Logo Babele 2017
Log In
Request a demo

Babele Knowledge Hub

Find the latest information about how to run an accelerator program, how to engage stakeholders and all Babele platform updates
3
Babele

Babele
6,113

ARE YOU DRIVEN TO CHANGE THE WORLD?
We are. Since inception.

Join Babele: the online mentoring comm

Babele

2 days ago

Babele
For almost twenty years, large corporations across Europe have been trying to solve a fascinating problem.How do we turn our employees into entrepreneurs?The strategy was called intrapreneurship. The execution involved, on average, four sticky notes per employee, one beanbag per twelve cubicles, and a workshop facilitator named Marco who used the word "ecosystem" thirty-eight times in a single afternoon.Every Innovation Department eventually built the same habitat. A colourful room on a low-traffic floor, repainted at considerable expense. Movable furniture that nobody ever moved. A coffee machine that produced beverages slightly worse than the one in the canteen, which was somehow considered part of the experience. And a wall, always the same wall, covered in vinyl letters reading DISRUPT, IDEATE, THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX — placed there by an agency that had charged €47,000 for the concept and an additional €12,000 for the installation.The same company that required six signatures to order a second monitor was now asking employees to behave like Steve Jobs. This is roughly equivalent to opening a vegan restaurant inside a slaughterhouse and wondering why the cows seem confused.The theory sounded reasonable in the slide deck. Employees know the business. Employees understand the customers. Employees understand the technology. Therefore employees should innovate. The only minor inconvenience was that those same corporations had spent the previous thirty years systematically engineering, training, promoting, and rewarding the precise opposite of every behaviour associated with entrepreneurship.Entrepreneurs take risks. Corporations measure risk in committee, weight it across three scenarios, and assign it to whoever was absent at the meeting. Entrepreneurs move fast. Corporations schedule steering committees, which then schedule pre-meetings, which then schedule alignment calls about the agenda of the steering committee. Entrepreneurs break rules. Corporations write entire policy documents explaining, in legally reviewed language, why rules exist and what happens to people who break them.Having spent three decades carefully training people not to behave like entrepreneurs, corporations then expressed deep surprise when those same people, on Monday morning, after a thrilling Friday workshop, failed to behave like entrepreneurs.I once attended an intrapreneurship workshop in Milan where a senior executive declared, with feeling, that we were now "all founders." He then explained that our deck would need to be approved by Legal, Compliance, Communications, the Brand Committee, and personally by him before being presented to anyone outside the room. The most innovative thing in the room that day was his ability to keep a straight face.Innovation, you see, is almost entirely composed of surprises. The corporate immune system, like any good immune system, is specifically designed to identify, isolate, and eliminate surprises before they reach any organ of importance.Then something inconvenient began to happen.The startups started arriving. At first they were curiosities — invited to demo, given a free coffee, told they had "real energy". Then they became suppliers. Then partners. Today, quietly, they have become something much more important.The external R&D department.Because startups possess one remarkable feature that no innovation programme has ever been able to replicate inside a Fortune 500: they are already broken in all the ways corporations were trying to teach their employees to become. They move fast because they have no choice. They take risks because bankruptcy is, statistically, one of the most effective motivational frameworks ever invented. They challenge assumptions because nobody is paying them to defend the existing ones. And, crucially, they do not require approval from six committees to change direction — they require approval from a co-founder, who is usually in the same room and currently making the coffee.This is why so many of the same corporations that spent fifteen years building intrapreneurship academies now spend equivalent budgets on open innovation programmes, startup challenges, and corporate venture funds. Not because they suddenly fell in love with startups. Because startups solved a problem that intrapreneurship structurally could not. You can teach innovation tools. You can teach design thinking. You can teach the lean startup methodology in seventeen different formats, all of them PowerPoint. What you cannot easily teach, in a workshop, to employees with mortgages and good health insurance, is the deeply persuasive psychological effect of knowing that if this particular idea fails, there might not be a company next year and you might not be able to afford rent next month.That specific workshop remains difficult to organize inside a Fortune 500. HR has concerns.The irony, when you step back, is something close to beautiful. After two decades of trying to manufacture entrepreneurs inside corporations, often using budgets that would have funded twenty actual startups, many corporations eventually discovered that it was easier — and significantly cheaper per innovation produced — to collaborate with the entrepreneurs already conveniently available on the open market, building things at three in the morning in apartments their parents partially pay for.The intrapreneurship movement promised to inject startup DNA into large organizations.Open innovation has quietly accepted a simpler truth: DNA is much easier to borrow than to rewrite.Especially when the slaughterhouse, structurally, was never going to go vegan.#InnovationTheatre#intrapreneurship#openinnovation#startup#CorporateInnovation ... See MoreSee Less

