All,
The E-Division's List-serve will not allow me to send you the various
attachments I have mentioned below. Send me an E-mail directly to
get them. I have listed the C-2-R Detailed evaluation below after my
signature so you will have some idea of what each involves.
There are a number of different ways to make such assessments. The
University of Texas's engineering school developed an Idea-2-Product
Competition in the 1990's to make sure that their engineering students
created realistic projects. It then created an external Idea-2-Product
Competition in 2003 that invited teams from other U.S. colleges and
universities. Still later, it invited various international schools
to I-2-P. Finally, I-2-P itself went international with the first two
international competitions held in Stockholm, Sweden, in 2011 and 2012.
Finally, last year's 2013 competition was held in Sao Paulo, Brazil.
I have attached the judging form that is used in these competitions.
Also attached is a set of Elevator Pitch guidelines proposed by Rice
University that is associated with its international business plan
competition.
At Kennesaw. we have also created a "Concept-2-Reality" competition
to encourage students, faculty, alumnae, community members and others
to turn their concepts into real businesses. I have attached the two
Evaluation Forms that we use for this competition. The first form
lists the factors that we evaluate for all proposed concepts, and the
second form then summarizes these evaluations for all of the concepts
that have entered the C-2-R competition. In the early rounds, when
there are over 20 concepts, we just double or triple the table to
cover 40 to 60 concepts. Typically, we have about 20 entries by the
finals when we use the version attached. I have also attached a set
of descriptions of the 85 Finalists that we have had in the first 14
competitions that we have held.
Finally, I would note that the University of Texas has a website that
describes its Idea-2-Product Competition, and lists the Finalists for
all of the competitions since its founding in 2003. It also lists most
of the participants for these competitions, but I am not sure it has
covered them all.
Sincerely,
Dr. Chuck Hofer
Regents Professor
Kennesaw State University
678-797-2502 KSU Office
770-757-3575 Cell
CONCEPT-2-REALITY EVALUATION FORM
Copyright 8 1997 by Charles W. Hofer
Venture ____________________________
Reviewer_____________________________
I. STARTUP FEASIBILITY RATING [Maximum Score 100]
I. PRODUCT/SERVICE FEASIBILITY Score (Pick One)
1.Product/Service Idea Conceived 10
2.Product/Service Design Finalized 20
3.Product/Service Prototype Completed 30
4.Product/Service Final Product Available 40
5.Product/Service In Use & Reliability Checked 50
II. MARKET/CUSTOMER FEASIBILITY Score (Pick One)
1.Market/Customer Demand Assumed 10
2.Survey of Customers Market Completed 20
3.Some Customers Have Made Purchases 30
4.Substantial #s of Customers Have Made Purchases 40
5.Substantial # of Customers Have Made Repurchases 50
LONG TERM PROFIT POTENTIAL RATING [Maximum Score 100]
I. SIZE OF (POTENTIAL) CUSTOMER BASE Score (Pick one)
1.Limited Appeal Market (Niche Market) 5
2.Moderate Appeal Market (Small Segment) 10
3.Intermediate Appeal Market (Medium Segment) 15
4.Mass Appeal Market (Large & Very Large Segments) 20
II. ANNUAL SALES REVENUES PER CUSTOMER Score (Pick one)
1.$1 to $100/year 5
2.$100 to $1000/year 10
3.$1000 to $10,000/year 15
4.> $10,000/year 20
III.NUMBER & STRENGTH OF COMPETITORS Score (Pick one)
1.Mostly Weak Competitors 20
2.Several Competent Competitors 15
3.Many Competent Competitors
or a Few Strong Competitors 10
4.Several Strong Competitors 5
IV.YOUR COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGES Score (Pick one)
1.Several Minor Advantages, or
a Few Moderate Advantages 5
2.Many Moderate Advantages, or
a Few Strong Advantages 10
Many Strong Advantages 20
V.SUSTAINABILITY OF ADVANTAGES Score (Pick one)
1.Advantages Primarily Short-Term in Duration 5
2.Advantages of Intermediate Duration 10
3.Advantages of Long Duration 20
TOTAL RATING SCORE [Maximum Score 200] _____
----- Original Message -----
From: "Raymond Jones" <
rjjones@D.UMN.EDU>
To:
ENTREP@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2014 2:25:51 PM
Subject: [ENTREP] Judging Rubric for Elevator Pitches
I was wondering if any one has a grading/judging rubric they like and would
be willing to share for student elevator pitches? One tailored to social
enterprises would be great is anyone has one, but that is not a necessity.
Feel free to email me directly.
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Raymond
--
Raymond J. Jones, III, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Entrepreneurship
Management Studies Department
Labovitz School of Business and Economics
University of Minnesota Duluth
1318 Kirby Drive, LSBE 365B
Duluth, MN 55812
Office: 218-726-6093
**************************************
This message is from ENTREP which is sponsored by the Entrepreneurship Division of the Academy of Management.
Please do not post messages with attached files. Commercial messages or spammed messages are not allowed on the list. The use of auto-responder "out-of-office" messages may also lead to your removal from the list.
You can manage your subscription options, including joining or leaving the list here:
http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=entrep&A=1
If you have questions or need help, please contact Dr. John Bunch
jbunch@benedictine.edu.
Ventures HO!
**************************************
This message is from ENTREP which is sponsored by the Entrepreneurship Division of the Academy of Management.
Please do not post messages with attached files. Commercial messages or spammed messages are not allowed on the list. The use of auto-responder "out-of-office" messages may also lead to your removal from the list.
You can manage your subscription options, including joining or leaving the list here:
http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=entrep&A=1
If you have questions or need help, please contact Dr. John Bunch
jbunch@benedictine.edu.
Ventures HO!