Brian’s review of pitches

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

CEO Credibility

Brad appears to have a good grasp of his company’s status, strategies, and challenges as generalities, and seems to go into the necessary depth of detail compared to some of the other pitches I viewed.

Management Team

He has a very small team of experts at 12 but does not give much detail about what their expertise is in

Business Model

Sounds like Recombo as done their homework on their market, product, workflows, and optimum company culture. They have tailored a product set that they can reuse with each customer instead of building one-offs. He is balancing the risk of passing off some potential clients to focus on those more closely matched to Recombo’s packaged products.

Competitive Products

The Content Integration Platform sounds robust. I’m not familiar with the market myself. Brad mentions a similar company that got bought out but I would have liked to have heard whether he is aware of any other company that could move into this market with the three publishers he doesn’t have as clients as well as content provider companies not using his publisher client.

Market Readiness

It sounds like Recombo has been in business for several years and has demonstrable successes. I remember using what I think was Recombo freeware for validating LOM data back in 2003, when reuseable and XML repackaging of chunks of content was emergent.

Technical Innovation

From my experience, I think it has been as innovative as IMS and standards have been nascent and emerging. Their products will only be viable until their clients move to systems that adopt interoperability standards, smoothly import and export content and data, or the number of competing systems shrink or merge in the pattern of Blackboard’s. When there is more homogeneity among content systems someone is bound to innovate a product which is more portable or standalone. The current excitement about mash ups and pipes suggests to me that there is interest and expertise transferrable to innovation by others in this area.

Exit Strategy

As an EVA it sounds like he wants to corner more of the publisher market than the one of four publisher clients he has and through them more content provider clients for non publishing needs. He either wants to increase revenues to $100 million or be bought out. I think he should focus more on innovation, integrate his product more with frontrunning performance and training systems.

David Dodds, CIO, UBC

CEO Credibility

David Dodds sounds well versed about mission, vision, strategy and workflows.

Management Team

Five vice presidents on a steering committee appear to be the management team, but it might also include the innovators and “thought leaders” he refers to. The university has experts in all aspects of its venture, and they appear to be available to him as resources.

Business Model

The eStrategy sounds to me like a very high level strategy to disseminate the vision and support large, mostly campus-wide longer term initiatives. It sounds like a wise approach to me – especially as it views the university as a community and encourages bottom up initiatives that fit with the vision.

Competitive Products

I don’t think this is a relevant question. However, leading faculty is aptly compared to herding cats. He realizes it is better to promote a simple message of the vision and meet frequently with innovators in the faculties to give them voice.

Market Readiness

Demonstrable successes with campus registration and a distributed undergraduate medicine program.

Technical Innovation

I’m not sure this is relevant either. The innovation here is is in fostering solutions for a university of this scale by treating it as a community, and fostering innovations that involve off campus community.

Exit Strategy

It sounds like success is making the university produce better graduates and help the community. The community would include other educational institutions which could benefit from the innovations as well as the graduates. He did not say it but those who benefit might just give back to the university.

Overall investment status

I interpret this to mean to invest in the university. I have to say yes, because it is producing large scale results that have value beyond 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.

CEO Credibility

Michelle is faculty and is an early adopter. This gives her the needed credibility with faculty and technologists. She also appears sociable and approachable which are assets in maintaining the necessary connections in the university

Management Team

He has a very small team of experts at 12 but does not give much detail about

Business Model

Sounds like Recombo as done their homework on their market, product, workflows, and optimum company culture. They have tailored a product set that they can reuse with each customer instead of building one-offs. He is balancing the risk of passing off

Competitive Products

She is surrounding by competitors if central IT and IT and innovative groups in faculties find it easier to work directly with each other and seek to divert funding from OLT if they perceive OLT is not focussing on initiatives relevant to their needs. For example OLT might pursue development of one wiki product while another group in a faculty might have more success developing another wiki product.

Market Readiness

In my opinion, faculty focus more on research than on teaching. There seem to be too many other groups with overlapping interests and working with so many of them to get consensus on moving some innovation forward while the majority of faculty are focussed elsewhere means that this will be a long road.

Technical Innovation

I’m not sure this is relevant either. OLT’s goal appears to be to get new technologies that enhance teaching and learning to enterprise level and ubiquity on campus. The innovation would be their positioning administratively as a central resource, and their ability to develop new technologies to enterprise level. I understand that innovation in intrapreneurial settings works better in quiet until there is something substantial to show without looking like funds have been diverted from others. She definitely has a balancing act in this respect

Exit Strategy

OLT’s goal appears to be to get new technologies that enhance teaching and learning to enterprise level and ubiquity on campus.

Overall investment status

I assume the funding I would continue to fund this discretely and give funding incentives to faculty who collaborate.

0 comments

There are no comments yet...

Kick things off by filling out the form below.

You must log in to post a comment.