Across several cities in Indonesia, our Zebra Accelerator Playbook workshops brought together entrepreneurial support organizations (ESOs) working in different local contexts. While the goal was to strengthen accelerator design and execution, the workshops revealed patterns in how accelerator priorities evolve across ecosystems.
Each city had its own dynamics. But some patterns kept coming up; about how institutional context, ecosystem maturity, and organizational realities shape ESOs challenges.
Here are our four observations.
1. Ecosystem maturity shapes what accelerators prioritize
What participants worried about differed from one city to another. In Bali, participants were confident in their program structure and delivery. Discussions quickly moved from curriculum design to these questions: How do we price our services? What revenue streams would work for us? How do we sustain our organization beyond project-based funding?
Financial sustainability became a central topic. The challenge was no longer just how to run a program, but how to sustain the organization behind it.
In contrast, in cities like Solo and Palu, participants were still focused on strengthening foundational program design. Worksheets and structured frameworks helped organize thinking around mentorship structure, session sequencing, learning objectives.
This contrast suggests that as ecosystems mature, accelerator priorities shift from program design fundamentals toward organizational sustainability and resilience.
2. The mismatch between proposals vs operational reality
Another issue that came up repeatedly was the gap between what was planned and what actually happened on the ground. In Solo, for example, ESOs reflected that while their program proposal looked strong on paper, execution faced some constraints; field conditions didn’t match initial assumptions, team capacity was limited, finding relevant mentors was difficult, and certain formats (such as online mentoring) were not feasible.
This gave us an important insight that program design doesn’t just require a strong curriculum, but also alignment with what’s possible on the ground. When programs are designed to only meet proposal expectations rather than grounded in reality, execution can become difficult.
3. Financial sustainability becomes the bigger question
Among several ESOs in Bali, where there was a confidence in program design and delivery, discussions got more lively when financial models were introduced. Participants expressed concerns around their reliance on project-based funding, pricing, and funding diversification.
This suggests that when ESOs are confident in their program design capability, sustainability becomes their next challenge. Without clear revenue models, long-term sustainability feels uncertain.
4. Founder retention in campus programs
In conversations with a campus-based ESO in Solo, alumni often chose formal employment after graduation, as it was perceived as more stable than continuing building their enterprises.
In this context, founder retention challenges seem shaped by more than just the program experience.
What this means for accelerator ecosystems
Accelerator challenges don’t look the same everywhere. They depend on where the ecosystem is and the realities they operate in.
In some places, the focus is still on getting the basics of program design right. In others, the struggle is making sure what’s written on proposals match what’s actually possible on the ground. And for more established ESOs, the conversation shifts towards how to keep the organization running.
Seeing these struggles side by side gives us an insight that what works in one city won’t automatically work in another. These patterns tell us where the ecosystem stands and what kind of support it needs.
This article is part of our #INScope column, where we explore key trends, challenges, and solutions shaping the industry. Through #INScope, we share our perspectives on the evolving impact ecosystem and offer insights for sustainable growth and positive change.