Scale
1) Regional representation – 50% of candidates from outside the South-East of England	80%	42%	40%
2) Minimum number of applicants – 40 per cohort	45	75	32
3) Minimum number of individuals in each cohort	Target: 20 Actual: 20	Target: 15 Actual: 67 (digital / virtual) Target: 60 (at national events / not part of the virtual cohorts)[footnote 22] Actual: 71 (across the 4 events and not part of the virtual cohorts)	Target: 20 Actual: 20
4) Diversity – minimum 30% female co-founders and 15% ethnic minority co-founders	Female co-founders : 40% Ethnic minority co-founders: 55%	Female co-founders: 42% Ethnic minority co-founders : 55%	Female co-founders: 65% Ethnic minority co-founders: 40%
5) 100% attendance at sessions	98% in November 67% in December (live attendance) 65% in January (live attendance) 60% in February (attendance at coaching sessions)	88% in November 42% in December (live attendance) 40% in January (live attendance) c. 60% in February (live attendance)	80% in November 80% in December (live attendance) 50% in January (live attendance) c. 40% in February (live attendance)
6) 100% completion rate[footnote 23]	100% (based on Plexal’s view of engagement with the programme)	99% (based on Plexal’s view of engagement with the programme)	100% (based on Plexal’s view of engagement with the programme)
7) Connections made per individual, and value of connections (subsequent investment) – 2 and a combined value exceeding programme costs (Plexal do not have a time limit on recording value of investment related to cost, and intend to record individual company impact on an ongoing basis)	86% of participants who responded to Plexal’s end of programme survey reported making new contacts. None of these led to direct financial value. Unable to say how many connections were made.	Plexal’s mid-programme survey data suggests 28 (55%) of 51 participants who completed the survey made connections. 17 (61%) of those who made connections made 2 or more connections. Only two of those appear to have reported financial value from these connections – one a £240 sale and one c£7,000 worth of sales.	Plexal’s end of programme survey data suggests 11 (79%) of 14 participants who completed the survey made connections. The number of connections made is unclear. One participant suggested they saved c. £10,000 worth of recruitment fees as a result.
8) Participant feedback – 90% favourable score on participant feedback questionnaire	No favourability scores were collected by Plexal. Plexal’s end of year report shows that presentations received an 8.2 out of 10 average “feedback score”.	No favourability scores were collected by Plexal. Plexal’s end of year report shows that content “usefulness” was rated as an average of 5.6 out of 10.	No favourability scores were collected by Plexal. Plexal’s end of year report shows that content “usefulness” was rated as an average of 8 out of 10.[footnote 24]
9) Revenue before and after the programme	Data on this was not collected as entrepreneurs in the Launch stream had not formalised their businesses yet and therefore did not have revenue.[footnote 25]	Plexal’s end of year report notes that 20% of participants reported increased revenue, with the average increase being £68,700	Plexal’s end of year report notes that 45% of participants reported increased revenue, with the average increase being £333,333.
10) Number of employees before and after the programme	Data on this was not collected as entrepreneurs in the Launch stream had not formalised their businesses yet and therefore did not have registered employees[footnote 26]	Plexal’s end of year report notes 22% of participants reported increased numbers of full-time employees, the average increase being 1.7.	report notes 71% of participants reported increased numbers of full-time employees, the average increase being 5.4.

Source: Cyber Runway Programme logframe March 2022. Plexal end of programme report, Grow mid-programme survey, Scale end-of-programme survey. Note, indicators 9 and 10 are longer term KPIs which can only be measured in the years after completion of the programme.

Of the three component parts of the Cyber Runway programme:

It is not possible to assess the success of each programme stream in meeting its KPIs due to a lack of data on some of these as indicated in table 9. However, out of KPIs for which there are targets and consistent data:

• Cyber Runway Launch is most successful in its achievement of KPIs to date it has met four of five KPIs
• Cyber Runway Grow has met three of five KPIs
• Cyber Runway Scale has met two of five KPIs

All three programmes are not achieving 100% attendance at sessions however all three strands have met or exceeded the target number of participants and diversity KPIs.

Further detail on performance against key indicators is provided below.

Regional representation outside of South-East England – regional representation outside London and the South-East of England was achieved for the Launch stream (80%) however not Grow (42%) or Scale (40%). This was due to:^{[footnote 27]}

• the short timeframe to recruit a large number of companies for each stream
• Launch companies being more likely to be signposted from universities which are more regionally spread, leading to higher regional representation
• companies at the level of Scale being more likely to be based in the South-East and insufficient regional companies applying

However, in addition to the virtual cohorts, four regional events were held in Belfast, Scotland, Cardiff, and Sheffield to help redress the balance and have adequate representation and opportunity for companies from outside the South-East.

For Launch, this indicator counts any team or individual participant that is not completely based in South -east England against its actual achievement. For example, three of the 16 teams based outside of the South-East England still have team members who are based in the South-East. Once these are considered, 13 of 20 teams are based outside the South-East of England but still in the UK – a rate of 65%.

Minimum number of individuals in each cohort - there are 30 individuals in 20 Launch teams.

Attendance at sessions - access to video recordings of sessions and materials was provided to all participants. While attendance levels were not 100% at all sessions the logframe lists this KPI as a “Pass” because they had the potential to view all sessions and materials.

Minimum number of individuals in each stream - the Grow digital stream appears to significantly exceed its target.

Feedback from the delivery partner suggests the targets set were stretching in the early stages (for example c. August/September), noting it was challenging to recruit a minimum of 20 for Launch, minimum of 60 for Grow, and minimum of 20 for Scale, plus an additional 60 that were supposed to be in person. Moreover, recruiting more women and people from ethnic minority backgrounds was identified as a challenge.

5.2 Performance against the theory of change

5.2.1 Activities and outputs

Cyber Runway’s activities and outputs completed compare favourably with activities and outputs completed by Cyber Runway’s predecessor programmes, as detailed in the following table.

Table 10: Activities and outputs (HutZero, Cyber 101, Tech Nation Cyber)^{[footnote 28]}

Programme (Runway equivalent)	Activities and outputs	Notes and comparison
HutZero (Launch)	• 85 workshops delivered in years 1-4 with 111 mentors • in years 1-4, 19% of applicants were female • 17 masterclasses delivered in year 6, with a total of 45 mentors • in year 6, 136 mentoring sessions were held [No data was available for year 5].	• Launch delivered 81 personalised coaching sessions for its 20 participants, drawing on 13 mentors • when considering the smaller number of participants in Launch compared to HutZero’s last year (20 vs 27), this personalised mentoring is broadly comparable
Cyber 101 (Grow)	• in years 1-3 a total of 34 activities (bootcamps, deep dives, demo days) were delivered • in each of the years 2018, 2019 and 2020, ten participants were able to pitch to potential partners or clients to showcase their products • in years 1-3, 80 mentors from 50 organisations including BAE Systems, PwC, TechUK and others participated in the programme	• Grow’s programme was largely held virtually • 4 regional events took place in Belfast, Scotland, Cardiff, and Sheffield
Tech Nation Cyber (Scale)	• the activities included 13 events and two trips (one to Belfast and one to New York) and 17 events in year 2	• similar activities were delivered for Scale participants however there was no international trip • activities included 40 hours of expert time for participants, showcases for 6 participants at Capita Scaling Partners, and a “Women in Cyber” event

5.2.2 Outcomes for participants

This section outlines the reported outcomes and impacts for Cyber Runway participants. It also considers any unintended benefits and negative outcomes, and how delivery could be improved to enhance the outcomes achieved.

Most significant outcomes

Case study insights: for case study participants, the most beneficial aspect of the programme has been the ability to network with other business participants, with investors, and with potential partner companies. Many also said that they developed their business skills and knowledge while also building their confidence in existing skills.

Case Study – Praeferre: improving the network with corporates

About Praeferre

Praeferre’s product helps consumers easily manage their digital privacy across the digital tools and applications that they use online. The company was incorporated in March 2021. By September 2021, Praeferre’s product prototype was ready and the company wanted to know whether there were growth and business partnership opportunities in any specific sectors.

Praeferre took part in Cyber Runway Grow

Context and challenges faced

As a start-up, Praeferre needed to develop its minimum viable product and learn the steps needed to scale and launch it widely. This included identifying ways to pilot test the product before rolling it out, as aligning it with industry needs and the products that consumers use is key to Praeferre’s success. In order to conduct these steps, Praeferre sought to identify companies with which to network and start conversations. Particular areas that Praeferre is interested in for collaboration opportunities are retail, banking, financial services and insurance, mobility, and smart homes sectors.

Cyber Runway helped us define our future roadmap

The company were aware that it had commercial blind spots which it needed to address to ensure the success of its offer. However, another challenge Praeferre faced was the need to raise funds to complete all the steps required to launch its product.

Impacts of Cyber Runway Grow on Praeferre

Praeferre singled out product development support and networking as the most beneficial aspects of the Cyber Runway Grow programme. As a result, the most significant benefit the company experienced was an improved network. Cyber Runway helped to connect with companies like IBM and with stakeholders within DCMS. While the conversations have not resulted in new funding so far, Praeferre is confident that discussions entered with potential funders will lead to investment over the next six months. The company has also now been shortlisted for international pilot projects with UKRI and Cambridge University but needs to raise the necessary funding in order to build the team needed to complete these projects.

Most significant is the network that we built through the programme, we have people from DCMS, IBM and Plexal for example which wouldn’t have been possible otherwise.

Because of the introductions made through Cyber Runway, Praeferre is now in conversations with potential partners to pilot test its product.

In addition to forging a wider and stronger network, Praeferre also reported that it has learned how to prioritise the steps it needs to take before launching its product. While the company was aware of what was needed before, it now feels better equipped to apply its previous knowledge.

How Cyber Runway helped Praeferre achieve its objectives

Through networking and conversations with organisations and people met as part of the programme, Praeferre was able to better plan and roadmap the further development of its product. For instance, the team was aware of potential features that could be added to the product. However, it was uncertain whether to build these features in before launch or to add them after launch. Conversations with a wider network helped Praeferre to determine the best course of action.

Praeferre stressed that when applying to the programme, they had clear objectives and communicated these to DCMS. They suggested that having such specifically formulated objectives was useful in then being able to achieve the desired results.

How the programme could be improved

Praeferre pointed to two areas that could have further improved Cyber Runway’s usefulness to the company. These included direct introductions to venture capitalists as well as large corporations who may have faced a specific challenge. Praeferre expanded on the latter suggestion by saying that Runway participants could then work with the corporate company to identify ways to address the challenges they face.

In terms of external factors, Praeferre pointed to COVID-19 which limited the opportunities for face-to-face meetings. The company mentioned no other external factors that affected their experience and were very positive about the Cyber Runway delivery team and pointed out that they “want to build a relationship not just for 3 months but for 3-4 years.”

Future development objectives and lessons learned

Over the coming years, Praeferre is planning to grow the team in the UK and abroad. The key upcoming milestones are a product launch in the UK and subsequently expanding the footprints in the EU, USA, and Asia and Pacific.

Through its participation in HutZero, which Praeferre had completed prior to Cyber Runway with a view to validating its product idea, as well as Cyber Runway, Praeferre learned that it is important to formulate multiple short team goals and objectives that support a longer-term objective.

Long term goals depend on how you are achieving short-term goals.

In addition, Praeferre became more aware of the variety of businesses and products in the cyber security sector. Awareness of this variety led the company to realise that it is important to have an open mind about potential partners as collaborations always bear potential for fast product growth.

What would have happened without Cyber Runway?

Praeferre stressed that they would participate in similar Cyber Growth programmes in future, as they intend to integrate their product into government online tools and applications. Without Cyber Runway, Praeferre would not have had the opportunity to have conversations with large corporate businesses regarding piloting its product before commercial launch. Through both HutZero and Cyber Runway, Praeferre developed its plan for product development and launch.

The programme has given us clarity of direction. Cyber businesses should apply to this programme, don’t know how helpful it is unless you join the programme.

Increased confidence, aspiration, and resilience to form and run businesses (to use any business skills developed, for example)

Several key trends can be identified from the participant survey responses, as shown by the fact that:^{[footnote 29]}

Case Study – Cyberhive: developing the company’s understanding of potential clients

About Cyberhive

Cyberhive was launched in 2017. The company develops and offers products that help organisations that want to move into the cloud to do so securely. Cyberhive’s products focus on building trust among users of cloud solutions so that they can be confident of the integrity of their data and information. Currently (June 2022), 26 people work at Cyberhive and the company has 4 open roles. Over the past year, Cyberhive’s revenues have seen strong growth in particular for recurring sales. For this case study, the evaluation team spoke to a member of the company’s senior management.

Cyberhive took part in Cyber Runway Scale. The support offered by Cyber Runway was timely and helped Cyberhive boost its network and improve how it plans business activities.