Photo

View on Facebook
· Share

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linked In Share by Email

Babele

6 days ago

Babele
The Great Software DelusionThere are currently executives all over Europe who believe they can replace ten years of software development with two interns, ChatGPT, and a long weekend.This is considered innovation by the same people who, eighteen months ago, considered NFTs a treasury strategy.It always starts the same way. Someone discovers AI, usually mid-flight, somewhere between the keynote they almost attended and the in-flight magazine they actually read. By the time the plane lands, every software vendor in their portfolio is, in their head, already obsolete. They text the CTO from the taxi."How hard can it really be?"The honest answer is hidden, which is precisely why the question keeps getting asked by people who have never had to answer it.A weekend later, a prototype appears. A dashboard, a workflow, a portal, a shiny interface with buttons that mostly do what buttons are supposed to do. The demo goes beautifully. The executive smiles, the board smiles, the consultant who charged €180,000 to facilitate the workshop smiles widest of all. The actual software company, watching from the back, quietly orders another coffee.Because everyone in the room is admiring the same thing. The part above the water.Software is one of the few industries where the visible part is almost irrelevant. The screen is not the product. The product is the eight years of accumulated trauma hiding behind the screen. Permissions, roles, notifications, audit trails, integrations with three legacy systems whose original developers have died or moved to Lisbon, data migrations from spreadsheets containing twenty years of someone's personal naming conventions, GDPR compliance, the seventeen edge cases discovered by users within forty-three minutes of launch, and the one customer in Slovenia who logs in only on Tuesdays and has somehow broken production every time since 2019.Nobody applauds these things. Nobody puts them in a demo. Nobody writes LinkedIn posts celebrating a successful permission hierarchy, because that post would receive four likes and three of them would be from the developer's mother.And yet this is where software actually lives.The current AI moment has produced a magnificent new illusion. For the first time in history, building something that looks like software has become easier than understanding what software actually is. A founder can now generate a convincing prototype in an afternoon, which is wonderful, and also the same kind of wonderful as discovering you can perform open-heart surgery if you watch enough YouTube.Prototypes and products have approximately the relationship that movie trailers have with marriages. One is dramatically easier to maintain. The other generates lawyers.The misunderstanding is structural. People assume software companies are paid to build software. They are not. Software companies are paid to survive reality, and reality, it turns out, is a full-time job. Reality is the user who forgot their password for the fourth time this quarter and is now emailing the CEO. Reality is the regulator who changed the rules in May and forgot to publish them in English until October. Reality is the procurement officer who needs twelve new reports by Friday because someone in finance had a thought during yoga.AI can generate code. Reality generates complexity. And reality, so far, remains undefeated by every technology that has ever promised to retire it.The funny part is that the industry has lived this exact film before, with different costumes. In the late nineties, websites would replace every business. Then mobile apps would replace every website. Then no-code would replace every developer. Then low-code would replace every no-code consultant. Then blockchain would replace, ambitiously, the concept of trust itself. Now AI will replace software companies, briefly, until next March, when something else will replace AI.Every time, the same beautiful thing happens. Building gets easier. Demand grows faster. Because once you lower the cost of creating software, customers immediately invent new problems they would like software to solve, most of which involve a calendar, a notification, and a CSV export.The software industry doesn't die. It receives more work, then complains about being understaffed, then gets acquired by private equity, then receives even more work.I spent six weeks last year integrating a single payment provider into a B2B platform. The AI generated the code in nineteen seconds. The remaining five weeks, four days, twenty-three hours, and forty-one seconds were spent explaining to three different stakeholders why the nineteen-second version did not, in fact, ship to production. I was paid for the six weeks. The AI was thanked in the demo.The irony is that AI will probably create more software companies, not fewer, because the hardest part of software was never writing the code. It was understanding the mess on the other side of the screen, and the mess, generously, keeps getting bigger.Somewhere, right now, an executive is staring at a prototype generated over the weekend and announcing to his team:"Look. We just replaced a software company."Maybe.Or maybe what he replaced is the easiest five percent of the problem, in a context where the remaining ninety-five percent is currently buffering, throwing 500 errors, blocking the entire sales pipeline, and waiting for someone with eight years of experience and no LinkedIn presence to fix it before Monday morning.And unlike ChatGPT, production always answers back.Usually at 3 AM.Usually to the CEO. ... See MoreSee Less

