Recombo 2004

CEO Credibility

ü      Brad at this point has poor presentation skills

ü      He does not exude confidence, in fact his voice is weak and his speech often stumbles

ü      His lack of a clear goal or vision does not leave me confident in his company’s success

Management Team

ü      It is interesting to note that neither Brad’s credentials nor those of his team are discussed during the pitch.  An oversight on his part after doing some research on the web as Brad does have some excellent credentials and experience behind him.

Business Model

ü      The general lack of focus leads me towards a ‘no’ as to whether this is feasible.  They are looking at too wide an area with tools, platform and service.  They need to have a clearer vision to share to compel the investor

Competitive Products

ü      Brad has not convinced me that his product is ready to compete with the existing competition and take a market share.  Price point was not discussed but is relevant.

Market Readiness

ü      The product is already in the market place but I’m not convinced the company is ready or prepared for growth.

Technical Innovation

ü      The company does have a unique edge with their ‘connectedness’ this is where I think their focus and vision should lie.

Exit Strategy

ü      Right now, overall Recombo is lacking a clear vision and goals, without these I don’t think that it is possible for them to accurately define what their success looks like.  They do not have a clear destination for themselves

Overall Investment Status

ü      At this time I would not be willing to risk my money on this proposition

Recombo 2005

CEO Credibility

ü      Brad at this point has improved his presentation skills

ü      He is very confident in his company and the product

ü      His lack of a clear goal or vision does not leave me confident in his company’s success

Management Team

ü      It is interesting to note that neither Brad’s credentials nor those of his team are discussed during the pitch.  An oversight on his part after doing some research on the web as Brad does have some excellent credentials and experience behind him.

Business Model

ü      Recombo has obviously learned from past successes and failures and have remodelled the company

ü      They are now focused on being a solution based company and are willing to turn down business that does not fit into their new vision

ü      Brad’s presentation, however, does not compel me to believe that they have done all of their homework to be competitive in this market

ü       

Competitive Products

ü      From the presentation it appears that the product is scaleable and adjustable for various markets, however, it’s niche is not readily apparent

Market Readiness

ü      The product has its first lighthouse client and has an interesting approach towards incentives for existing clients to produce new leads.  However, the sales teams approach does not seem to be focused and unified

Technical Innovation

ü      The company does have a unique edge with their ‘connectedness’ but do they offer their client’s and edge?  I am not convinced.

Exit Strategy

ü      Brad talks about focus but doesn’t seem to have a clear focus for growth and success.  They do not seem to have a clear vision of where they want to be with their product (other than a million dollar company)

Overall Investment Status

ü      At this time I would not be willing to risk my money on this proposition.  There is still work to be done on this company.

Further Remarks

ü      I took the opportunity to investigate Recombo’s website.  They have changed the focus of their product yet again.

Ingenia Training

CEO Credibility

ü      Confident, clear speaking voice

ü      Excellent credentials

ü      Concise Presentation

Management Team

ü      Solid business, highly qualified team

ü      Industry leader

ü      International expert

ü      Good successes already

Business Model

ü      Good research into the market

ü      Ripe for growth in eLearning and custom content

ü      Aware of the competition

ü      Already have contacts in Vietnam

ü      Money is available for the product

ü      Solid focused goal

Competitive Products

ü      From the presentation it appears that the product is easily able to take a good piece of the market share in this country that has yet to be tapped into

ü      The price for investment is clear and clearly broken down

Market Readiness

ü      The product is ready, the path to success should be relatively short

Technical Innovation

ü      If they act quickly and take the large market share than I believe they will have an edge that they can keep

Exit Strategy

ü      Their vision and goals are very clear and focused

Overall Investment Status

ü      I would invest in this proposition.  Although the return on investment is relatively small I do believe it is feasible

Further Remarks

ü      From further research on the Ingenia website it looks like they were successful in securing the IDRC/Government of Vietnam as a client

UBC Office of Learning Technologies

CEO Credibility

ü      Although the director was not a great speaker she does seem very knowledgeable about the various intricacies of overseeing the learning technologies for such a large institution with so many unique faculties and individuals that require accommodation inside her office’s vision

Management Team

ü      The UBC Office of Learning Technologies is filled with highly qualified individuals

Business Model

ü      The office does have a strategic plan

ü      They ensure that they work collaboratively with all individual and faculties

ü      They provide facilitation and co-ordination across UBC, which is difficult in an institution that values de-centralization

ü      Works collaboratively with IT services to ensure that the infrastructure can support the learning technologies

Technical Innovation

ü      This office values advanced and innovative users

ü      They look to the future and value online interaction

Exit Strategy

ü      Although the focus has to be on broader goals to encompass so many unique faculties and client groups, they still seem to achieve a clear focus and strategy for the future

Overall Investment Status

ü      No office is perfect and learning technologies are still continuously emerging and evolving.  This is a very difficult office to hold and please so many separate interests while keeping a common vision.  I think the director does an admirable job.