Context and challenges faced

Cyberhive experienced personnel, revenue, and investment growth in the years leading up to its participation in Cyber Runway Scale. In 2018, Cyberhive (then with 4 employees) realised that in order to grow the company and build its product further – an intrusion prevention product – it needed to secure investment. After having successfully attracted angel investment, Cyberhive grew its workforce to 9 people by 2020 and, in the same year, it was profitable once more.

Following that initial round of investment, the company attracted an additional £1.85 million in seed investment. In order to secure this investment, Cyberhive participated in LORCA where it developed a relationship with Plexal and learned about Cyber Runway.

Prior to Cyber Runway, Cyberhive was confident in its product and that it would help its clients prevent intrusions. However, the company was less clear on the market fit for its product: therefore, a key focus was improving product management, refining the product’s market fit, and developing the right messaging for its product. These aspects were the key challenges faced by Cyberhive and the reason for participating in Cyber Runway.

We have strong products but […] it was about scaling the commercial side of the organisation.

Therefore, Cyberhive participated in Cyber Runway with a view to improving the commercial business skills of its team, many members of which were new to the company due to recent growth.

Impacts of Cyber Runway Scale on Cyberhive

While Cyberhive achieved its objective of developing its commercial business skills through Cyber Runway, in particular its ability to develop stronger messaging about its products, these anticipated benefits were not the most significant ones. Other, unanticipated benefits were even more important: by taking part in Cyber Runway, Cyberhive was able to network with organisations and potential clients who would otherwise not have responded to the company. This included large financial services companies.

Area of most benefit was continued interactions with the Plexal team and other companies that Plexal can introduce us to. For example, Plexal got us involved in conversation with financial sector companies. We wouldn’t be able to have these links and connections without Plexal and these DCMS funded programmes. A small 30-person cyber security company can’t always get a foot in the door but once we do it’s easy to prove our credibility because of the clients we already have, including in government.

Cyberhive acknowledged that this unanticipated benefit is not a direct result of participating in Cyber Runway. However, it stressed that it would not have occurred in the absence of their participation in the programme. The company would likely be doing similar activities it is conducting at the moment but “not as well”.

With an improved understanding of who the potential clients for its products are, Cyberhive felt that over the longer-term future it will be able to further focus its activities on the most relevant market sectors. In addition, the company left Cyber Runway with a stronger and more strategic approach to selecting appropriate partners for its business. This will help the company strategize its growth successfully. Over the more immediate term future, Cyberhive intends to further recruit new team members especially into its sales team.

How Cyber Runway helped Cyberhive

Cyberhive held very positive views about the Sprint format of the support provided by Cyber Runway. In Cyberhive’s view, the combination of initial meetings to clearly define the challenges faced by participants, along with workshops at which experts discussed these challenges was successful. The company also stressed that more informal fireside chats were useful to discuss particular issues in depth and to learn how companies who have faced similar challenges addressed them.

It’s a good hybrid of education and ability to communicate with others and get in depth on certain topics that are challenges to your company.

While Cyberhive did not find all six Sprints equally beneficial, this was not due to the quality of the content or the format of the sprints. Instead, two of the Sprints focused on business aspects that Cyberhive already felt proficient in: these particular, less useful, Sprints were focused on raising investment and product development. On the one hand, Cyberhive was already confident in its product due to prior programmes participated in, including LORCA. On the other, the company’s senior management already had investment experience and successfully raised investment in the years prior to Cyber Runway.

Reflecting on wider lessons learned through participating in Cyber Runway, Cyberhive noted that participants should not underestimate the amount of time and work it takes to implement what they heard about at such business support programmes. In relation to this, Cyberhive said that it is important that participants invest sufficient time into programme events and implementing lessons after the programme concludes.

You get out of these programmes what you put in. We allocated people to go to certain events, I went to about half, people in sales and products went to certain events that were related to those areas. It’s important to keep eyes open when going into these programmes. It’s a time commitment but we wouldn’t have done a second programme [Cyber Runway] if we didn’t think we would benefit.

What could be improved

Cyberhive noted some particular areas in which Cyber Runway Scale could potentially be improved but stressed that this did not mean they felt the programme was not successful or well designed and delivered. One potential improvement related to further developing the hybrid nature of the programme: Cyberhive recognised that COVID-19 limited the number of face-to-face meetings that were possible, but also noted that they felt that remote, virtual programme elements were also beneficial. Such remote elements allow companies that are located across the UK to access the programme easily. At the same time, Cyberhive felt that some content is always best delivered face-to-face, including networking events. In addition, Cyberhive suggested that the programme could have a stronger international focus through inclusion of trade missions. While international trade is not a responsibility of DCMS, Cyberhive felt that involving the Department for International Trade (DIT) in similar programmes would be beneficial for companies who are scaling their operations.

I have gone on trade missions with DIT and they organised opportunities for us to pitch to companies and also one to one meetings with interested individuals and I think Plexal has the opportunity to do that and they underestimate how valuable that is for some companies.

Finally, Cyberhive pointed out that, while it was of benefit to them to network with private companies that they would otherwise not have been able to access, it may be useful to consider leveraging Plexal’s and DCMS’ cross-government connections to also introduce participants to potential government clients.

Similar programmes Cyberhive has accessed

Cyberhive has participated in numerous government and private sector business support programmes. These have included LORCA and a PwC-run scaling programme. In addition, the company has secured grants from Innovate UK and has partnerships with universities, including Oxford University. It also partners with organisations such as Tech UK. Each of these programmes and partnerships focus on different aspects, from general business support to support for developing go-to-market strategies. Cyberhive stressed that it would not be possible to participate in programmes like LORCA and Cyber Runway continuously due to the time commitment. However, these programmes offered the company significant opportunities to train its new and existing staff in specific skills areas that have supported its growth since 2017.

Qualitative feedback also indicated how some businesses were able to collaborate with other firms and to add new services to their portfolios:

Meeting other participants in the programme brought potential opportunities for collaboration, including bringing technologies together such that the combined offering may be considerably better than the sum of its parts!

– Cyber Runway survey respondent

Case Study – Askari Blue: finding market fit

About Askari Blue

Askari Blue is a start-up whose idea is to use nudges to help employees and individuals avoid common cyber security pitfalls that attackers can exploit. This approach acknowledges that humans are the ones who “push the buttons” and are therefore potential weak points in a companies’ cyber security system. Askari Blue is already set up as a company with a product that is developed. The company considered whether to join the Launch or Grow components or Cyber Runway and after discussions with the Runway team decided to join Cyber Runway Launch

Context and challenges faced

With a developed product, Askari Blue, as a start-up that is already incorporated as a company, needed to understand what the right market for its product is. The team, which has fluctuated in numbers and has included employees and consultants, conducted conversations with its existing network prior to Runway but suggested that they were struggling to properly interpret what it was hearing.

Effectively, we were a little lost, spoke to loads of people and couldn’t translate what they were saying. We were looking for direction and guidance.

Impacts of Cyber Runway Launch on Askari Blue

For the team behind Askari Blue, the most important benefit was an increased confidence in the skills and knowledge they already had. Another important result was speaking with other teams, businesses, and experts about approaches to defining the best product-market fit. While Askari Blue stressed that they were not able to definitively answer the market fit question, they did feel that conversations helped to refine it.

We are at [a] pivot point, a transition, I feel that I’ve learnt to fail fast and learn quick.

Askari Blue does not need to raise investment from venture capitalists or other finance sources – the product is already developed. This means that the team has options for next steps: it can seek to refine the existing product to meet market-fit or work to identify new opportunities.

How Cyber Runway helped Askari Blue

A stand-out aspect of the programme was using the lean canvas technique within a workshop setting. Another was learning from other teams how they approach collecting information about potential clients, storing that information, and analysing it. For Askari Blue, much of the content was not new, but nonetheless it was useful: in some cases, for instance regarding the use of the lean canvas, the team had not been using aspects of the technique correctly until Cyber Runway. They suggested that this improved knowledge will be useful when working to better define its product’s market fit.

How the programme could be improved

The main areas for improvement that Askari Blue suggested concerned the timeframes for the programme and how its content is communicated. Rather than running the programme events over a longer period, the participant felt it would have been better to run the programme as a bootcamp over a period of a week.

I know they transitioned from multi-month launch to a weeklong bootcamp. I think that’s totally the right decision.

The second area for improvement was communicating the content of each session and the overall purpose of the sessions as well as ensuring that invitations for events were fully synchronised with all participants’ calendars. Askari Blue’s participants noted that their invitations were sometimes not working which meant they relied on others in their networks to inform them of upcoming dates. They also suggested that it was not always clear what content would be covered in up-coming programme sessions.

Considerations on other programmes

Askari Blue has not accessed similar cyber security support sources. They are considering NCSC for Startups as a next step, but feel that it may be better to first gain customers. The business has been involved with the Midlands Cyber Security Cluster, which enabled Askari Blue to attend Infosec. Furthermore, it has accessed two local support programmes for small businesses, although such support appears mainly to help traditional businesses and not a ‘start-up’. Generally, however, Askari Blue stressed that they would use similar programmes again in the future. In closing, Askari Blue compared the UK approach to that taken in the US:

The UK’s approach to not only focus on raising capital is important. Growing a business organically is an appealing prospect and hope support to do so continues.

Coaches and mentors were asked in their view, what have been the benefits for participants in Cyber Runway. Coaches and mentors felt a range of business skills had been developed by participants that could contribute to increased confidence to form and run a business. Some of the most positive trends emerging from this assessment included:

• 67% (n=10) of the coaches and mentors feeling that pitching skills had been improved
• 60% (n=9) feeling that knowledge around minimum viable product design had improved
• 40% (n=6) feeling that confidence in business skills had improved
• 53% (n=8) feeling that entrepreneurial skills had improved

However only 13% (n=2) felt that technical skills had improved, 7% (n=1) felt that knowledge about certification schemes had improved, and no respondent felt that participants were ready for an IPO following the programme.

Figure 9: Benefits of the Cyber Runway programme for participants, related to business skill / knowledge development (from the perspective of coaches and mentors, base number= 15)

In addition, coaches and mentors felt the programme had assisted participants in developing and expanding their contact networks. However only 13% (n=2) felt the programme helped participants to find potential co-founders, suggesting more could be done to support this.

Figure 10: Benefits of the Cyber Runway programme for participants, related to network development (from the perspective of coaches and mentors) (base number= 15)

Case study – Secure Impact: new ways of solving problems

About Secure Impact

Secure Impact is a company that is just over one year old, but expanding rapidly: it now has 13 employees and is on track to register impressive revenues this financial year. The owner, James Lyne, who also owns a number of other businesses and start-ups, founded it in response to a trend in cyber security consulting whereby cyber security services were becoming generic, commoditised, and compliance driven versus value adding to create security and business outcomes for clients. To counter this trend, Secure Impact offers consulting services that are highly tailored to clients and their threat models, and geared to create benefits and outcomes for businesses, rather than being a “tick box exercise”. Secure Impact’s services include red teaming, which adopts a challenging adversarial approach to rigorously test a business’ security posture. They also offer purple teaming which is a security methodology that tests and develops how well the red and blue teams of an organisation interact and share information, creating improvement cycles through shared learning. They also offer penetration testing with a purple team approach to identify cyber weaknesses in company systems and processes, providing an actionable roadmap for security teams. More recently, Secure Impact works with large scale organisations and government agencies to help them develop their cyber security controls and related frameworks.

Secure Impact took part in Cyber Runway Scale.

Context and challenges faced

The company, having experienced fast growth over the past year, was now faced with multiple opportunities for multiple services in multiple sectors. However, it needed to identify which ideal customer profiles (ICPs) would benefit most from its highly developed core competencies, and then communicate that effectively to the market. Certain members of the commercial team needed to contextualise their expertise within the cyber security industry to do so. In addition, while the team comprises market leading experts from both commercial and technical fields, lessons learned needed to be captured collectively to continue delivering the value and excellence to the market, to constantly optimise to help our clients, and grow as an organisation.

We had lots going on and participation in the Cyber Runway was to crystallise what the priorities were and to contextualise previous commercial experience in the cyber security field.

With this in mind, Secure Impact’s general manager participated in the programme but also made sure that the marketing manager, sales leads, and the security lead attended relevant sprints and meetings.

The general manager had previous positive experience with programmes delivered by Plexal and also appreciated the fact that DCMS funded the programme. With that in mind, the participant was confident that the programme would deliver the knowledge and skills needed to help inform on their challenge. Secure Impact already had a proven product and clients, and wanted to build on this strong commercial basis.

Impacts of Cyber Runway Scale on Secure Impact

For Secure Impact, having access to a network of other growing SMEs was invaluable. It meant that the team was able to speak freely about the issues they face and the solutions they, and other teams, have applied. Because of the programme, Secure Impact was able to attend Cyber UK 2022 to further build its network. As a result, the team now has a number of key contacts and partners they can leverage – both academic and in industry. Having benefited from shared learning of best practices and insights. Secure Impact can now help the industry get better. This experience and enhanced network has also enabled certain commercial individuals to contextualise their existing expertise within cyber security in an accelerated way and focus on the ICPs who will most benefit from our differentiated offering.

