A cloud-based learning management system:
[youtube]http://youtu.be/iC4rDXLTknU[/youtube]9 thoughts on “CloudConnect”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
A cloud-based learning management system:
[youtube]http://youtu.be/iC4rDXLTknU[/youtube]You must be logged in to post a comment.
No, I would not back this venture. At first glance, this seemed like a good pitch that throws out lots of target words and figures about the marketplace that the venture aims to enter. However, on second listen, I’m unable to figure out how or what Cloud Connect proposes to do, other than offer a lower cost to enter into the institutional courseware/CMS system. I think that there are lots of other options for schools at the K-12 level that want to use a CMS. It was nice to hear that the CEO/Team of Cloud Connect have lots of experience, but I wasn’t sure what that was (lots of words like “blogging” and “social media” popped up on-screen at that time). Other than the previous (yet undescribed) success of the team, there is no real enticement for an EVA to pursue the venture.
No I would not invest in this venture. The venture concept is not clear, there is no specific pain or problem that they are offering a valid solution for. I know nothing about the CEO and team except their claim that they have experience that made them design something new. I can’t see there is a market space or they have a competitive edge. The video did not offer any plan for implementing their venture; they did not specify what they ask for and what the investor would get in return.
In trying to be more objective, I also used here the evaluation rubric I created here: https://blogs.ubc.ca/sotify/2013/09/19/evaluation-rubric-for-venture-picthes/
Feedback is more than welcome
Great rubric – the interactive piece really adds to it. Ever thought of that for Assignment 3? I wonder if there are any interactive rubric makers out there. We push out A LOT of them at work.
Shaimaa – I like the idea of using a rubric to evaluate these pitches objectively and I used a similar but cruder strategy (checklist). This enabled me to take a second pass through each of the pitches and evaluate for content and content omissions. I did a third pass to evaluate the speaker and to come up with my ‘gut feeling’ ratings.
One thing that you could consider adding to your rubric would be a grand total row at the bottom of the table. While I would be wary of looking at grand total values alone, this metric would be interesting to consider along with your subtotals.
I also jotted a checklist while watching the videos – and manually added up the results in Shaimaa’s rubric to see that this venture earned 70% from her estimation, but didn’t think of mentioning it, it is interesting though! Would straight 5’s in one category make up for 0’s in another, or does this reflect the immeasurable “gut feeling” of an elevator pitch?
My feeling is that regardless of a pitch achieving really high marks in one of two or more of the categories, if there was an exceptionally low mark (2 or less) in a single category, I would be concerned. I think that the “gut feeling” category is both a cognitive response to what is presented as well as an emotional response to the product and the presenter. It may be likened to the “X factor” as seen on the popular TV show!
I agree. I prefer a more balanced presentation – although balanced on the high side 🙂
I often find that I do have a gut reaction to the presentations but I try not to rely too heavily on it as my gut reaction is not always backed up by the numbers.
What I mean by that is that, once I apply a rubric or checklist, a pitch that I initially responded negatively toward isn’t as bad as I originally thought and one that I responded positively to isn’t as good as I originally thought.
Hard No! When attempting to move into the world of competitive Learning Management Systems (LMS), there are two areas that I mainly focused on: venture concept and marketability. If a startup wishes to dive into this market they need to provide something unique to offer. And I didn’t notice anything that was original to them. Most platforms offer blogging, wikis, analytics and e-portfolios… even just highlighting one are that differentiated them would be nice.
I understand that in a pitch the technical aspects need to be polished to be palatable, but if they are attempting to break this market they are going to need to have that one thing they can offer to differentiate themselves. They figure they display mentions that the entry point for their LMS is extremely competitive. However, assuming that most education systems don’t have server space to install free open source LMS’s like Moodle is a huge hurtle to overcome.
Why is cloud computing better then having control myself, and what security measures do they have in place. A lot of districts have policies (especially mine) that don’t allow student data to be housed on cloud-based systems. Providing just a brief overview of the secure network that they provide would put some investors at ease.
In addition to all of this I have no idea what they want me to add as an EVA. I don’t feel like I need to contribute to this product in anyway. In Kim Elsbach’s review, she explains how each pitch needs to bring the EVA into the process. I don’t feel that this pitch fell into any of the three types of pitches: show-runner, artist or neophyte. There wasn’t even attempt at establishing or level the power differential, and they definitely did not try to exploit it in any way.
I feel that there may be a niche market for this with smaller rural schools, but they haven’t defined themselves in a way that would capture a large enough market to be sustainable.
Love the idea of the rubric. It really lets you remove the chance for buying into the passion of the pitch-maker. There are a lot of things to consider when evaluating these pitches and I really fell that taking the time and spending due diligence of every aspect is key to finding the diamond in the rough.