UBC IT Services

CIO Credibility

ü      Wow, Ted is a very well spoke individual

ü      He is clear, concise and exudes capability and confidence

Management Team

ü      All 5 of the UBC VPs volunteered to sit on the executive steering committee

Business Model

ü      Ted is very much aware that it is essential to have a clear vision, and the ability to articulate and share that vision with others

ü      The office has an eStrategy framework

ü      Annual town hall to discuss the strategy

ü      They give voice to the entire community

ü      Align their goals with the strategic goals of the faculty and the university

Competitive Products

ü      The office makes a point of keeping track of the innovators within the UBC community

ü      Liaise with other universities

ü      Keep current with the work of other institutions

Exit Strategy

ü      I was very impressed with the clarity of Ted’s vision.  He has a clear definition for success for his department

Royal Roads Open Courseware

CEO Credibility

ü      Miss Burgess speaks confidently and believes in the success of her proposal

Management Team

ü      It is made apparent that the current staff at Royal Roads are highly competent

ü      However, no mention is made of the team that would design and implement the Open Courseware – are they the same?  eLearning courseware is different than teaching in class

Business Model

ü      Although Miss Burgess talks about open courseware at other institutions and the benefits of open courseware, there is very little substance about how this would be implemented at Royal Roads

ü      Is the infrastructure already in place?  Are the courses fit for online learning?  What type of budget are they looking at?  Where is the evidence of a business proposal?

Competitive Products

ü      The selling price is zero dollars, Miss Burgess has done little to convince what the return on investment will be

Market Readiness

ü      This was not addressed at all during the presentation

ü      Are there courses already created?

ü      How much hardware requires purchasing

ü      What will the software requirements be?

ü      How long will this take to implement from start to finish?

Technical Innovation

ü      There are already a number of universities that offer Open Courseware.  Miss Burgess has not emphasized what will be unique about the Royal Roads open courseware

Exit Strategy

ü      I believe that Miss Burgess has a clear picture of what she would like to see, unfortunately she has not paved a clear road of how she will get there.

Overall Investment Status

ü      At this time I would not be willing to risk my money on this proposition.

Hi,

Coming late made me think of presnting it differently for a change, hope it’s not that distracting for you 🙂

Here it’s ;

ETEC522 – Pitch Pool Ammar Al-Attiyat as an EVA

Regards,

Ammar

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.

In 2005, Recombo seems to be a company that has finally settled on a direction, and has started to make a name for themselves, attracting at least one large customer. Brad McFee emphasizes focus as their current direction. This means focusing on a single product path and working with one major client to establish themselves and to prove to other prospective clients that they are the major player in their narrow field.

Recombo is a growing company, with plans to nearly double in size. This is in preparation for potential new clients, and so that they can adequately service Mindleaders, their new lighthouse partner. An interesting aspect of Recombo’s business model is that they are going to try to also service Mindleaders’ customers. While there are incentives for Mindleaders, it could sour the relationship.

Brad McFee is candid about the company’s exit strategy. If there is enough money on the table, then it might just make sense to sell out. Nevertheless, McFee has a plan to grow his company independently, and hopefully service all four of the major players, including Mindleaders, in his target field.

As an investor, there are a few concerns with Recombo. First of all, they are a company in transition. To me, transition means that they were doing something ineffectively, or that they have taken a new direction. Either way, they are venturing into new territory, and they are gambling their future on one player. The other concern is the overhead involved with their line of work. Mr. McFee spoke about creating content before being able to provide a quote for customers. While this does ensure that they price themselves appropriately, it also means that there’ll be a lot of work done by a lot of employees before the potential for profit even exists.

At this time, I would weigh my investment as much on Mindleaders as I would on Recombo, since it seems that Recombo’s success depends on their lighthouse client.

Brad McFee tries to make a compelling case for his company.  They seem to have gone through early growing pains about how to position themselves as a product or service company. He talks about a year of transition.  They seem to have a product which up until recently was not being purchased “off the rack” but is now being better represented to customers.  I would like to see more discussion of this boxed product and what they think it’s potential is as it stands, without customization.  It sounds as if Mind Leaders got a customized product. How much in sales have been attributed to their boxed software?

Mr. McFee proudly discusses their new, large partner – Lighthouse Publishing.  He seems very optimistic that they will share their 700+ customer base with them.  He is perhaps a bit too optimistic.  Will Lighthouse risk losing a customer of their own for a small incentive?  I worry that he underestimates the corporate change the doubling of a small workforce can bring.  An expansion from 12 to 22 in a few weeks is extremely rapid and it will not be seamless.  As the number of staff doubles there will be a friendly period where everyone sizes each other up followed by internal re-positioning struggle as old and new employees ‘stake their claim’ to areas of the business they deem important.  Hopefully, their HR department is adept at interviewing for ‘fit’ as well as qualifications.

Innovation in b2b programming is fleeting.  Unless Recombo can get a boxed product out which fits a needed business solution they will be customizing to prove the product works but not really producing a product that has a high enough sales potential.  Very quickly someone else can (and will) customize a single solution for each of the larger customers leaving the market shallow.  India and China are producing a generation of very savvy programmers who will be cutting into Recombo’s market with one off, customized solutions for less.

If  Recombo could show me a large customer base to sell boxed software into and could show me it would need little or no customization then I might consider investing.  I would have to make sure my exit strategy matched theirs or there may be issues about when to sell the company.