Finding partners and suppliers is difficult when you need them for specific procurements. Building a network when you’re not up against tight timelines has helped.

As well as an improved network, Secure Impact left the programme with renewed rigour in their approach to holding retrospectives, to explore collaboratively and constructively what worked well or not so well, and implementing these lessons learned. One unanticipated effect of this was that newer, more junior colleagues feel more empowered to voice their ideas during retrospectives. This diversity is very important to Secure Impact. Overall, Secure Impact felt that this more relentless commitment to holding retrospectives, which was catalysed by the programme, enhanced their culture to be more collaborative, inclusive, innovating, and rewarding for everyone. It also enabled effective lessons learned capturing their steep growth trajectory.

How Cyber Runway helped Secure Impact

For Secure Impact, weekly meetings with Plexal representatives about what the team learned on sprints was invaluable. These meetings meant that the Secure Impact team always focused on learning and applying learning in the business, rather than only learning skills in theory. The way sprints were organised with various specific sessions, with access to a resource portal for communications and troubleshooting, with industry experts, but also with other businesses was very positively received.

The Secure Impact general manager stressed that moderated group meetings felt secure and safe. As a result, the participants were very open about issues they were facing and sharing solutions that had worked for them. This openness and feeling of safety was seen as a highly beneficial aspect of the programme and created an environment for all to gain and give throughout.

Moderators asked prying questions and we felt safe in breakout rooms. A lot of accelerators do that but this programme encouraged that freedom of information. It made you realise when you’re not doing something well, you can explain what you’ve tried and hear from other people going through a similar thought process to your own.

The way sprints were delivered and designed were novel:

Using problem statements and methodically addressing these for each new sprint helped us adopt helpful behaviours and get into the retrospective process more regularly.

In practice, this means that the Secure Impact team now holds more regular retrospectives to capture meaningful optimisations to constantly improve their service to clients. At these meetings, the team looks back at work completed and considers what went well and what could be improved.

What could be improved

Secure Impact would have valued additional face-to-face interaction and meetings. In addition, some industry experts appeared to the team to use mentoring sessions and meetings as a means to sell their own products or services, rather than helping the participating businesses. To avoid mentors having false expectations, Secure Impact suggested that more guidance and pre-programme information should be provided to mentors in future.

Similar programmes Secure Impact has accessed

Secure Impact has not joined any other programmes. It said that most other programmes seem to focus on products, rather than services. Therefore, the team felt that only Cyber Runway appeared appropriate to their needs. In the absence of Cyber Runway, it would have been more difficult to find other companies to share insights with and discuss problems openly, hopefully collectively creating a more self-aware industry that can deliver on what clients actually need to improve their security posture.

Increased internationalisation - inbound investment / overseas operations

63% (n=5) of the 8 participant survey respondents have started exporting their services overseas, however none of these 5 companies credited Cyber Runway with starting their export and overseas operations. A larger sample size would provide a greater understanding of why the programme was not the catalyst for initiating exporting services, however current survey results suggest these companies started commercialising their products abroad before joining the programme, as 80% (n=4) out of 5 participated in other cyber security programs such as LORCA, Cyber101, or NCSC for Startups prior to joining Cyber Runway.

Investors continuing to invest in the longer term^{[footnote 30]}

Cyber Runway participant firms indicated that investment directly associated with the programme represents, on average, a very small percentage (nearly 1%) of the funds that participants have been raising from investors. Survey responses indicate that investment has been received from:

• business angels (2)
• venture capital firms (2)
• government grants and bootstrapping cash, and from other individuals

Almost all (78%, n=7) of the 9 respondents indicated they will continue to receive investments in the long term. It could be possible that, even though the full population of programme participant firms is not represented in this analysis, and it is not possible to see a full picture of participating companies, Cyber Runway firms had already received funds from investors and grown. As demonstrated by survey responses from the previous sections, Cyber Runway could have helped these firms enhance skills such as collaboration and confidence in their professional abilities.

Unintended or negative outcomes

Case study insights: Cyberhive highlighted they did not anticipate developing their network as much as they did, suggesting being able to speak with other businesses was an opportunity to exchange ideas and led to improved confidence in their ideas and business skills.

In addition, several participants noted unintended benefits of participating in the programme, such as:

• receiving recognition from participating in a government approved programme and understanding how to apply for government frameworks
• adding new services to their portfolio by connecting through the programme and building a trusted network
• access to collaboration opportunities with other cohort members, bringing together technologies and ideas

Meeting participant expectations

Case study insights: all the case study businesses reported the programme met their expectations and objectives, for example finding potential partners or validating the product idea.

The participant survey did not ask specifically whether participants’ expectations were met. However, positive feedback from participants on their experience of the programme and the positive views of case study organisations suggest that, overall, expectations have likely been met. Participant feedback suggests it is too early for evidence of performance against other ToC outcome areas such as:

• completing an IPO
• increased early years survival rates or enhanced business viability
• increase in new viable products or services trialled
• improved commercialisation of products
• increases in revenue, profit, or productivity

Case Study – Grow participant: limited impacts experienced

About the case study company

The company is an industrial control, security monitoring and analytics company that became incorporated in 2020. The technology was initially developed and initiated by the US Department of Energy and US Department of Defence as a response to a particular set of industrial control malwares that emerged in 2010. The company travelled to the UK with the US Department of Homeland Security and has set up an entity in the UK. This UK entity is involved with machine learning and software development analytics. They have recently started their first large commercial deployment in oil and pipeline operations.

Context and challenges faced

Before Cyber Runway was established, the company’s technology was regarded as niche in the cyber security space. Its focus was primarily on legacy critical infrastructure which refers to industrial control systems that were built prior to the internet. The challenge was due to the focus on the ethernet communications within the cyber security industry, as this is where most money and marketing was targeted. Building awareness around the product has been particularly challenging. This is partly due to the team choosing to stick to a philosophy of growing their firm organically, and not pursuing external equity fundraising options. This was to ensure that the quality of their product remained the primary focus. They hope to grow through step functions where customers test products and then roll it out to wider parts of the market in phases. This trajectory was halted by the COVID-19 pandemic, where the team had hoped that getting wider exposure in the UK and EU would help to kickstart their organic growth once again. This was a motivating factor in participating in the programme.

Other challenges included their ability to make connections with UK and US partners due to companies being unresponsive. Other practical challenges include retaining staff as many employees stay to receive the training and then leave to work elsewhere for a higher salary.

We need to [tighten] the relationships that we’ve been able to develop in the US with the UK…and I thought that would be much easier to do.

The team is interested in taking any opportunity to engage, network and educate. They had just finished a US accelerator programme ‘FedTech’ and felt that they could take their learning from this and translate it into something effective in the UK. The US programme was very different to Cyber Runway as it had more practical engagement. FedTech provided a roadmap to participants about how to engage with customers. The team feels that the Cyber Runway programme was less structured. They have applied for programmes within the UK that are more similar to FedTech but have seen little success.

On [the Cyber Runway] programme they weren’t as co-ordinated and seemed to be more abstract with no curriculum or set of steps.

Support received from Cyber Runway

The company attended weekly virtual sessions and found the programme facilitators to be very responsive on countless occasions. They also attended networking events in London and an event in Manchester which they found to be beneficial for exposure. However, they found the events difficult to attend and highlighted the need for more local events such as in Northern Ireland, where they are based.

The programme was helpful as it made introductions with supporting companies, however there was a lack of follow up with these companies. This resulted in the company receiving less help from these partner companies as they initially expected.

One company involved in cyber runway in [the] UK also had a US entity, we thought we could [tighten] that but instead they were unresponsive after initial reply copying the folks from cyber runway.

The company are grateful for the opportunity to educate and network and have met some companies with whom they feel will lead to future business connections and network building. However, they feel that more could have been done to make connections with UK counterparts and claim that “no quantifiable things came out of it, very little impact on ability to grow.”

The company feels that Cyber Runway also lacks a plan and objectives, and that no clear deliverables are provided to participants. They point to difficulty in communicating through the Slack channel which was for those involved with Grow and Scale parts of the programme. They suggest separating out the different strands of the programme to improve these communications. They also feel that Cyber Runway could improve by:

Being [clearer], on schedule, cadence and core objectives to be achieved.

Impact and benefits of support received

Cyber Runway has benefited the company by giving them the ability to network with others, as they have built relationships with some of the other participating companies.

They feel that the programme has “zero impact” on survival and resilience and that very few measurable things came out of the programme. The company suggests that better follow up from the supporting companies would have made a significant difference. This was a source of frustration with one company repeatedly missing meetings.

Because that [follow up] didn’t happen, [we] felt the opportunity was there but it was not seized upon.

Programme improvements and lessons learnt

The company felt that the programme could have done more to check that there was follow up support provided. This lack of engagement has resulted in a partial failure in addressing the company’s original challenges.

The US programme directed the company to the right stakeholders, what they needed to do, and facilitated any follow up. They felt that this was missing from the Cyber Runway Programme. The company believes that the programme would be far more effective if it was married with the ADS Group (trade organisation representing the aerospace, defence, security, and space industries in the UK). ADS Group is very practical and business driven compared to other accelerators.

In terms of lessons, the company will now ensure that programmes have a little more structure and clarity around deliverables. They will seek to apply for programmes with a little more maturity and direction in the future.

They would be keen to apply to other cyber growth and innovation programmes, however only if there was evidence of measurable outcomes and more confidence in follow ups with supporting companies. While little outcomes have been experienced to date, the company states:

Sometimes the result isn’t obvious but maybe these partnerships will turn into something. Might be some things dragging behind that we cannot identify yet.

5.2.3 Outcomes for coaches and mentors

Self-reported changes in business knowledge / skills (both technical and business related)

The greatest benefit that most coaches and mentors reported as a result of participating in the programme was relationship development, with 67% (n=10) of respondents selecting this.

Figure 11: Benefits of being a coach or mentor on Cyber Runway (base number= 15)

The respondents who selected ‘other’ indicated this included the validation that their experience has benefited others and the ability to gain experience in mentoring. This is shown below:

Validation that previous experiences are beneficial to others at the start of their journey

– Cyber Runway coaches and mentors survey respondent

Gained experience in mentoring and expanded my knowledge in certain domains.

– Cyber Runway coaches and mentors survey respondent

Unintended or negative outcomes

Coaches and mentors experienced a range of unintended benefits including an expanded knowledge in certain domains and the opportunity to network and work with SMEs after the programme.

5.2.4 Outcomes of predecessor programmes

HutZero outcomes^{[footnote 31]}

DCMS provided case studies for years 1-4 of HutZero which include qualitative feedback on objectives achieved by HutZero participants. This feedback is summarised below.

Participants reported an improved understanding of how to grow the business as well as the resourcing and people needed to do so. They also said that they have developed their knowledge of potential sources for investment and built stronger networks with other businesses. Some participants left their previous jobs to focus full-time on growing their start-up and teams. Others went on to participate in further support programmes, such as the CyLon Accelerator programme. A small number of HutZero participants from years 1-4 rolled out their products, in one case internationally.

Cyber 101 outcomes^{[footnote 32]}

Among the outcomes reported by the fourth year of the programme were:

• over £40 million in investments being raised by start-ups
• three or more new connections being made by 50% of bootcamp attendees
• 72% of participants reporting improving a product, service or process since participating in Cyber 101
• over 60% acquiring new clients or won new contracts
• a 97% survival rate of participant companies
• participants going on to join other programmes, including LORCA and Tech Nation Cyber
• two companies each receiving £150,000 investment through introductions made at Cyber 101 demo days

Tech Nation Cyber outcomes^{[footnote 33]}

Tech Nation Cyber calculated the gross value added (GVA)^{[footnote 34]} of its participants as £8.9 million^{[footnote 35]} over the two years it ran. Since joining the programme, the participating companies have raised over £35 million in VC or grant funding and one participant was acquired by another company (as of January 2021). Through qualitative feedback from participants, other outcomes emerged, including:

• increased business skills, including being able to better focus on client needs
• an increased and more developed network, including partnering with other companies to improve products and services
• development of new routes to customers

5.2.5 Validation of outcomes

A data validation exercise was conducted which involved cross-referencing Plexal data on Cyber Runway programme participants with secondary sources and survey data.^{[footnote 36]} The indicators we focused on were revenue, investment, and full-time equivalent employee counts.

Plexal collected data on the programme participants just before the beginning and at the end of the programme, through a participant survey. Each of the three streams (Launch, Grow, Scale) started and ended on the following dates:

• Launch: w/c 25 October 2021 – 28 February 2022
• Grow: w/c 25 October 2021 – 28 February 2022
• Scale: w/c 1 November 2021 – 28 February 2022

Plexal’s data collection for the different streams was limited due to the inability to cross-reference data from secondary sources with the self-reported data from participating companies as, due to the early-stage nature of some of the Cyber Runway companies, not all the information is publicly available. Furthermore, the Launch stream did not capture revenue, investment, and employee data since participants were early-stage entrepreneurs developing their ideas, with most of them working full-time in industry or having academic commitments alongside participating in the programme.