Photo

View on Facebook
· Share

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linked In Share by Email

Babele

1 week ago

Babele
There are founders in Europe who can complete a Horizon Europe application faster than they can onboard a customer.This is generally considered a success.The European startup ecosystem has spent the last twenty years and roughly €100 billion trying to remove friction from entrepreneurship. Most of the friction survived. It just found employment inside application forms.A founder starts with an idea. The ecosystem responds enthusiastically."Wonderful.""Here are seventeen instruments designed to support you."She applies to an incubator. Then an accelerator. Then a regional challenge. Then a national grant. Then an EU voucher. Then a pilot program. Then a second accelerator that specializes in helping startups apply to the grants they missed while applying to the first accelerator.At some point nobody is entirely sure whether the company is building a product or pursuing an unaccredited degree in administrative literature.Each organization wants a business plan, a pitch deck, a three-year financial forecast, an impact framework, a risk assessment, a theory of change, a market analysis, a sustainability annex, a gender equality declaration, and a detailed explanation of how the startup intends to become globally scalable while remaining locally rooted, climate-neutral, ethically governed, and aligned with at least three Sustainable Development Goals of its own choosing.Preferably in PDF. Maximum 5MB. Font: Arial 11. Margins: 2cm. Page numbers in the lower right.The founder writes essentially the same answer seventeen times. Each organization calls it a different process and each insists their version is the simplified one.Somewhere along the way, the ecosystem accidentally domesticated a new species of entrepreneur.The Professional Applicant.They know every open call. Every deadline. Every funding instrument. Every eligibility criterion. They can explain, in detail, the difference between six nearly identical support schemes that were each designed to simplify access to entrepreneurship.Their calendar is full. Their reporting is immaculate. Their LinkedIn is decorated with logos of programs that paid them between €5,000 and €25,000 for slide decks no customer has ever read.Their startup occasionally interrupts this process.The hidden assumption behind these systems is that the best founders will naturally emerge from the application funnel. This sounds reasonable until you remember that some of the most successful entrepreneurs in history would have struggled to upload the correct attachment before the deadline.The ecosystem measures applications submitted, calls launched, beneficiaries onboarded, KPIs reached, and reports delivered. The founder measures customers, revenue, and whether rent gets paid this month.These are not always the same sport. They are not always played in the same century.The mechanism is elegant once you see it. Public money flows in at the top. It is filtered through agencies, foundations, regional development bodies, and innovation hubs, each of which retains a percentage for management, communication, and what is delicately referred to as ecosystem animation. What reaches the founder at the bottom is a voucher worth slightly less than the time required to obtain it.Everyone in the chain is doing their job. The job, it turns out, is the chain.Eventually you discover a quiet law:The more support becomes available, the more time is required to access it.And so an ecosystem designed to accelerate entrepreneurship achieves, with admirable consistency, the opposite. Not maliciously. Not by design. Just through the accumulated weight of portals, templates, evaluations, registrations, eligibility checks, declarations, annexes, supporting documents, and mandatory fields marked with a small red asterisk that has, statistically, consumed more founder hours than any competitor ever has.Every region wants more startups. Almost no one asks the embarrassing question underneath:What would happen if founders spent as much time building companies as they currently spend proving they deserve help building them?The answer would be difficult to measure. Which is probably why nobody has turned it into an application form yet.Give it eighteen months.#EuropeanStartupss#StartupEcosystem#EUfunding#HorizonEurope#deeptechno#InnovationTheatre#bureaucracytax#FounderLife#publicfunding#grantwriting ... See MoreSee Less

