This is my analysis of three of the pitches. I’ll posit these before commenting on others’ even though it is late in the week. Recombo 2005 seemed easier to analyze as an entrepreneurship and as a business then the other two which could be considered intrapreneurships within UBC. For the latter I kept thinking that the interview approach did not bring out the most of the interviewee’s knowledge in the form of a pitch for an investment.

More on Ingenia later but I will say I had the least confidence in that pitch, perhaps because from EVA perspective it seemed a risky bridge too far.

Recombo

David Dodds, CIO, UBC

Michelle Lamberson, OLT
I had mixed feelings about addressing this pitch because of the proximity of it to my work; however, this is not the first such intrapreneurial unit I have seen of this kind, and I really would like to explore how it could succeed. As an EVA the evaluation of her answers in the interview is a little constrained by not being able to ask more questions.

In my comparison of Recombo 2005 and Ingenia both CEO’s appear to be driven, qualified and charismatic in their pitches but as a result of David Vogt’s scaffolding post I will attempt to describe why the representation of Recombo by Brad Mcfee seems to be a more salient company for my investment over Ramona’s pitch for Ingenia.

Both companies do not describe their management team in an effective manner but I feel this is appropriate given the succinct element of a pitch. The Business model outlined by Recombo markets a specific technology tool (content integration router) which in my mind is a positive quality because as Brad Mcfee states retains the element of “focus, focus, focus” and as Byron Kask states in his weblog entry maintains an element of  “not being too diversified”. Another strong point is the notion of incorporating incentives into their contracts, which will encourage other customers to use their product. This seems like a clearer picture then the one pitched by Ramona where the main features of this plan are based on indicators of “lots of potential money”. She does a good job of clearly presenting and outlining why Vietnam is a good potential market. As well, the provision of a plan for addressing the economic security of the Ingenia venture through links to Asian Development Bank, an Australian private university and Japanese investment are sound points but to me the prospect of working in the Vietnamese market is somewhat more of a risk although potentially more lucrative in a quicker timeframe.

Overall, the market readiness may be more broad scale for Ingenia but as Ana Cecilia Tagliapietra explained in her weblog the challenges of the Vietnam market and the non-exclusive nature of their product are significant challenges. In contrast the exclusive nature of Recombo’s technology, their clientele, and commitment to customer satisfaction/success before expansion sounds like a better approach. Ingenia’s diversified approach of targeting solid customers in a be there first strategy as opposed to Recombo’s focused and steady approach is as much a choice in investment philosophy as it is a choice which CEO presents the best pitch for the best business opportunity. But for my investment I would go with the Recombo technology.

The two linked resources below come from TechCrunch.

The first is about enthusiasm and its importance as an element of a product or service pitch. Apple CEO Steve Jobs is the poster child for this resource.

The second is a recipe of sorts that you may wish to consider as you begin to assemble your own pitch for assignment 3 in this course.

This week you have been critiquing pitches, a task that I suspect that you will find more straightforward than crafting your own. It requires a great idea, organizational agility and presentation talent to build and deliver a compelling pitch. Do you have the right stuff?

d.

The two pitches have been reviewed together because to me, they are very different–one intrapreneurial, the other enterpreneurial. The RRU one is in her own institution, while the other,  Ingenia, is in a Far Eastern country where language and cultural and other barriers may impact the venture. I thought that would be a good challenge.

I have approached this like a so-called dragon in the TV show den, though I only saw it for the first time in the other student’s link to the outside pitch today. Having dealt with VC meetings, I think the dragon analogy is very good and so will proceed wearing that hat!.

re: CEO Credibility

The RRU spokesperson is a confident speaker and appears heavily invested in the open learning concept. Her track record is not discussed, nor does their pitch elucidate how they will achieve success against all odds. The specific challenges and details of how the concept would be implemented are not presented. One would look for some mention of a system going into play to assess the efficacy of the initiative.

The Ingenia training CEO has a good level of enthusiasm for the initiative she is pitching; the extension of their company services into Taiwan. She does mention a few things that I found distracting. One was her assertion somewhere in the middle of the talk that because of contracts, “you can take them to court” which is a comment that really does not belong in a business pitch. The CEO first asserts the market is open, and later asserts this is indeed a difficult market so consistency of message was lost. Due to the risk of the venture, the proposed investor return of 20-25% does not seem worth the risk. Research dealing with how the company has adjusted its forecast activities, based on the current recession would need to be done before an EVA study would be considered complete.

Management Team

The RRU pitch does not detail her management team at all, nor do we hear about specific resources. This is a deficiency in the presentation.Is there a group of people in the institution in key positions that are on the team? Mentioning such a workgroup and providing access to their early meetings would help the institution know this is  not a lone ranger agenda.