To validate Plexal’s data, data was analysed about Cyber Runway’s participating firms from two secondary sources listed below and from the RSM survey (primary research). The secondary sources were:

• the Beauhurst database, which has been used to track Cyber Runway companies’ fundraisings as it features information on early-stage, innovative firms in the UK such as the ones participating in the Cyber Runway programme
• Orbis from Bureau Van Dijk, which is a database that has information on around 400 million companies worldwide and is used to obtain detailed financial information

Cross-validation of the companies’ outputs at baseline and at the end of the programme was difficult to obtain. As noted by Plexal, data on early-stage private companies and their financial statements may not always be publicly available, hence it was not possible to check certain KPIs that are usually reported in financial statements such as revenue and number of employees. As per Section 477 of the Companies Act 2006 small, early-stage companies such as those participating in Cyber Runway, may qualify for an audit exemption and, as observable from our data validation exercise, might not always disclose information such as revenue. Furthermore, as the programme only lasted four months and, given financial statements are released on a yearly basis, we were not able to validate the revenue changes at the end of the programme that the companies surveyed by Plexal reported.

It was found that, in most cases, even when data was not retrieved at the same time as the beginning or end of Cyber Runway, there were no significant differences between Plexal’s data and what was publicly reported in Orbis and Beauhurst’s investment data.

Similarly, the latest figures on employees and investments collected from Beauhurst are consistent with the KPI figures reported by programme participants in Plexal’s end of programme survey, where they were asked whether they have had any change in revenue, investment, or employee numbers since the beginning of the programme.

Responses obtained from our survey strengthened the validity as they were broadly aligned with the data shared by Plexal, and what was collected from secondary sources.

5.3 Economic indicators

For the Launch and Scale streams, the planned and actual cost per participant is the same. In Grow, the programme had more participants than anticipated (67 compared to a target of 15) resulting in a much lower cost per participant than expected. Participation in Grow was largely virtual, albeit with live attendance available as well, enabling a high number of participants. The higher-than-expected number of participants also led to a lower actual cost per participant for the in-person event and alumni network.

5.4 Summary of key findings

Assessment of the Cyber Runway programme against its KPIs based on the monitoring data available indicates varying degrees of success: Cyber Launch performed strongest while Cyber Grow and Scale met a smaller number of its KPIs. In addition, a range of significant benefits were noted by participants and mentors and coaches including:

• self-reported changes in business knowledge / skills for participants and mentors / coaches
• a growing network among participating businesses, which contributed to more confidence in business skills
• increased confidence, aspiration and resilience to form and run businesses (to use any business skills developed, for example)
• mentoring sessions and masterclasses being beneficial for participating firms to share ideas / experience and gain peer or expert knowledge

The programme has been delivered with no variance against budgeted costs, however the Grow component had considerably more participants than anticipated, resulting in lower costs per participant.

6. Conclusions and recommendations

This section outlines conclusions based on the evidence collected against the evaluation questions and recommendations to inform future programmes.

6.1 Process evaluation

Was the programme delivered as intended? / How could it be improved?

The programme delivered the three phases of support as outlined in the contract between DCMS and Plexal. However, whilst there was sufficient demand for the Launch stream and overdemand for the Grow stream there was less demand for Scale. The higher numbers for Grow meant less tailored support was provided compared to Launch and Scale. This is reflected in participant survey feedback where more respondents in the Grow stream were dissatisfied with support in areas such as development of a personalised growth plan and indicated that the support provided was too general.

Recommendation 1:

We recommend that any future programme (1) limits Grow stream participants to a similar number as in Launch and Scale (approximately 20) or (2) re-designs this stream to provide more tailored support for participants.

While the programme was designed to be delivered virtually, it was impacted by COVID-19 which further limited the opportunity for face-to-face interaction and events. While virtual delivery generally worked well, participants felt they would have benefitted from face-to-face support which can be more intuitive, responsive, and personal. Participants emphasised that the opportunity to network with other businesses and with the mentors and experts provided them with the chance to exchange ideas and speak with those in similar positions.

What worked well, or less well, for whom and why? / Were there any unexpected or unintended issues in the delivery of the programme?

Several areas were identified as working well, including:

• the application process, which was assessed to be straightforward by participants
• the provision of opportunities for participants to engage with key industry figures and entrepreneurs (although more face-to-face needed – see below)
• meeting with a mentor and getting tailored advice from experts one-on-one
• the reporting arrangements – DCMS and the participating project teams were satisfied with the reporting arrangements, specifically monthly logframe reports which included data against the contractual key performance indicators (KPIs)

Several areas for development were identified, including the provision of:

• more mentoring and one-to-one support, including ensuring there is a consistent provision of quality mentoring and tutoring
• more access to potential investors and introductions to regional cyber hubs
• more face-to-face meetings with the programme team as well as the coaches and mentors
• an increased focus on internationalisation, and increased involvement of international partners
• greater clarity on timetables and content of each sprint, masterclass, or meeting
• more access to government stakeholders, to help businesses expand their network in the public sector
• better quality of information and planning in advance of mentor sessions, to help mentors better tailor their support

In relation to monitoring and data collection:

• targets were set for output measures in the Theory of Change (ToC), however the outcomes do not have targets and these should be developed
• Plexal collected data on the programme participants at the beginning and at the end of the programme via a participant survey, however this was not completed by all participants

Recommendation 2: we recommend that DCMS consider developing outcome targets for the programme with the delivery providers.

Progress should then be reported against these targets on a regular basis and should cover:

• enhanced business viability and short term investment (value of investments raised per company and total per cohort)
• increase in company revenue
• increase in productivity / revenue / profit
• self-reported changes in business knowledge / skills (both technical and business related)
• increased confidence, aspiration, and resilience to form and run businesses (such as using any business skills developed)
• additional measures to be developed for the individual Launch, Grow and Scale streams

Recommendation 3: we recommend a standardised monitoring template is provided by DCMS that includes the contractual KPIs, deadlines for delivery / achievement, and a RAG rating system to easily identify if KPIs and milestones are behind schedule.^{[footnote 37]} These should be completed monthly by the delivery organisation and returned to DCMS, if possible, via an online system to make it efficient to complete and centrally recorded.

What were the benefits/disadvantages of the programme being delivered virtually? What can be learned from the delivery methods used?

The programme was more accessible to those outside of the South-East of England due to it being delivered virtually. However, this also limited participants’ ability to network effectively.

Participants also felt they did not develop relationships with the programme leaders and the project team as well as they could have done face-to-face, while some also felt overloaded with material because of the online learning environment.

Recommendation 4: we recommend that any new programme considers if there can be a higher number of in-person networking events / opportunities designed specifically to build relationships between the programme leaders and mentors and participants.

How knowledgeable were trainers and mentors? How was their teaching? Did they have the right information to support businesses?

Most participants surveyed (80%, n=20) felt that the business knowledge of trainers and mentors was either ‘helpful’ or ‘very helpful’ in providing the right information and supporting firms in the programme.

However qualitative feedback was mixed, as while some highlighted the “quality of mentors and masterclasses was really good” others were less satisfied and felt “none of the team had substantial experience in the start-up world”.

Recommendation 5: we recommend the delivery partner collects ongoing feedback on the coaches, tutors, and delivery partners to ensure that participants are satisfied with the support provided and the programme is sufficiently tailored to their cyber security company and context.

Was the expected investment in time and resources for Cyber Runway manageable for businesses? Was this a fair investment for the benefit received?

Participant survey respondents felt the time and resources dedicated to the Cyber Runway programme was manageable and beneficial in helping them meet their objectives. However, this result may only be indicative as the sample size is small. One survey respondent stated they were unable to match the expected time commitment as event dates were often announced at short notice.

How did external factors influence the delivery and functioning of the programme?

The main external factor influencing programme delivery was COVID-19 (see above). However, another key factor was the budget available which limited the number and quality of speakers, often relying on volunteers. Therefore, the budget should be sufficient to cover these costs in the future.

6.2 KPI evaluation

Monitoring data was collated in logframe reports which included all KPIs specified in the contract between DCMS and Cyber Runway. The logframes include all ToC outputs and two outcomes (employee growth and revenue growth), however while the outputs have specific indicators the outcomes do not. Consideration should be given to incorporating outcome targets in the logframe reports.

It is not possible to assess the success of each programme stream in meeting their KPIs due to a lack of data on some of these as indicated in Table 9. However, out of the KPIs which have targets and consistent data:

• Cyber Runway Launch is most successful, having met four of five KPIs (it did not achieve 100% attendance at sessions)
• Cyber Runway Grow has met three of five KPIs (it did not deliver on getting 50% of participants from outside the South-East of England or 100% attendance at sessions)
• Cyber Runway Scale has met two of five KPIs (it did not deliver on 50% of candidates from outside the South-East of England, meeting the minimum number of applicants (40 per cohort), or 100% attendance at sessions)

All three strands have met or exceeded the target number of participants and diversity KPIs.

Has the Cyber Runway programme met its commitment to have 50% of candidates from outside London and the South-East of England?

Regional representation outside London and the South-East of England was achieved for the Launch stream (80%) however not Grow (42%) or Scale (40%). However in addition to this four regional events were held in Belfast, Scotland, Cardiff, and Sheffield to help address the regional imbalance in participation geographies. The targets were not met due to:

• there being a short timeframe to recruit a large number of companies for each stream
• Launch companies being more likely to be signposted from universities which are more regionally spread, leading to higher regional representation
• companies at the level of Scale being more likely to be based in the South-East and an insufficient number of regional companies applying

Has the Cyber Runway programme met its commitment to have a minimum of 30% female co-founders and 15% ethnic minority co-founders?

This was achieved across all of the 3 streams:

Launch	Grow	Scale
• Female co-founders: 40% • Ethnic minority co-founders: 55%	• Female co-founders: 42% • Ethnic minority co-founders: 55%	• Female co-founders: 65% • Ethnic minority co-founders: 40%

Has the Cyber Runway programme achieved a 90% favourable score on participant feedback questionnaire?

The Plexal participant feedback questionnaire did not collect data on favourability scores and the data available within the Plexal final report suggests this target has not been met.^{[footnote 38]} Specifically it outlines that:

• Cyber Launch presentations received an 8.2 out of 10 average “feedback score”
• Cyber Grow content “usefulness” was rated as an average of 5.6 out of 10
• Cyber Scale content “usefulness” was rated as an average of 8 out of 10 These figures reflect RSM participant survey feedback which found that 77% (n = 20) of 26 respondents were either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the overall structure of the programme, less than the 90% favourability target.

Did Cyber Runway achieve 100% attendance across the three streams?

This was not achieved in any month for any of the streams, however access to video recordings and materials was provided to all participants. This was not achieved in any month for any of the streams, however access to video recordings and materials was provided to all participants.

Launch	Grow	Scale
• 98% in November • 67% in December (live attendance) • 65% in January (live attendance) • 60% in February (attendance at coaching sessions)	• 88% in November • 42% in December (live attendance) • 40% in January (live attendance) • 60% in February (live attendance)	• 80% in November • 80% in December (live attendance) • 50% in January (live attendance) • 40% in February (live attendance)

While the RSM participant survey did not collect data specifically on reasons for non-attendance, a ‘mid-point’ participant survey completed by Plexal reported that Grow participants in particular thought the sessions were too general and would like more tailored content / material.^{[footnote 39]}

Recommendation 8: we recommend that:

(a) the programme becomes more focused on delivering the outcomes in the ToC where it has had a negligible contribution to date, specifically: increased revenue, increased internationalisation, increased investment and progression to an initial public offering (IPO)

(b) funding is provided to track the outcomes and impacts from the programme. It should be a requirement within the delivery partner contract to provide evidence of the longer-term outcomes being achieved at regular checkpoints, for example 1 year, 2 and 3 years after they complete the programme to provide evidence of the longer-term benefits.

What are the additional or unintended benefits of the programme? (Brand boost for participating on a government approved scheme)

Participating companies highlighted a number of key unintended benefits including:

• developing an understanding of how to apply for government frameworks
• adding new services to their portfolio by connecting with other companies via the programme and building a trusted network
• collaboration opportunities with other cohort members to bring together technologies and ideas

To what extent has the programme delivery improved under the Cyber Runway brand

Cyber Runway compares favourably to the predecessor programmes (HutZero, Cyber 101, and Tech Nation Cyber) with 42% (n=5) of the 12 coach and mentor survey respondents describing it as better while 50% (n=6) felt that bringing programmes together under the Cyber Runway brand had improved either visibility, consistency, or quality. However, the low number of coach and mentor survey respondents limits the strength of this conclusion.