Photo

View on Facebook
· Share

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linked In Share by Email

Babele

1 week ago

Babele
🌍 That's a wrap on the CRAFT Final Conference!100 registrations, 45 participants, 38 countries, six continents — what a way to close three years of building stronger support for social innovation across Europe. 💚From frugal innovation to policy recommendations and practical tools, the day brought together social entrepreneurs, support organisations, academics and policymakers — all asking the same question: how do we help social innovators thrive?Huge thanks to everyone who joined and shaped the conversation. The movement doesn't stop here. 🙌👉 Read the full recap: craftaction.eu/news-knowledge/final-conference/#socialinnovation #craft #socialentrepreneurship #ErasmusPlus #Babele ... See MoreSee Less

Photo

View on Facebook
· Share

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linked In Share by Email

Babele

1 week ago

Babele
What does it take to build a workplace equality toolkit that people actually use, instead of nod along to?That's the question UnlockEquality is answering this year.It's an Erasmus+ project I'm lucky to be working on, with five partners across Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Croatia. At Babele we're the technical partner: building the digital repository that will host the project's growing library of workshop materials, interactive serious games, and practical guides on identifying and acting on gender inequality at work.What I find most interesting about the project is what it didn't try to do. It didn't try to add more lectures, more posters, more awareness campaigns. It asked the harder question instead: which moments do people miss? What does it look like to actually catch a biased decision in the room where it's being made? And what does the practical tool look like that helps a manager, an HR officer, or an adult educator catch it next time?First pilot rounds start late this year. Excited to keep building this alongside LCCI, Eurodimensions, Stichting Incubator (Inqubator Leeuwarden), and Udruga DONUM.Project 2025-1-LV01-KA220-ADU-000363211. Funded by the European Union. Views are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the EU or EACEA.#unlockequality #ErasmusPlus #genderequality #WorkplaceInclusion ... See MoreSee Less

