06 - Benchmarking
Vigía Incubation Framework (VIF)
National Public–Private Incubation Network Guide - Version 1.0
1. Introduction
Benchmarking provides the comparative foundation for designing a context‑aware, globally aligned, and future‑ready national incubation system.
It identifies what global programs do well, where they fall short, and which principles can be safely adapted to the national context.
Benchmarking does not prescribe models to copy.
Instead, it helps governments understand:
- what is transferable,
- what requires adaptation,
- what should be avoided, and
- how the VIF model positions itself within the global landscape.
This section feeds directly into Section 03 (System Architecture) and Section 08 (Roadmap).
For navigation support, see 00a - How to Use VIF.
For terminology, see 00c - Glossary.
2. How to Read This Section
This section is structured to:
- Provide a global overview of recognized incubation models
- Compare their governance, funding, and specialization
- Extract design principles relevant to VIF
- Identify cautionary gaps and non‑transferable elements
- Ensure all benchmarking is future‑aligned (Vigía Futura)
This section should be used by:
- Ministries and policy units
- National innovation agencies
- TOU teams
- Incubator operators
- International development partners
3. Benchmarking Process Overview
flowchart LR
A(Global Programs) --> B(Extracted Principles)
B --> C(VIF Alignment Mapping)
C --> D(Design Inputs for Architecture & Roadmap)
The benchmarking process uses:
- public documentation,
- interviews,
- program evaluations,
- ecosystem data, and
- international foresight inputs (via Vigía Futura).
4. Benchmarking Methodology
The methodology includes:
4.1 Document Review
- Public program documents
- Annual reports
- Evaluation studies
- Policy frameworks
4.2 Comparative Dimension Analysis
Across these dimensions:
- Governance & institutional structure
- Funding & capital mechanisms
- Specialization & sector strategy
- Internationalization
- Evidence & evaluation practices
- Maturity & capability requirements
4.3 Foresight Integration (Vigía Futura)
Benchmarks are evaluated against:
- emerging sector relevance
- forward‑looking program design
- long‑term sustainability
- adaptability to future trends
4.4 Transferability Assessment
Programs are analyzed for:
- contextual fit
- cultural alignment
- institutional feasibility
- legal compatibility
- financial sustainability
5. Global Benchmark Summary
Below is a non‑exhaustive, high‑level comparison of well-known programs.
Details are generalized and limited to publicly available, verifiable information.
5.1 Start-Up Chile (Chile)
Strengths:
- Global attraction of talent
- Equity‑free funding
- Strong international positioning
- Clear government-led mandate
Weaknesses:
- Limited deep‑tech specialization
- Lower long-term survival rates compared to global peers
- Program scale challenges over time
5.2 Ruta N (Colombia)
Strengths:
- Strong city-led innovation governance (Medellín)
- Public–private infrastructure integration
- Corporate innovation partnerships
Weaknesses:
- Heavy dependence on municipal governance cycles
- Difficulty scaling nationally
5.3 InovAtiva Brasil (Brazil)
Strengths:
- National reach
- Strong specialization in acceleration
- Clear corporate partnerships
Weaknesses:
- Limited early-stage capability-building
- Heavy program volume reduces depth per startup
5.4 Israel Innovation Authority (Israel)
Strengths:
- Highly specialized deep-tech orientation
- Strong commercialization pathways
- Multi-tiered funding instruments
Weaknesses:
- High cost structure
- Requires advanced research ecosystem
5.5 SGInnovate (Singapore)
Strengths:
- Excellent integration with national strategies
- Strong venture co-investment capabilities
- Deep focus on AI, biotech, and emerging tech
Weaknesses:
- High talent cost
- Model depends on strong underlying economic foundations
6. Benchmark Comparison Matrix
| Program | Governance Model | Funding Mechanisms | Specialization | Internationalization | Evidence Orientation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Start-Up Chile | National, centralized | Equity-free grants | Generalist | High | Moderate |
| Ruta N | City-led, public–private | Public funds + corporate | Urban innovation | Medium | Moderate |
| InovAtiva Brasil | National, distributed | Public + corporate | Acceleration | Medium | Moderate |
| Israel Innovation Authority | National, tiered | Grants + equity + co-investment | Deep-tech | High | Strong |
| SGInnovate | National, state-backed | Co-investment | Deep-tech | High | Strong |
This table is for illustrative benchmarking only.
No proprietary or unpublished data is used.
7. Interpretation Guide
7.1 Strengths are NOT blueprints
Even strong elements must be tested against:
- national context
- institutional maturity
- funding capacity
- talent availability
- political cycles
7.2 Weaknesses are warnings, not disqualifiers
Weaknesses help identify:
- what not to over‑rely on
- what requires adaptation
- what requires risk mitigation
7.3 Transferability Is Contextually Dependent
A globally successful model may fail if:
- funding pipelines differ
- legal frameworks are incompatible
- public–private incentives misalign
- administrative burdens are high
8. What Not to Benchmark
Many governments mistakenly replicate:
- models requiring high budgets they cannot sustain
- models dependent on sophisticated research ecosystems
- models with complex legal instruments
- programs assuming advanced capital markets
- accelerator‑only approaches lacking capability-building
VIF avoids these pitfalls by emphasizing:
- maturity‑based capability development (IMM-P®)
- evidence‑driven startup validation (MCF 2.1)
- foresight‑driven sector prioritization (Vigía Futura)
9. Extracted Design Principles for VIF
Across the benchmarks, the following principles consistently emerge:
9.1 Strong Governance
Clear mandates, decision rights, and institutional alignment.
9.2 Multi‑Layered Funding Instruments
Diverse instruments: grants, equity, SAFE, co-investment.
9.3 Sector Specialization
Deep specialization aligned with national priorities.
9.4 Evidence Orientation
Evaluation and selection based on structured, validated insights.
9.5 Integration with National Strategy
Programs anchored in long-term development goals.
9.6 Internationalization
Global exposure, partnerships, and venture mobility.
10. How VIF Positions Itself Relative to Benchmarks
VIF integrates the strongest global principles but introduces two unique differentiators:
10.1 Foresight Integration
Via Vigía Futura, VIF is explicitly designed to evolve based on:
- emerging technologies
- socio-economic shifts
- weak signals
- horizon scanning
10.2 Capability Maturity Integration
Via IMM-P®, VIF ensures institutional maturity grows progressively and predictably - something global benchmarks rarely address.
This makes VIF a more adaptive, scalable, and resilient national framework.
11. Connection to Section 03 and Section 08
- Section 03 uses benchmarking outputs to design the national architecture.
- Section 08 uses benchmarking to define the national phasing and implementation strategy.
12. Reference Snapshot
Primary Doulab frameworks informing this section:
- MicroCanvas® Framework 2.1 - https://www.themicrocanvas.com
- Innovation Maturity Model Program (IMM-P®) - https://www.doulab.net/services/innovation-maturity
- Vigía Futura - https://www.doulab.net/vigia-futura
External influences (non-primary):
- OECD Public Governance Principles
- OECD Strategic Foresight Toolkit
- WIPO Global Innovation Index
- World Bank GovTech Maturity Index
See 11-references.md for full bibliography.
13. Licensing
Vigia Incubation Framework © 2025 by Luis A. Santiago is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 
See: LICENSE.md
MicroCanvas®, IMM-P® and VIF are proprietary methodologies of Doulab.