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 ESO 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 the main topic. The question was no longer about how to run a program, but how to sustain the organization behind it.
A similar pattern appeared in Bandung. ESOs there are relatively mature, and the learning dynamic focused on how to improve what already exists, particularly in finding enterprises for their programs. One idea that came up was to strengthen collaboration across ESOs, such as building a shared pipeline database.
In contrast, in cities like Solo and Palu, participants were still focused on strengthening foundational program design. Worksheets and structured frameworks from the playbook helped with mentorship structure, session sequencing, learning objectives.
In Lampung, where exposure to the impact ecosystem is still limited, even concepts like the Zebra vs Unicorn narrative felt new. Participants were more focused on understanding the fundamentals, including how to identify the right founders and maintain participant engagement throughout programs.
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 disconnect 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 an alignment with what’s possible on the ground. Execution can become difficult when programs are designed to only meet proposal expectations rather than being grounded in reality.
3. Financial sustainability becomes the bigger question
Among several ESOs in Bali and Bandung, 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.
In Lampung, the discussions inspired university-owned ESO to pursue external funding and explore revenue sources beyond university support.
This suggests that when ESOs are confident in their program design capability, sustainability becomes their next challenge. Long-term sustainability feels uncertain when there’s no clear revenue models.
4. Founder retention in campus programs
In conversations with a campus-based ESO in Solo, we learned that alumni often chose formal employment after graduation, as it was perceived as more stable than continuing to build 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 moves to 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.