6.4 Data collection

The evaluation survey received a low response rate, in part due to the survey fatigue of participants who had already completed a programme survey delivered by Plexal as well as feedback for other programmes they were participating in. Furthermore, as contact details were not collected it was not possible to complete more targeted telephone follow-ups of non-respondents.

Recommendation 9: we recommend that any future delivery organisation is required under their contract to:

• report on baseline performance metrics and track progress throughout the programme (this would allow for a robust assessment of whether the scheme is meeting its objectives)
• collect contact details (such as telephone numbers) for programme participants and their consent to be contacted at the end of the programme and 6 months later to track outcomes and impacts, and make them aware this is a requirement of participating in the programme
• collect contact details for applicants who were not successful and their consent to be contacted

Consideration should also be given to harmonising delivery partner and any external evaluation activities.

Recommendation 10: we recommend definitions of KPIs need to be set to ensure data provided is equivalent across all participants.

7. Acronyms and glossary

Accelerator	Provides early-stage companies that already have a minimum viable product with the education, resources and mentorship needed to promote what might otherwise be several slow years of growth into a few short months.
ADS Group	Trade organisation representing the aerospace, defence, security and space industries in the UK
BEIS	Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
CSIT	Centre for Secure Information Technologies
Cyber 101	Targeted at cyber security start-ups and aimed to refine business skills and strategies, along with creating connections between start-ups, industry and investors
CyberASAP	Cyber Security Academic Start-up Accelerator Programme: a pre-seed accelerator programme to support cyber security innovation and commercialisation
Cyber Runway	A programme of cyber accelerators and bootcamps with three workstreams: ‘Launch’, developing proposals and establishing new businesses; ‘Grow’, providing business skills to help start-ups survive and grow, and ‘Scale’, building skills and networks to address barriers to growth nationally and abroad.
CyLon	Early stage investment company
DCMS	Department for Digital, Culture Media and Sport
EPSRC	Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
FTE	Full-Time Equivalent
GVA	Gross Value Added
HutZero	A bootcamp aimed at transforming early-stage ideas into viable propositions and potential new businesses
ICPs	Ideal Customer Profiles
Innovate UK	United Kingdom’s innovation agency, which provides money and support to organisations to make new products and services.
IoT	Internet of Things
IP	Intellectual Property
IPO	Initial Public Offering
KPI	Key Performance Indicator
LORCA	London Office for Rapid Cybersecurity Advancement
NCSC	The National Cyber Security Centre
PETRAS	Privacy, Ethics, Trust, Reliability, Acceptability, and Security
Plexal	An innovation company responsible for the delivery of Cyber Runway
R&D	Research and Development
SEIS	Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme
SME	Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises
Tech Nation Cyber	A national scaleup programme aimed at accelerating the growth of smaller cyber security firms
ToC	Theory of Change
UKC3	UK Cyber Cluster Collaboration
UKRI	UK Research and Innovation
YoY	Year-over-Year

8. Appendix A - evaluation questions

Programme	Evaluation questions
Cyber Runway Launch (turning ideas into products)	The evaluation should establish whether the programme met the commitment to deliver a programme to support a minimum of 20 individuals. Process Evaluation: • was the programme delivered as intended? • what worked well, or less well, for whom and why? • what were the benefits/disadvantages of the programme being delivered virtually? What can be learned from the delivery methods used? • were there any unexpected or unintended issues in the delivery of the programme? • how knowledgeable were your trainers and mentors? How was their teaching? Did they have the right information to support your business? • was the expected investment in time and resources for Cyber Runway manageable for your business? – was this a fair investment for the benefit received? • how could delivery of the programme be improved? • how did external factors influence the delivery and functioning of the programme? KPI evaluation: • has the Cyber Runway programme met its commitment to have 50% of candidates from outside London and the South-East of England? • has the Cyber Runway programme met its commitment to have a minimum of 30% female co-founders and 15% ethnic minority co-founders? • has the Cyber Runway programme achieved a 90% favourable score on participant feedback questionnaire? • did Cyber Runway achieve 100% attendance across the three strands? Impact evaluation • did Cyber Runway meet your expectations of the programme as advertised before participation? • what were the most beneficial outcomes of taking part in Cyber Runway for your business? (Marketing, product development, introduction to investors, mentoring, networking, for example) • what are the additional or unintended benefits of the programme? (Brand boost for participating on a government approved scheme) • are there areas of Cyber Runway that can be improved to deliver better outcomes for your business? • to what extent has the programme delivered improved under the Cyber Runway brand
Cyber Runway Grow (start-ups to successful companies)	The evaluation should establish whether the programme met the commitment to deliver a programme to support a minimum of 120 UK based cyber security firms (60 via regional cohorts, 60 virtual). Process Evaluation: • was the programme delivered as intended? • what worked well, or less well, for whom and why? • what were the benefits/disadvantages of the programme being delivered virtually? What can be learned from the delivery methods used? • were there any unexpected or unintended issues in the delivery of the programme? • how knowledgeable were your trainers and mentors? How was their teaching? Did they have the right information to support your business? • was the expected investment in time and resources for Cyber Runway manageable for your business? Was this a fair investment for the benefit received? • how could delivery of the programme be improved? • how did external factors influence the delivery and functioning of the programme? KPI evaluation: • has the Cyber Runway programme met its commitment to have 50% of candidates from outside the South-East of England? • has the Cyber Runway programme met its commitment to have a minimum of 30% female co-founders and 15% ethnic minority co-founders? • has the Cyber Runway programme achieved a 90% favourable score on participant feedback questionnaire? • did Cyber Runway achieve 100% attendance across the three strands? Impact evaluation: • did Cyber Runway meet your expectations of the programme as advertised before participation? • what were the most beneficial outcomes of taking part in Cyber Runway for your business? (Marketing, product development, introduction to investors, mentoring, networking, for example) • what are the additional or unintended benefits of the programme? (Brand boost for participating on a government approved scheme) • are there areas of Cyber Runway that can be improved to deliver better outcomes for your business? • to what extent has the programme delivered improved under the Cyber Runway brand
Cyber Runway Scale (turning successful companies into world-class enterprises)	The evaluation should establish whether the programme met the commitment to support 20 potential high-growth cyber security firms in addressing barriers to growth nationally and internationally. Process evaluation: • was the programme delivered as intended? • what worked well, or less well, for whom and why? • what were the benefits/disadvantages of the programme being delivered virtually? What can be learned from the delivery methods used? • were there any unexpected or unintended issues in the delivery of the programme? • how knowledgeable were your trainers and mentors? How was their teaching? Did they have the right information to support your business? • was the expected investment in time and resources for Cyber Runway manageable for your business? Was this a fair investment for the benefit received? • how could delivery of the programme be improved? • how did external factors influence the delivery and functioning of the programme? KPI evaluation: • has the Cyber Runway programme met its commitment to have 50% of candidates from outside the South-East of England? • has the Cyber Runway programme met its commitment to have a minimum of 30% female co-founders and 15% ethnic minority co-founders? • has the Cyber Runway programme achieved a 90% favourable score on participant feedback questionnaire? • did Cyber Runway achieve 100% attendance across the three strands? Impact evaluation: • did Cyber Runway meet your expectations of the programme as advertised before participation? • what were the most beneficial outcomes of taking part in Cyber Runway for your business? (Marketing, product development, introduction to investors, mentoring, networking, for example) • what are the additional or unintended benefits of the programme? (Brand boost for participating on a government approved scheme) • are there areas of Cyber Runway that can be improved to deliver better outcomes for your business? • to what extent has the programme delivered improved under the Cyber Runway brand

9. Appendix B - theory of change

9.1 Introduction

A ToC explains how activities undertaken by a programme could contribute to outcomes and impacts. It includes linkages between:

• inputs: resources required to deliver the programme
• activities: what is delivered
• outputs: what the recipient receives from the resources or intervention (direct benefits)
• outcomes: long term results of activities and outputs achieved
• impacts: wider economic and social outcomes

9.2 Cyber Runway Theory of Change

The initial ToC was informed by:

• a review of programme documentation outlining the aims, objectives and anticipated outputs, outcomes and impacts for the programme
• a review of existing ToCs for HutZero, Cyber 101 and Tech Nation Cyber
• an internal workshop with DCMS stakeholders including those responsible for the design and delivery of the programme

The ToC is outlined on the following page.

Figure 12: Cyber Runway ToC

10. Appendix C - participant survey

Background information

Q1. What is the name of your company, if applicable?

Q2. What is your name?

Q3. How many founders or co-founders does your company have?

☐ 1

☐ 2

☐ 3

☐ More than 3

Equality information

The following questions are to help ensure that this survey is representative and are not compulsory.

Q4. Please select the options that best describe you and your co-founders:	Female	Male	Non-binary	Transgender	Other	Prefer not to say	Not applicable
I am…
My first co-founder is…
My second co-founder is…
My third co-founder is…
My fourth co-founder is…

Q5. For you and each of your co-founders, please indicate who is from an ethnic minority background:

	Ethnic minority background	Other background	Prefer not to say
I am…
My first co-founder is…
My second co-founder is…
My third co-founder is…
My fourth co-founder is…

Q6. In which UK country or region is your company headquartered?

☐ Scotland

☐ Wales

☐ Northern Ireland

☐ North-West England

☐ North-East England

☐ Yorkshire and the Humber

☐ West Midlands

☐ East Midlands

☐ East of England

☐ South-West England

☐ South-East England

☐ London

Q7. What was your revenue in the Financial Year before you joined Cyber Runway?

☐ Up to £250k

☐ Between £251k and £500k

☐ Between £501k and £750k

☐ Between £751k and £1m

☐ Between £1m and £2m

☐ Between £2m and £5m

☐ Between £5m and £10m

☐ Between £10m and £20m

☐ Between £20m and £50m

☐ Prefer not to say

Q8. How many employees (FTE), including yourself, did you have immediately before you joined Cyber Runway?

☐ 1-5

☐ 6-10

☐ 11-15

☐ 16-50

☐ 51-100

☐ 101-250

☐ Over 250

☐ Prefer not to say

Q9. How much investment did you receive in the Financial Year before you joined Cyber Runway?

☐ Up to £25k

☐ £26k to £50k

☐ £51k to £100k

☐ £101k to £250k

☐ £251k to £500k

☐ Over £500k

☐ None

☐ Prefer not to say

Application experience

Q10. How were you first made aware of Cyber Runway?

☐ Direct contact by DCMS

☐ Government website

☐ Plexal

☐ CSIT

☐ CyLon

☐ Deloitte

☐ Industry contact

☐ Social media

☐ Print media

☐ Unsure

☐ Other:

Q11. Why did you decide to apply for Cyber Runway?

Q12. To what extent do you agree or disagree that you had the right information to inform your decision about whether to apply for Cyber Runway?

☐ Strongly agree

☐ Agree

☐ Neither agree nor disagree

☐ Disagree

☐ Strongly disagree

What other information about Cyber Runway would have been useful to have prior to applying?

Q13. Was the application process straightforward to complete overall?

☐ Yes

☐ No

If not, why not?

Q14. How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the following aspects of the application process?

	Very satisfied	Satisfied	Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	Dissatisfied	Very dissatisfied	Not sure N/A
How the programme purpose was described
How the programme content was described
Amount of information you had to submit
Eligibility criteria
Support provided during the application process
Communication from Plexal/ Innovate UK during the application process
Communication about the application outcome

Q15. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the following factors made it difficult to apply for Cyber Runway?

	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Not sure N/A
Lack of guidance about the process
Lack of clarity in the application form
Collating the information required to complete the application
Not enough time to complete the application
Lack of clarity about eligibility criteria
Other

If other, please describe what other factors made it difficult to apply to the scheme.

Q16. Do you have any other comments about your experience of applying for Cyber Runway?

Q17. How satisfied were you with the reporting arrangements on Cyber Runway?

	Very satisfied	Satisfied	Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	Dissatisfied	Very dissatisfied	Not sure N/A
Frequency of reporting
Amount of information to provide
Clarity of requirements

Cyber Runway programme structure

Cyber Runway provided assistance to entrepreneurs and companies to Launch, Grow, and Scale.

Q18. How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the overall structure of the Cyber Runway programme?

☐ Very satisfied#

☐ Satisfied

☐ Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

☐ Dissatisfied

☐ Very dissatisfied

Q19. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you that the amount of time and resources spent on the programme was matched by benefits to your company?

	Very satisfied	Satisfied	Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	Dissatisfied	Very dissatisfied	Not sure N/A
Time
Money
People

Quality of support provided

Q20. What part of Cyber Runway are you completing?