Photo

View on Facebook
· Share

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linked In Share by Email

Babele

2 weeks ago

Babele
I spent three days at an innovation ecosystem conference.By the end of it, I had heard the word “ecosystem” so many times it stopped sounding like English.Nobody defined it.This is completely normal.Innovation ecosystems belong to a rare category of concepts that become less clear the longer people discuss them.Around me:- universities were collaborating with accelerators,- accelerators were collaborating with governments,- governments were collaborating with corporates,- corporates were collaborating with research centers,- research centers were collaborating with universities.Everybody was collaborating with everybody.It looked less like an ecosystem and more like a nature documentary about highly educated birds flying in synchronized circles above a funding opportunity.Every panel eventually produced the sacred sentence: “We need stronger stakeholder alignment.”- Everybody nodded.- The moderator nodded.- The audience nodded.One man in the third row nodded with such determination he nearly achieved vertical integration.Nobody asked the obvious question: "Aligned around what exactly?"Because beneath all the language of ecosystems lies a slightly uncomfortable reality:Most ecosystems are not ecosystems.They are groups of organizations standing near each other while periodically exchanging PDFs.An ecosystem sounds like a system.Most are not.They are:- conferences,- newsletters,- partnership announcements,- memorandums of understanding,- strategy documents,- LinkedIn photos of seven people pointing at the same laptop.The ecosystem exists primarily as a belief structure.A startup enters a university entrepreneurship program.Then an incubator.Then an accelerator.Then a grant scheme.Then an investor readiness program.Then a science park.Then perhaps an innovation voucher.Then maybe a corporate pilot.Every organization reports success.The incubator reports success.The accelerator reports success.The university reports success.The public agency reports success.Meanwhile the startup moves through the ecosystem like a ghost haunting administrative buildings.Everybody touches it.Nobody follows it.Ask a very simple question: How many startups entering your ecosystem eventually reach seed funding?Silence.How many reach Series A?Silence.How many disappear completely?Silence.How many fail because they cannot access customers?Silence.How many fail because they received mentoring for 14 consecutive months but never met a single paying client?Very powerful silence.The ecosystem speaks constantly about innovation.The ecosystem knows surprisingly little about itself.People often describe ecosystems as engines.That feels optimistic.An engine at least moves in one direction.Most ecosystems resemble a rowing team where every person rows with incredible passion while facing a different direction.- Universities row.- Accelerators row.- Governments row.- Investors row.- Consultants row.- Science parks row.Everyone is rowing as hard as humanly possible.The boat spins in circles with extraordinary efficiency.The annual report describes this as momentum.And the strange thing is: almost nobody involved is lazy.Quite the opposite.- Most people genuinely care.- Most people work incredibly hard.- Most organizations are trying to do useful things.The problem is not effort.The problem is visibility.A system that cannot see itself is not really a system.It is a collection of local optimizations wearing a trench coat pretending to be coordination.Imagine a hospital where every department keeps separate patient records.- Cardiology reports success.- Neurology reports success.- Orthopedics reports success.- Administration reports outstanding yearly outcomes.The patient died three months ago.Nobody compared notes.Absurd.Yet innovation ecosystems often operate in remarkably similar ways.Every organization measures its own activity.Very few measure the journey.And the journey is the only thing that matters.Because startups do not experience ecosystems as stakeholder maps.They experience them as obstacles.Can I access talent?Can I access customers?Can I access funding?Can I survive long enough to reach the next stage without developing a psychological dependency on pitch competitions?The startup does not care which organization provided the support.Only whether the support arrived when it was needed.That is what ecosystems are supposed to do.Not host conferences.Not produce strategy diagrams that resemble planning documents for a medium-sized military invasion.Not create 94-page PDFs explaining “cross-sector innovation synergies.”An ecosystem should be capable of understanding itself.Where startups progress.Where they fail.Where funding bottlenecks exist.Where market access breaks down.Where support structures produce actual outcomes instead of inspirational panel discussions.Most cannot.Which creates one final irony.The innovation world absolutely loves ecosystem thinking.Because ecosystem thinking sounds visionary.It sounds collaborative.It sounds systemic.It fits beautifully inside keynote presentations delivered by people holding tiny microphones.What it dislikes is ecosystem infrastructure.Infrastructure is less sexy.Infrastructure requires shared visibility.Shared visibility requires coordination.Coordination requires organizations to occasionally prioritize the system over their individual reporting framework.And that is usually the exact moment the ecosystem begins experiencing “stakeholder complexity.”Which is a very elegant professional expression meaning:“everyone agrees collaboration is important as long as nothing changes.”Eventually many ecosystems discover something deeply uncomfortable.They were never ecosystems at all.They were just silos that occasionally met for coffee. ... See MoreSee Less

Photo

View on Facebook
· Share

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linked In Share by Email

Babele

1 month ago

Babele
After months of research across five EU countries, we're proud to share the first major output of UnlockEquality: Level up your workplace — a free, open-access toolkit to help organisations recognise and address gender inequality at work.The toolkit is structured around five practical areas, each developed by a partner with country-specific legal context:1️⃣ Organisational Policies & Structures — Babele 🇩🇰2️⃣ Everyday Behaviours & Interpersonal Dynamics — Udruga DONUM 🇭🇷3️⃣ HR Systems: Recruitment, Pay & Promotion — Eurodimensions 🇲🇹4️⃣ Pregnancy, Parenthood & Work–Life Balance — LCCI 🇱🇻5️⃣ Inclusion of LGBTQ+ & Gender-Diverse Employees — Stichting Incubator 🇳🇱Each section includes a practical checklist and an EU legislation reference adapted to national contexts — designed for employers, HR professionals, adult educators, and anyone working to build fairer workplaces.Explore the toolkit 👉 unlockequality.com/toolkit/#UnlockEquality #GenderEquality #ErasmusPlus #WorkplaceInclusion #DEI ... See MoreSee Less

Photo

View on Facebook
· Share

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linked In Share by Email