The Ingenia pitch makes mention of specific academic qualifications, but there was no mention of the familiarity of her key staff with the language and culture of the area. It sounds like they will use the VC capital to invest in the appropriate software to use in the venture, but no mention is made of the current level of available hardware and software upon which the expansion phase is going to build upon.

Business Model

The RRU segment makes it sound feasible, but no specific numbers are given. Data from a number of institutions that have already taken the plunge, showing open course access indeed boosted student registration numbers would be desirable. Tracking systems to confirm any registration increase was due to this factor and not any number of other factors which can affect registration numbers would also be really important to hear about but are not presented. Complexity will be inevitable around copyright, so information about the road blocks that might arise here need elucidation. Has she talked to faculty? How many are “on board” for the concept? Note aside: The merits of the initiative itself (open courseware) are not being judged in the EVA review, rather the pitch is what we are to focus comments on.

The Ingenia CEO’s assertion that there is good opportunity in the region would be bolstered by some testimonials from her initial contact with those she has already spoken with about opportunities. Availability of a letter of intent to form a consortium with the software company for example, would be most reassuring.

Competitive Products

RRU of course does not have a selling price per se in an open sharing of the courseware. The question remains: would people looking for open courseware go to the MIT site for content before RRU ? (asked, and answered).

So, marketing of the RRU course availability outside of the consortium would be necessary. The institution would need to develop engaging materials to show interested students what makes them special, so they tune into RRU courses specifically. Our pitch person refers to showcasing media use to attract students and faculty, but no details were given about this aspect, which might be a good differentiator. The MIT sessions I have looked at are just .ppt and overhead/slides with the talking professor in the limelight but the content is good.

The Ingenia CEO does mention the population of the country but does not provide details about market size for in-progress work, or proposed work. There is no detail provided about any pricing for the services, just that they will be paid in USD not CAD dollars. If the pitch was done today, that probably would be left out with the dollars being so close this year. Mentioning some specific competitors in more detail, such as the Japanese group would let an EVA know she has done homework and is not afraid to share the good or bad news.

Market Readiness 

RRU is not providing any timelines.

Ingenia is also not giving set timelines. We do not know how long those marketing trips will take to complete, and how international, legal, import issues and language issues may delay their plans or not. Some track record on things would help here—she might share that it took 12 months for example, to go from contact to contract.

Technical Innovation 

RRU is not technically innovative and does not pretend to be.

Ingenia does project their expertise as being very narrow and specialized and such. The question in my EVA mind is whether their innovation exceeds the competitors from Japan already in the market in any way. No proposal is offered for differentiation in the pitch. It appears their strength has been in institutional and government rather than in industry, and now in the far east their first proposed work is with international banking and a software company. This does not mean they are not a stand-out, but the pitch is not strong in this area.

Exit Strategy 

RRU is not planning to exit, as this proposal does not lend itself to this point.

Ingenia does not talk much about when they achieve their goals. We do not hear about proposed company earnings, nor do we hear about their plans of merging or acquisitions or selling out if they do not end up meeting target. Investors would want more detail in this.

Overall Investment Status 

In the case of RRU, the proposal has merit but is not fleshed out in enough detail to allow the pitch target audience (investment assumed to be by the institution management) to know enough about the investment in time or dollars, nor enough detail about the benefits to the institution.

The Ingenia proposal also has merit, but again, unless this is an elevator pitch, more hard data would be needed to provide a VC the sense of solidity in their business acumen.

best wishes, Kathleen

Looking at 2 Pitches by Jen Wong

Pitch 1: Royal Roads University

• CEO Credibility – Does this person exude capability and convey confidence that they will achieve success against all obstacles?
  • Yes the speaker had credibility as she was able to start from the beginning with some history of the castle and then expand from that point on.

• Management Team – Have they assembled a stellar team along with the other human and material resources required for success
  • Yes the speaker indicated that they working with individuals with masters’ degrees and others are professors on campus.

• Business Model – Is this feasible? – have they done their homework? – are their arguments and information accurate and compelling?
  • Yes her (Burgess) team has done their homework by taking a look at another educational institute and studying it (MIT).

• Competitive Products – What is a realistic market size, market share and selling price that these products or services can capture in a very competitive world?
  • Their realistic market size would be .25 of MIT and that is because they are a smaller campus and must still do more advertising to get their name out there.
  • I don’t see why they would be able to charge $1500 per course at the beginning and eventually they may have to raise tuition.  After all, this is an online program which people can take from anywhere in the world.

• Market Readiness – How long and difficult is their critical path to success?
  • I think they can grow to offer the same successes as MIT within a 5-10 year span.  They can probably add 5 courses per year and have new courseware being developed on an ongoing basis.