☐ Cyber Launch

☐ Cyber Grow

☐ Cyber Scale

Q21. Please tell us what support you accessed and if you would have liked more or less of this support. Tick all that apply. [Multiple choices possible] IF Q20=Cyber Launch

	Accessed by me	Wanted more, or…	Wanted less
Business masterclasses
Mentoring
1 to 1 advice
Engineering support
Support to develop your personalised growth plan
Product development support
Commercial support
Investor pitches
Presentation practice
Regional events
Virtual events
Peer to peer support
Resource library
Start-up advice on demand
Introduction to regional cyber hubs

Q22. How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the following aspects of the Cyber Runway programme? IF Q20=Cyber Launch

	Very satisfied	Satisfied	Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	Dissatisfied	Very dissatisfied	Not sure N/A
Business masterclasses
Mentoring
1 to 1 advice
Engineering support
Support to develop your personalised growth plan
Product development support
Commercial support
Investor pitches
Presentation practice
Regional events
Virtual events
Peer to peer support
Resource library
Start-up advice on demand
Introduction to regional cyber hubs

Q23. Please tell us what support you accessed and if you would have liked more or less of this support. Tick all that apply. [Multiple choices possible] IF Q20=Cyber Grow

	Accessed by me	Wanted more, or…	Wanted less
Business masterclasses
Mentoring
1 to 1 advice
Engineering support
Support to develop your personalised growth plan
Product development support
Commercial support
Investor pitches
Presentation practice
Regional events
Virtual events
Peer to peer support
Resource library
Start-up advice on demand
Introduction to regional cyber hubs

Q24. How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the following aspects of the Cyber Runway programme? IF Q20=Cyber Grow

	Very satisfied	Satisfied	Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	Dissatisfied	Very dissatisfied	Not sure N/A
Business masterclasses
Mentoring
1 to 1 advice
Engineering support
Support to develop your personalised growth plan
Product development support
Commercial support
Investor pitches
Presentation practice
Regional events
Virtual events
Peer to peer support
Resource library
Start-up advice on demand
Introduction to regional cyber hubs

Q25. Please tell us what support you accessed and if you would have liked more or less of this support. Tick all that apply. [Multiple choices possible] IF Q20=Cyber Scale

	Accessed by me	Wanted more, or…	Wanted less
Business masterclasses
Mentoring
1 to 1 advice
Engineering support
Support to develop your personalised growth plan
Product development support
Commercial support
Investor pitches
Presentation practice
Regional events
Virtual events
Peer to peer support
Resource library
Start-up advice on demand
Introduction to regional cyber hubs

Q26. How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the following aspects of the Cyber Runway programme? IF Q20=Cyber Scale

	Very satisfied	Satisfied	Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	Dissatisfied	Very dissatisfied	Not sure N/A
Business masterclasses
Mentoring
1 to 1 advice
Engineering support
Support to develop your personalised growth plan
Product development support
Commercial support
Investor pitches
Presentation practice
Regional events
Virtual events
Peer to peer support
Resource library
Start-up advice on demand
Introduction to regional cyber hubs

Q27. How satisfied were you with virtual delivery of programme content?

☐ Very satisfied

☐ Satisfied

☐ Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

☐ Dissatisfied

☐ Very dissatisfied

Q28. What would you say were the main advantages of virtual delivery?

Q29. And what would you say were the main disadvantages of virtual delivery?

Q30. To what extent has Covid-19 affected your experience of Cyber Runway?

☐ To a large extent

☐ To a moderate extent

☐ To a small extent

☐ Not at all

☐ Don’t know / unsure

Q31. Please describe how Covid-19 has affected your experience of Cyber Runway [Skip if Not at all or Don’t know / unsure]

Q32. To what extent has Covid-19 affected the outcomes you have achieved as a result of Cyber Runway?

☐ To a large extent

☐ To a moderate extent

☐ To a small extent

☐ Not at all

☐ Don’t know / unsure

Q33. Please describe how Covid-19 has affected these outcomes [Skip if Not at all or Don’t know / unsure]

Q34. Did any other issues affect your participation in Cyber Runway? Tick all that apply. [Multiple responses possible]

☐ Supply chain problems

☐ Recruitment difficulties

☐ Challenges onboarding people into the team

☐ Prefer not to say

☐ Personal commitments

☐ Other

☐ None

If other, please provide details of what these factors were:

Q35. What was the effect of these external factors on programme delivery? SKIP IF None

Q36. Did any of the following issues affect the outcomes you achieved as a result of participating in Cyber Runway? Tick all that apply. [Multiple responses possible]

☐ Supply chain problems

☐ Recruitment difficulties

☐ Challenges onboarding people into the team

☐ Prefer not to say

☐ Personal commitments

☐ Other

☐ None

If other, please provide details of what these factors were

Q37. Please describe how these other issues affected your outcomes. SKIP IF None

Q38. How would you describe the business knowledge of mentors / trainers / subject matter experts?

☐ Very helpful

☐ Helpful

☐ Neutral

☐ Not helpful

☐ Very unhelpful

If not helpful, please explain why:

Q39. How would you describe the capability of mentors / trainers / subject matter experts to support you?

☐ Very capable

☐ Capable

☐ Neutral

☐ Not capable

☐ Very incapable

If not capable, please explain why you felt they lacked the capability to support you:

Q40. In your view, were there gaps in the programme content?

☐ No

☐ Yes

If yes, please briefly describe the main gaps:

What worked well and areas for development

Q41. Which aspects of the Cyber Runway programme worked best, and why?

Q42. What improvements are needed?

Q43. What surprised you about the Cyber Runway programme?

Impact on your business

Q44. Earlier on, you said that the stage of Cyber Runway that you were most recently involved in was [insert answer] - could you please confirm that below? This is important as a SmartSurvey routing question

☐ Cyber Launch

☐ Cyber Grow

☐ Cyber Scale

Q45. Why did you participate in Cyber Launch? Tick all that apply. [Multiple choices possible] IF Cyber Launch

☐ To meet other entrepreneurs

☐ To find potential partners for my business

☐ Difficulties finding potential partners to set up my company

☐ Difficulties meeting investors

☐ Difficulties raising funds

☐ Lack of knowledge on how to design a Minimum Viable Product

☐ Need to improve entrepreneurial skills

☐ Need to improve business management skills

☐ Need to improve my technical skills

☐ Need to develop pitching skills

☐ Desire to improve my resilience

☐ Desire to increase the confidence in my business skills

Q46. On which of the following has your participation in Cyber Launch had an impact? Tick all that apply. [Multiple choices possible] IF Cyber Launch

☐ Difficulties meeting other entrepreneurs

☐ Difficulties finding potential partners for my business

☐ Difficulties finding potential partners to set up my company

☐ Difficulties meeting investors

☐ Difficulties raising funds

☐ Lack of knowledge on how to design a Minimum Viable Product

☐ Need to improve entrepreneurial skills

☐ Need to improve business management skills

☐ Need to improve my technical skills

☐ Need to develop pitching skills

☐ Desire to improve my resilience

☐ Desire to increase the confidence in my business skills

Q47. Which of these would you say are the three most important impacts for you? IF Cyber Launch

☐ Difficulties meeting other entrepreneurs

☐ Difficulties finding potential partners for my business

☐ Difficulties finding potential partners to set up my company

☐ Difficulties meeting investors

☐ Difficulties raising funds

☐ Lack of knowledge on how to design a Minimum Viable Product

☐ Need to improve entrepreneurial skills

☐ Need to improve business management skills

☐ Need to improve my technical skills

☐ Need to develop pitching skills

☐ Desire to improve my resilience

☐ Desire to increase the confidence in my business skills

Q48. What were the reasons for your participation in Cyber Grow? Tick all that apply. [Multiple choices possible] IF Cyber Grow

☐ Difficulties meeting other entrepreneurs

☐ Difficulties meeting investors

☐ Difficulties raising funds

☐ Need to improve entrepreneurial skills

☐ Need to improve business management skills

☐ Need for support to conduct market validations

☐ Need to develop knowledge about marketing

☐ Need to develop pitching skills

☐ Need to develop sales techniques

☐ Need to develop knowledge about certification schemes

☐ Need to increase my network

☐ Need to diversify my network

☐ Need to improve commercialisation of products/services

Q49. On which of the following has your participation in Cyber Grow had an impact? Tick all that apply. [Multiple choices possible] IF Cyber Grow

☐ Difficulties meeting other entrepreneurs

☐ Difficulties meeting investors

☐ Difficulties raising funds

☐ Need to improve entrepreneurial skills

☐ Need to improve business management skills

☐ Need for support to conduct market validations

☐ Need to develop knowledge about marketing

☐ Need to develop pitching skills

☐ Need to develop sales techniques

☐ Need to develop knowledge about certification schemes

☐ Need to increase my network

☐ Need to diversify my network

☐ Need to improve commercialisation of products/services

Q50. Which of these would you say are the three most important impacts for you? [Up to three selections possible] IF Cyber Grow

☐ Difficulties meeting other entrepreneurs

☐ Difficulties meeting investors

☐ Difficulties raising funds

☐ Need to improve entrepreneurial skills

☐ Need to improve business management skills

☐ Need for support to conduct market validations

☐ Need to develop knowledge about marketing

☐ Need to develop pitching skills

☐ Need to develop sales techniques

☐ Need to develop knowledge about certification schemes

☐ Need to increase my network

☐ Need to diversify my network

☐ Need to improve commercialisation of products/services

Q51. What were the reasons for your participation in Cyber Scale? Tick all that apply. [Multiple choices possible] IF Cyber Scale

☐ Lack of knowledge about how to export products or services

☐ Need to increase my network

☐ Need to diversify my network

☐ Need to understand IPO processes

☐ Need to prepare for IPO

Q52. On which of the following has your participation in Cyber Scale had an impact? Tick all that apply. [Multiple choices possible] IF Cyber Scale

☐ Lack of knowledge about how to export products or services

☐ Need to increase my network

☐ Need to diversify my network

☐ Need to understand IPO processes

☐ Need to prepare for IPO

Q53. Which of these would you say are the three most important impacts for you? [Up to three selections possible] IF Cyber Scale

☐ Lack of knowledge about how to export products or services

☐ Need to increase my network

☐ Need to diversify my network

☐ Need to understand IPO processes

☐ Need to prepare for IPO

Q54. Have you successfully completed an IPO? IF Cyber Scale

☐ No

☐ Yes

Q55. Is that successful IPO due to your participation in Cyber Scale? IF Yes

☐ No

☐ Yes

Q56. Have you started to export your services or products overseas? IF Cyber Scale

☐ No

☐ Yes

Q57. Do you attribute the start of your exports to your participation in Cyber Scale? IF Yes

☐ No

☐ Yes

Q58. Have there been any unintended benefits to participating in Cyber Runway?

☐ No

☐ Yes

If yes, please give details.

Q59. Have there been any unintended negative consequences to participating in Cyber Runway?

☐ No

☐ Yes

If yes, please give details.

Q60. Have you participated in other programmes aimed at supporting the establishment and growth of cyber security businesses?

☐ No

☐ Yes

Q61. What are the other programmes? Tick all that apply. [Multiple choices possible] IF Yes

☐ NCSC for Start-ups

☐ LORCA

☐ CyberFirst Bursary Scheme

☐ Cyber Bootcamps, intense, short training courses aimed at improving cyber-related skills

☐ CyberFirst

☐ Cyber Choices

☐ Other

If other, which programmes?

Q62. How would you say Cyber Runway compares with other programmes in which you have participated? IF Yes

☐ Cyber Runway is much better

☐ Cyber Runway is better

☐ Cyber Runway is neither better nor worse

☐ Cyber Runway is worse

☐ Cyber Runway is much worse

Please briefly explain what the main differences are between Cyber Runway and the other programmes in which you have participated.

Q63. Have you successfully started a cyber security business since you joined Cyber Runway?

☐ No

☐ Yes

Q64. Has your cyber security business ceased trading since you joined Cyber Runway?

☐ No

☐ Yes

Q65. Has your revenue grown since you joined Cyber Runway?

☐ No

☐ Yes

Q66. By how much has your revenue grown since you joined Cyber Runway, and how much are you expecting it to grow over the next year?

	Up to 2.5%	Over 2.5% and up to 5%	Over 5% and up to 7.5%	Over 7.5% and up to 10%	Over 10% and up to 15%	Over 15%	Prefer not to say	Unsure / don’t know
Has grown by
Will grow by

Q67. Approximately, how much of this revenue growth would you attribute to your participation in Cyber Runway? Please give your best estimate if at all possible. If not sure, please type “unsure” in the comment box below:

SCALE FROM 0% TO 100%

Q68. How many employees (FTE), including yourself, do you now have and how many do you expect to have in the coming year?

	1-5	6-10	11-15	16-50	51-100	Over 100	Prefer not to say
Currently Employed
Additional Employees

Q69. Approximately, what proportion of these new employees did you hire due to your participation in Cyber Runway? Please give your best estimate if at all possible. If not sure, please type “unsure” in the comment box below:

SCALE FROM 0% TO 100%

Q70. How much new investment have you received since you joined Cyber Runway?

☐ Up to £25k

☐ £26k to £50k

☐ £51k to £100k

☐ £101k to £250k

☐ £251k to £500k

☐ Over £500k

☐ None

☐ Prefer not to say

Q71. And what proportion of this investment would you attribute to your participation in Cyber Runway? Please give your best estimate if at all possible. If not sure, please type “unsure” in the comment box below:

SCALE OF 0% TO 100%

Q72. From which types of investors have you received this investment? Select all that apply. [Multiple responses possible]

☐ Owners / founders

☐ Other individuals

☐ Venture capital firms

☐ Business angels

☐ Government grants

☐ Crowdfunding

☐ Inward investment (i.e., from overseas)

☐ Other

Please specify from whom:

Q73. How likely is it that these investors will continue to invest in the longer term?

☐ Very likely

☐ Likely

☐ Neither likely nor unlikely

☐ Unlikely

☐ Very unlikely

Final questions

Q74. Do you have any other suggestions on how Cyber Runway could be improved in the future?

Q75. Do you have any other final thoughts to share on Cyber Runway?

11. Appendix D - coaches and mentors survey

Background information

Q1. Are you a mentor or a coach on Cyber Runway? Tick all that apply. [Multiple answers possible]

☐ Mentor

☐ Coach

Q2. What is your professional background? Tick all that apply. [Multiple answers possible]

☐ I am the founder or co-founder of a start-up

☐ I am a legal expert

☐ I am a finance expert (including a Chief Commercial Officer)

☐ I am a marketing expert

☐ I am a technical expert (including a Chief Technology Officer)

☐ I am an operations expert

☐ I am an academic

☐ I am a full-time professional coach

☐ Other (please provide detail on your professional background)

Q3. Please tell us why you decided to become a coach or mentor on Cyber Runway? Tick all that apply.

☐ I have established a start-up myself and wanted to share my experience

☐ I enjoy coaching others

☐ I enjoy mentoring others

☐ I have professional skills that I believe are useful to share with entrepreneurs

☐ I wanted to expand my network

☐ I wanted to meet new entrepreneurs

☐ I benefited from similar programmes in the past and wanted to give back

☐ I was asked by my employer

☐ I was approached by Plexal, CSIT, CyLon or Deloitte

☐ I wanted to develop my own coaching and mentoring skills

☐ Other (please briefly tell us why you became a coach or mentor below)

Q4. Have you mentored or coached entrepreneurs or business people on similar programmes in the past?

☐ Yes

☐ No

Q5. If yes, please indicate whether you coached or mentored on any of the following programmes? Tick all that apply. [Multiple answers possible] SKIP IF Q4=No

☐ HutZero

☐ Cyber 101

☐ Tech Nation Cyber

☐ Other (please specify below):

Q6. Compared to the programme(s) indicated in the previous question, how well would you say Cyber Runway has been delivered? SKIP IF Q4=No

☐ Much better

☐ Better

☐ Neither better nor worse

☐ Worse

☐ Much worse

Q7. Why would you say this is the case? SKIP IF Q4=No

☐ Better coordination

☐ Better delivery processes

☐ Improved content

☐ Bringing together programmes under one brand (“Cyber Runway”) improves visibility

☐ Bringing together programmes under one brand (“Cyber Runway”) improves consistency

☐ Bringing together programmes under one brand (“Cyber Runway”) improves quality

☐ Improved awareness amongst entrepreneurs and businesses

☐ Other (please explain why)

Being a coach or mentor

Q8. How satisfied were you with the experience of being a coach or mentor on Cyber Runway?

☐ Very satisfied

☐ Satisfied

☐ Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

☐ Dissatisfied

☐ Very dissatisfied

☐ Not applicable

Q9. What could have improved the experience of being a coach or mentor?

Q10. How satisfied were you with the information provided about the role of coach or mentor?

☐ Very satisfied

☐ Satisfied

☐ Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

☐ Dissatisfied

☐ Very dissatisfied

Q11. What could have improved the information provided by Plexal?

Programme delivery

Q12. How satisfied were you with the support you received for your role in programme delivery?

☐ Very satisfied

☐ Satisfied

☐ Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

☐ Dissatisfied

☐ Very dissatisfied

Q13. What could have improved the support you received?

Q14. Has your role on Cyber Runway changed over time?

☐ Yes

☐ No

Q15. Please tell us briefly how your role on Cyber Runway has changed? IF Q14=Yes

Q16. Please tell us briefly why your role on Cyber Runway has changed? IF Q14=Yes

Q17. How satisfied were you with delivering programme content virtually?

☐ Very satisfied

☐ Satisfied

☐ Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

☐ Dissatisfied

☐ Very dissatisfied

Q18. What would you say were the main advantages of virtual delivery?

Q19. And what would you say were the main disadvantages of virtual delivery?

Q20. To what extent has Covid-19 affected the delivery of Cyber Runway?

☐ To a large extent

☐ To a moderate extent

☐ To a small extent

☐ Not at all

☐ Don’t know / unsure

Q21. Please describe how Covid-19 has affected the delivery of Cyber Runway for you?

Benefits for mentors or coaches

Q22. What have been the benefits to you of being a coach or mentor on Cyber Runway? Tick all that apply. [Multiple answers possible]

☐ I have improved my technical skills

☐ I have expanded my business skills

☐ I have developed new relationships

☐ I have received recognition from my employer (e.g., a bonus or a pay rise)

☐ Other (please provide brief details of the benefits to you of being a coach or a mentor)

Benefits for participants

Q23. In your view, what have been the benefits for participants in Cyber Runway? Tick all that apply. [Multiple answers possible]

☐ Meeting other entrepreneurs

☐ Finding potential business partners

☐ Finding potential co-founders

☐ Meeting investors

☐ Raising funds

☐ Increased knowledge on how to design a Minimum Viable Product

☐ Improved entrepreneurial skills

☐ Improved business management skills

☐ Improved technical skills

☐ Improved pitching skills

☐ Improved resilience

☐ Increased confidence in business skills

☐ Conducting market validations

☐ Improved knowledge about marketing

☐ Improved sales techniques

☐ Improved knowledge about certification schemes

☐ An expanded network

☐ A diversified network

☐ Improved knowledge about how to export products or services

☐ Understanding of IPO processes

☐ They are ready for an IPO

☐ Other (please specify below)

Q24. In your view, are there gaps in the programme content?

☐ No

☐ Yes

If yes, please briefly describe the main gaps:

What worked well and areas for development

Q25. In your view, which aspects of the Cyber Runway programme worked best, and why?

Q26. Are there aspects of the programme which could be improved?

Final questions

Q27. Do you have any other final thoughts to share on Cyber Runway?

12. Appendix E - unsuccessful applicant survey

Background information

Q1. What is the name of your business?

Q2. What is your name?

Q3. How many founders or co-founders does your company have?

☐ 1

☐ 2

☐ 3

☐ More than 3

Equality information

The following questions are to help ensure that this survey is appropriately representative, and are not compulsory.

Q4. Please select the options that best describe you and your co-founders:

	Female	Male	Non-binary	Transgender	Other	Prefer not to say	Not applicable
I am…
My first co-founder is…
My second co-founder is…
My third co-founder is…
My fourth co-founder is…

Q5. For you and each of your co-founders, please indicate who is from an ethnic minority background:

	Ethnic minority background	Other background	Prefer not to say
I am…
My first co-founder is…
My second co-founder is…
My third co-founder is…
My fourth co-founder is…

Q6. In which UK country or region is your company headquartered?

☐ Scotland

☐ Wales

☐ Northern Ireland

☐ North-West England

☐ North-East England

☐ Yorkshire and the Humber

☐ West Midlands

☐ East Midlands

☐ East of England

☐ South-West England

☐ South-East England

☐ London

Q7. What was your revenue in the Financial Year before you applied for Cyber Runway?

☐ Up to £250k

☐ Between £251k and £500k

☐ Between £501k and £750k

☐ Between £751k and £1m

☐ Between £1m and £2m

☐ Between £2m and £5m

☐ Between £5m and £10m

☐ Between £10m and £20m

☐ Between £20m and £50m

☐ Prefer not to say

Q8. How many employees (FTE), including yourself, did you have immediately before you applied for Cyber Runway?

☐ 1-5

☐ 6-10

☐ 11-15

☐ 16-50

☐ 51-100

☐ 101-150

☐ 151-200

☐ 201-250

☐ Over 250

☐ Prefer not to say

Q9. How much investment did you receive in the Financial Year before you applied for Cyber Runway?

☐ Up to £25k

☐ £26k to £50k

☐ £51k to £100k

☐ £101k to £250k

☐ £251k to £500k

☐ Over £500k

☐ None

☐ Prefer not to say

Application experience

Q10. How were you first made aware of Cyber Runway?

☐ Direct contact by DCMS

☐ Government website

☐ Plexal

☐ CSIT

☐ CyLon

☐ Deloitte

☐ Industry contact

☐ Social media

☐ Print media

☐ Unsure

☐ Other:

Q11. Why did you decide to apply for Cyber Runway?

Q12. To what extent do you agree or disagree that you had the right information to inform your decision about whether to apply for Cyber Runway?

☐ Strongly agree

☐ Agree

☐ Neither agree nor disagree

☐ Disagree

☐ Strongly disagree

Q13. What other information about Cyber Runway would have been useful to have prior to applying?

Q14. Was the application process straightforward to complete overall?

☐ Yes

☐ No

If not, why not?

Q15. How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the following aspects of the application process?

	Very satisfied	Satisfied	Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	Dissatisfied	Very dissatisfied	Not sure N/A
How the programme purpose was described
How the programme content was described
Amount of information you had to submit
Eligibility criteria
Support provided during the application process
Communication from Plexal/ Innovate UK during the application process
Communication about the application outcome

Q16. To what extent do you agree or disagree that the following factors made it difficult to apply for Cyber Runway?

	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Not sure N/A
Lack of guidance about the process
Lack of clarity in the application form
Collating the information required to complete the application
Not enough time to complete the application
Lack of clarity about eligibility criteria
Other

If other, please describe what other factors made it difficult to apply to the scheme.

Q17. Do you have any other comments about your experience of applying for Cyber Runway?

What happened in the absence of Cyber Runway

Q18. What part of Cyber Runway did you apply for?

☐ Cyber Launch

☐ Cyber Grow

☐ Cyber Scale

Q19. Why did you apply for Cyber Launch? Tick all that apply. [Multiple choices possible] IF Q18=Cyber Launch

☐ Difficulties meeting other entrepreneurs

☐ Difficulties finding potential partners for my business

☐ Difficulties finding potential partners to set up my company

☐ Difficulties meeting investors

☐ Difficulties raising funds

☐ Lack of knowledge on how to design a Minimum Viable Product

☐ Need to improve entrepreneurial skills

☐ Need to improve business management skills

☐ Need to improve my technical skills

☐ Need to develop pitching skills

☐ Desire to improve my resilience

☐ Desire to increase the confidence in my business skills

☐ Other (please briefly describe any other reasons below):

Q20. Why did you apply for Cyber Grow? Tick all that apply. [Multiple choices possible] IF Q18=Cyber Grow

☐ Difficulties meeting other entrepreneurs

☐ Difficulties meeting investors

☐ Difficulties raising funds

☐ Need to improve entrepreneurial skills

☐ Need to improve business management skills

☐ Need for support to conduct market validations

☐ Need to develop knowledge about marketing

☐ Need to develop pitching skills

☐ Need to develop sales techniques

☐ Need to develop knowledge about certification schemes

☐ Need to increase my network

☐ Need to diversify my network

☐ Need to improve commercialisation of products/services

Q21. Why did you apply for Cyber Scale? Tick all that apply. [Multiple choices possible] IF Q18=Cyber Scale

☐ Lack of knowledge about how to export products or services

☐ Need to increase my network

☐ Need to diversify my network

☐ Need to understand IPO processes

☐ Need to prepare for IPO

☐ Other (please briefly describe any other reasons below):

Q22. Have you successfully completed an IPO? IF Q18=Cyber Scale

☐ No

☐ Yes

Q22. Have you started to export your services or products overseas? IF Q18=Cyber Scale

☐ No

☐ Yes

Q24. Have you participated in other programmes aimed at supporting the establishment and growth of cyber security businesses?

☐ No

☐ Yes

Q25. What are the other programmes? Tick all that apply. [Multiple choices possible] IF Q24=Yes

☐ NCSC for Start-ups

☐ LORCA

☐ CyberFirst Bursary Scheme

☐ Cyber Bootcamps, intense, short training courses aimed at improving cyber-related skills

☐ CyberFirst

☐ Cyber Choices

☐ Other

If other, please name these programmes:

Q26. Since your application have any of the following happened?