• Technical Innovation – Do they have an edge, and can they keep it?
  • Yes, their edge is the ability to offer online programs and they are willing to look into global indications.  They have team based learning as well.

• Exit Strategy – Do they really know what success looks like – is their destination clear
  • It would appear that they can see what success looks like as they consider other successful models of an open university that are willing to share their resources.  As they mentioned, it was suggested that the University should be given a Nobel Prize for their ideas and approaches.

• Overall Investment Status – Am I going to risk my investment capital on this proposition?
  • Yes, I am willing to risk my investment capital on this proposition because I  believe that life long learning is becoming more and more popular to meet the needs of people in tiny and secluded locations.  I believe in education for all.  I am willing to risk 1/3 of my entire financial portfolio on this proposition.

Pitch #2 – UBC – Office of Learning Technologies

• CEO Credibility – Does this person exude capability and convey confidence that they will achieve success against all obstacles?
  • Michelle appears to have the capability and background in making this concept fly.  She states that they do have a strategic learning process and can work collaboratively.

• Management Team – Have they assembled a stellar team along with the other human and material resources required for success
  • Michelle states that they can learn how to work with resources between central organizations with efficiency and then with creativity.

• Business Model – Is this feasible? – have they done their homework? – are their arguments and information accurate and compelling?
  • Michelle mentions that they can work in small groups.  Online resources are becoming more common.  Michelle does indicate that PeopleSoft has an inferior interface.

• Competitive Products – What is a realistic market size, market share and selling price that these products or services can capture in a very competitive world?
  • With FATE, UBC can look at technologies (emerging, core) and also look at the community sides, levels of support, how the faculty is to be supported and how to finally help IT to build technologies.

• Market Readiness – How long and difficult is their critical path to success?
  • Michelle indicates that you basically have to be as connected as you can towards your team.  You keep yourself going back and forth.  You don’t deal with one to one but in group situations, with staff, faculty and staff.

• Technical Innovation – Do they have an edge, and can they keep it?
  • Michelle is wise in knowing that there are many technologies but they must know which ones to support with the hardware.  She knows that technologies come and go and therefore great care must be made when it comes to the selection process.

• Exit Strategy – Do they really know what success looks like – is their destination clear
  • Michelle defines success when you are verifying your right to do something in real time.  An example of this was when UBC was letting students put their own grades in.  Students were taking ownership.

• Overall Investment Status – Am I going to risk my investment capital on this proposition?
  • Yes I would risk my investment capital on this proposition because students are the future and are our investments.  Students are getting to be the knowledge builders.  There will be a demonstrated balance and Michelle’s team will show how her team has value.  I would risk 1/4 of my total capital portfolio into this venture.

Mary Burgess states that the Royal Roads OpenCourseWare venture would have both an altruistic value and a benefit to Royal Roads University. I think it is difficult to argue with the altruistic benefit of sharing knowledge and promoting informal learning. As an EVA, I believe that people would still pay to be accredited and to receive instruction. I don’t think that there is a problem with competition from members of the OpenCourseWare consortium because OpenCourseWare is offered for free and to benefit from the venture it isn’t necessary to lead people away from using OpenCourseWare offered elsewhere for free (such as MIT) to get them to use Royal Roads OpenCourseWare for free. Furthermore, from what I can see, for the most part Royal Roads and MIT offer different kinds of programs and I’m not sure that there would be much direct competition between them.

The intention to make Royal Roads courseware available for free online indicates confidence in its value, a sense that its quality speaks for itself. It is possible that being able to see the course material before enrollment may attract potential students and possibly prospective faculty, but it would be difficult to establish this kind of cause and effect relationship by looking at the experiences of universities in the OpenCourseWare consortium because there are many factors that can affect student enrollment. I agree that offering courseware for free could enhance the reputation of Royal Roads.

I have questions about what the venture would involve. Is it just a matter of posting course syllabi and handouts online and advertising that they are available, or will it involve creating new content such as videos of lectures, podcasts, and so on? The answer to this would have consequences for the cost of the venture, its viability, and how excited I would be about it. As other EVAs have mentioned, there are also questions about who would be involved in the venture and what their qualifications are.

My main concern is with the issue of licensing. Much more would need to be said about copyright issues and how likely the creators of course content would be to get on board with the project. Other EVAs have mentioned that it isn’t clear what the audience for this pitch is. If it is to faculty, who would be concerned about their intellectual property, then, as a faculty member, I am not persuaded that people will not steal my course content just because from a legal standpoint they should not steal it.

For this EVA, I look at the UBC Office of Learning Technology not from an investor’s perspective, but rather from the perspective of budget allocation. Michelle Lamberson is the director of the OLT, and she faces an interesting challenge of bringing about cooperation between faculty, staff, IT personnel, and students, as realizes the goal of this cross-campus initiative.