	Very strong impact	Strong impact	Moderate impact	Weak impact	No impact	No impact	Not sure N/A
Met other entrepreneurs
Found partners for my business
Found partners to set up my company
Met investors
Raised funds
Developed knowledge on design of Minimum Viable Product
Improved entrepreneurial skills
Improved business management skills
Improved technical skills
Improved pitching skills
Improved resilience
Improved confidence in my business skills
Improved ability to conduct market validations
Improved knowledge about marketing
Improved sales techniques
Improved knowledge about certification schemes
Diversified network
Improved knowledge about exporting goods or services
Improved understanding of IPO processes
Completed IPO preparations

Q27. Have you successfully started a cyber security business since you applied for Cyber Runway?

☐ No

☐ Yes

Q28. Has your cyber security business ceased trading since you applied for Cyber Runway?

☐ No

☐ Yes

Q29. Has your revenue grown since you applied for Cyber Runway?

☐ No

☐ Yes

Q30. By how much has your revenue grown since you applied for Cyber Runway, and how much are you expecting it to grow over the next year?

	Up to 2.5%	Over 2.5% and up to 5%	Over 5% and up to 7.5%	Over 7.5% and up to 10%	Over 10% and up to 15%	Over 15%	Prefer not to say	Unsure / don’t know
Has grown by
Will grow by

Q31. How many employees (FTE), including yourself, do you now have and how many do you expect to have in the coming year?

	1-5	6-10	11-15	16-50	51-100	Over 100	Prefer not to say
Currently Employed
Additional Employees

Q32. How much new investment have you received since you applied for Cyber Runway?

☐ Up to £25k

☐ £26k to £50k

☐ £51k to £100k

☐ £101k to £250k

☐ £251k to £500k

☐ Over £500k

☐ None

☐ Prefer not to say

Q33. From which types of investors have you received this investment? Select all that apply. [Multiple responses possible]

☐ Owners / founders

☐ Other individuals

☐ Venture capital firms

☐ Business angels

☐ Government grants

☐ Crowdfunding

☐ Inward investment (i.e., from overseas)

☐ Other

Please specify from whom:

Q34. How likely is it that these investors will continue to invest in the longer term?

☐ Very likely

☐ Likely

☐ Neither likely nor unlikely

☐ Unlikely

☐ Very unlikely

Final questions

Q35. Would you apply again to Cyber Runway?

☐ No

☐ Yes

Q36. Do you have any other final thoughts to share on your experience of applying for Cyber Runway?

Q37. What additional support would you like DCMS to provide for business growth in the cyber security sector or for start-ups in cyber security?

13. Appendix F - contribution analysis

Based on the Theory of Change outcomes and impacts, the following contribution statements describe the results to which Cyber Runway is expected to contribute:

-helps to increase business viability and short-term investments -supports leads to increased company revenues, productivity, and changes in business knowledge or skills - leads to an increased number of start-ups, with more viable products or services trialled and better networks - leads to increased early survival rates along with better access to investors and improved commercialisation of products and services - Improves the internationalisation of businesses with more in bound investment and overseas operation - leads to an increased number of cyber companies who progress to an IPO

Using evidence gathered through interviews, surveys and case studies, and reviewing documentation provided by DCMS, the evaluation has found the following evidence of Cyber Runway’s contribution to each of these results. The analysis also considers evidence of other factors that contribute to the observed result.

• Strong contribution indicates that Cyber Runway achieved substantial results and that there are few or no other contributing factors.
• Some contribution indicates that Cyber Runway achieved some, but no substantial results with evidence that other contributing factors are at play.
• Negligible contribution indicates Cyber Runway has not yet achieved any or very limited results or that results are the effects of other contributing factors.

In addition the contribution analysis assess the strength of evidence underpinning the contribution findings as follows:

• Strong evidence is evidence from multiple sources that is clear with limited need for interpretation or prompting.
• Weak evidence indicates that participants and other stakeholders discussed the result but that there is either only limited evidence for it materialising or that the evidence needed interpretation or prompts.
• Negligible evidence indicates that there is no or very little evidence for the result

Table 13: Contribution analysis

Contribution statement	Evidence and other contributing factors	Strength of Cyber Runway’s contribution to the result	Strength of evidence
Cyber Runway helps to increase business viability and short-term investments	In total 27% (n=4) of the 15 coaches and mentors surveyed felt that participants have benefited from meeting investors on the programme, but there was little evidence that they felt the programme improved business viability and short-term investments in the businesses. Feedback from respondents to the participant survey highlighted the fact that there was little to no fundraising support, and this was not a priority of the programme. Participants needed more opportunity to speak to and network with more investors as this would have helped them to learn how to pitch their product and learn insights from what investors care about as well as better positioning themselves for investment.	Some contribution: to date, the programme has had little reported effect on business viability or on short-term investments. Participants felt that the programme could have a stronger focus on these aspects.	Strong evidence: participants and mentors/coaches both provided clear evidence.
Cyber Runway support leads to increased company revenues, productivity, and changes in business knowledge or skills	Delivery partners said that the speakers and trainers provided businesses with insights into professional and personal development aspects needed for their businesses. Cyber Runway coaches and mentors suggested that the coaches and mentors themselves have experienced skill and knowledge development as a result of the programme. These coaches and mentors also selected areas they felt participants had improved in through the programme. 67% (n=10) of the 15 surveyed felt participants had improved their pitching skills, 60% (n=9) of the 15 felt knowledge around minimum viable product design had improved, and 40% (n=6) of the 15 felt confidence in business skills had improved. The majority of the 25 Cyber Runway participants have experienced increases in their revenues since they joined Cyber Runway (60%, n=15). Due to the small sample size of survey respondents, a benchmark comparison against revenue increase of firms in the overall cyber security sector would not be appropriate. They expect further significant growth in the future. However, most of the respondents highlighted that they are unsure whether their revenue growth could be attributable to Cyber Runway. In case studies, participants stressed that they have improved their business knowledge.	Negligible contribution: participating teams and businesses have seen some revenue growth, and new skills development. However, for many it is not possible to say if this was due to Cyber Runway.	Weak evidence: based on survey and responses it is not possible to detect the programme’s contribution to business growth, although skills have reportedly improved.
Cyber Launch leads to an increased number of start-ups, with more viable products or services trialled and better networks.	While mentors and coaches pointed toward improved networks, they could not comment on changes to survival rates. The delivery partners and case study businesses said that participants improved their networks, and that they were able to improve their products, market validate them, or better communicate their value. However, in the participant survey, only one Launch participant reported having improved their knowledge of how to design a Minimum Viable Product.	Some contribution: while there is no evidence of other contributing factors, the programme has supported an expanded network of the participants. There was little evidence of increased numbers of start-ups or better knowledge on designing minimum viable products.	Strong evidence: surveys interviews and case studies provide clear, consistent evidence.
Cyber Grow leads to increased early survival rates along with better access to investors and improved commercialisation of products and services	Few mentors or participants said that participants were able to access investors, and there was little evidence from participants themselves through survey responses, of improved commercialisation skills. One case study organisation discussed improvements to the way they implement previously learned business skills.	Negligible contribution: business skills have improved, however there is no evidence that suggests that survival rates have increased as a result.	Strong evidence: surveys interviews and case studies provide clear, consistent evidence
Cyber Scale improves the internationalisation of businesses with more in bound investment and overseas operations	There is limited to no evidence that Cyber Scale improved the internationalisation of businesses. While the majority of respondents to the participant survey have started to export, they said that this was not due to participation in the programme. Indeed, most of those who did start to export have also participated in other programmes, such as LORCA, Cyber101 or NCSC for Startups. While they did not attribute their exports to any of the programmes, it may be that a combination of these programmes has contributed to this.	Negligible contribution: there is no evidence that suggests the programme contributed to businesses starting to export or become more internationalised.	Strong evidence: surveys provide clear, consistent evidence.
Cyber Scale leads to an increased number of cyber companies who progress to an IPO	Among mentors and coaches and among Cyber Scale participants who responded to the surveys very few either indicated that they felt the programme improved companies’ understanding of IPO processes or that their successful IPO was due to the programme.	Negligible contribution: there is no evidence that suggests the programme contributed to an increased number of companies that progress to an IPO.	Strong evidence: surveys and interviews provide clear, consistent evidence.

1. Red = Behind and putting the project at risk; Amber = Marginally behind however not putting the project at risk; Green = on track ↩

2. Plexal Cyber Runway Programme 2021-22 Final Report (March 2022) ↩

3. Cyber Runway Mid-point Survey Responses Summary February 2022 ↩

4. In February 2023, the parts of UK government responsible for cyber security policy moved to the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology ↩

5. Note: 1 of the 15 respondents stated they were both a coach and a mentor ↩

6. Note: due to the small sample size, findings from the participant survey are indicative rather than conclusive. ↩

7. This indicates the extent to which members of the project teams participated in training sessions offered. E.g., a member of Praeferre’s team took part in 13 sessions across all four training themes offered as part of Runway Grow; and a member of CyberHive’s team participated in all training sessions offered as part of Runway Scale. Note, participation in all training offered was not compulsory. ↩

8. For example, training and events on product development or finance ↩

9. UK in a Changing Europe (2020): Cybersecurity after Brexit. [Available online] [Accessed 14 January 2022] and European Council (2020): Digital Europe programme. [Available online] [Accessed 14 January 2022]. ↩

10. Ipsos MORI (2020): Evaluation of ICURe. Final Report [Accessed 14 January 2022]. See also, Douglas Morgan et al (2013): Crossing the ‘Valley of Death’: Transitioning Cybersecurity Research into Practice. IEEE 11:2; and CyberASAP (2021): Impact and Insights Report [Available online] [Accessed 14 January 2022]. ↩

11. Diversity UK [Accessed 14 January 2022]. ↩

12. SEIS refers to Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme. It is one four venture capital schemes offered by the UK Government and is designed to attract investors to UK businesses that are less than two years old. The SEIS is a tax relief programme, it does not provide cash funding. By providing tax breaks to investors, the scheme makes it easier for companies to attract investment. ↩

13. Other stakeholders were: Capslock, UKC3, AWS, Industry partners including IBM, Barclays, Lloyds Banking Group and Capita, and Investment sources including C5 Capital, Paladin Capital, Heligan Group and the London Stock Exchange. These stakeholders were responsible for a variety of delivery tasks. They ranged from training, mentorship and event provisions to access to networks including potential investors. ↩

14. This information was provided to RSM UK Consulting by Plexal ↩

15. This information was provided to RSM UK Consulting by Plexal ↩

16. The number of individuals who viewed the website ↩

17. CR Application Review Guide for Scorers 211005 (provide by Plexal to RSM UK Consulting) ↩

18. Information on the application process provided by Plexal for RSM UK Consulting (Nov 2022) ↩

19. This information was provided to RSM UK Consulting by Plexal ↩

20. Information provided by DCMS. ↩

21. The logframe reports are documents in Excel format containing information on: a cover sheet with a brief narrative overview of progress; a financial report; KPI and milestone progress; and a risk register and guidance on the risk register. ↩

22. National events hosted in Belfast, Scotland, Cardiff and Sheffield ↩

23. Feedback from Plexal indicates they counted everyone as completing the programme except one who dropped out due to illness. If Plexal were satisfied that companies were engaged with the programme they were counted as a completion. ↩

24. Feedback from Plexal indicates it was agreed with DCMS that usefulness ratings would be a better indicator than favourability scores and therefore this was used as a proxy. ↩

25. Information provided by Plexal to RSM UK Consulting (November 2022) ↩

26. Information provided by Plexal to RSM UK Consulting (November 2022) ↩

27. Information provided by Plexal to RSM UK Consulting (November 2022) ↩

28. Data provided by DCMS. ↩

29. Due to the limited sample size of the participant survey respondents, it is difficult to determine if the Cyber Runway programme has had an impact on its participants through its three different streams - Launch, Grow, Scale. The analysis of single streams is further limited by the fact that, although 25 responses were received for the programme survey as a whole, only a few responses were allocated to each of the three streams. ↩

30. It will not be possible to collect longer term views at this stage therefore any evidence will be self-reported perceptions or predictions ↩

31. Information provided by DCMS. ↩

32. Information provided by DCMS. ↩

33. Information provided by DCMS. ↩

34. GVA is the value generated by any unit engaged in the production of goods and services. ↩

35. This figure was generated from analysis of Tech Nation Cyber programme data as part of the Tech Nation Cyber programme evaluation. This estimated GVA impact through 3 stages: 1. Applying the estimated 14-25% uplift in employment range to the average company size at baseline to calculate employment uplift per firm. 2. Scaling this uplift by the number of firms in each initiative. 3. Multiplying this by the differential between digital sector GVA per worker (£99,000) and all sectors GVA per worker (£56,000). ↩

36. Delivery partner for the Cyber Runway programme. They asked participants to report on KPIs at baseline (before the start of the programme) and at the end of programme. ↩

37. Red = Behind and putting the project at risk; Amber = Marginally behind however not putting the project at risk; Green = on track ↩

38. Plexal Cyber Runway Programme 2021-22 Final Report (March 2022) ↩

39. Cyber Runway Mid-point Survey Responses Summary February 2022 ↩