An interesting aspect of personnel management was noted when Lamberson mentioned the need to relinquish her hardware preferences to those that will be actually managing and maintaining the networks and servers. To me, this shows that she is willing to accommodate perspectives other than her own, and that she is looking out for the good of the project rather than her own comfort with familiar tools.

Looking at the market readiness, this was a unit that was already needed when the interview took place, so it is meeting a current and identified need rather than simplifying or streamlining workflow as was noted in some of the other pitches.

With regards to technical innovation, Lamberson seems to be aware of the developments in the new communication technologies, and is experimenting with many of those that could have a positive educational impact. She admits that it is difficult to predict which technologies will take off, but she is preparing to accommodate those that will be successful.

As for an exit strategy, Lamberson makes it clear that her direction and objectives will change with the technology, but the common theme will be supporting collaboration, and connecting decentralized groups and individuals to strengthen them as though they were a cohesive centralized unit.

If I were allocating the budget, I would make sure that the OLT had sufficient resources to continue its service to staff and students.

As a newly established EVA, I was impressed by the difference between Brad McPhee’s venture pitch from the 2004 video to the 2005 conversation.

CEO credibility

I felt that the CEO’s credibility had improved by leaps and bounds.  His confidence of success in the 2005 pitch was overwhelmingly obvious.  There was no doubt that he felt that his company would achieve success, and that the success achieved to date was in full support of that claim.

Management Team

Clearly this company is operating with a team framework that is flourishing.  In the 2004 presentation I wasn’t sure that there was a direct sense of the destination or growth of the company, but by the 2005 presentation, it was evident that the company was only looking forward, and was managed in a confident, clear way.

Business Model

The feasibility of this company is completely apparent in the 2005 presentation.  Brad McPhee has limitless examples of his services that are currently being used and who they are being used by and prospective clients that seek out this middleware.

Competitive Products

Clearly this technology is a competitive product, as he mentioned in the 2005 pitch that they were possibly going to IPO in that year.  With companies like IBM being interested in his services, there is no doubt that this company can capture a very competitive price for their services.

Market Readiness and Exit Strategy

Due to the fact that his company has been operating and succeeding, with many examples to provide for evidence of success, it is clear that even in the span of the one year between 2004 and 2005 that their path to success is well laid.

Technical Innovation

If companies such as IBM have taken an interest and the company is going to IPO, then they will have no difficulties keeping an edge in the current market.

Summary

As an EVA, I would not hesitate in risking my investment capital on this proposition.  McPhee exudes a confidence, with the examples to back it up, that his company has a lot of offer.  He convinces us that there are many clients who would seek out these connector and adaptor products.  Company growth and success is demonstrated in that the employee numbers doubled in a one year time period.  Investing in this company seems highly advisable.

I may sound harsh here, but I’m going to start by saying no to investing in this one – for numerous reasons. (Comments most welcome if you disagree with what I say because I’m new to being an EVA.)

Burgess takes too long to get to the point in her pitch. The introduction is much, much too long. Actually, I’m curious: who is her audience? Would she not pitch this idea to people inside the university? If so, is it necessary to go into so much detail about RRU’s history? Please tell me if I’m wrong here. Regardless, I would spend a little less time talking about the historical significance of RRU … and the history of OCW, too.

Her words appear to have said a lot about RRU, but the rhetoric is empty. She said a lot about its history, its successful marketing team, its “innovative pedagogy”, and its “effective use of technologies”, but no concrete examples were given. Nor were there suggestions about how RRU’s OCW would be different from other universities. Yes, she showed that some research had been done with regards to how other universities adopted OCW, and she commented on common criticisms about this practice; however, there was very little (if anything) about how RRU would overcome the criticisms made about MIT and other universities. Instead she provides comments that are full of logical fallacies (sorry …), such as “The bottom line is it‘s the right thing to do”. Is it? I’m not convinced, yet. (Although, I do support the idea of OCW.)

Burgess does do well when mentioning how OCW would benefit the university. Yet there is little information about how this will be accomplished. Will they ensure high quality materials that are competitive against MIT’s OCW? Is that feasible? Will their methods for delivering content be innovative? How?

I also question whether her plan for how OCW would truly benefit students. She didn’t seem to give enough evidence for this. In fact, I got more of an impression that the OCW would be used more for marketing purposes, attracting more students, attracting more faculty.

And, which I’ll admit that I’m perhaps being too harsh here, I was not impressed by her delivery. For example, she relied too much on pathos (such as commenting on the university’s credibility) and ethos (such as visuals in the presentation like … the baby – why a baby?).