54 hour Start-up: Bogus or Bonus?

So this last weekend the IDEA Institute of Western Washington University played host to our local 54 hour Start-up Challenge. We did this in partnership with the Technology Alliance Group, Invent Co-Working and Bellingham Entrepreneurs.

Essentially, participants show up late Friday, get to do some mixing with each other to stir up ideas, pitch ideas that either they brought or discovered and then work on it through Sunday. On Sunday, they pitch their ideas to a panel of judges and the crowd.

I have to admit, before I jumped in I had some doubts and a bit of skepticism. Really? You think you can thrown people together and they will come out with some sort of meaningful outcome in a weekend? Were these events just another bogus attempt at playing innovation theater that earns money off the wave of ‘I want to be an entrepreneur’ or was it potentially a bonus to my students and our community who really want entrepreneurial and innovative change?

I first ran into this at the Kauffman Foundation where I had done some training in 2014 and was able to speak with organizers. Then I was one of the judges in our own community’s version last year.

So what do I think now? I think that if we had tried to make it into an easy-bake-oven with a magical business that would unicorn its way to billions, it would have been bogus. I think if we thought its sole purpose was to grind out a hypergrowth business that venture capitalists would drool over, it would be bogus. I think if it were a contest of macho, only a few survive and you are not likely one of them, it would have been bogus. I think if it were another way to extract money from dreamers by selling them an empty promise of riches through participation, it would have been bogus.

Instead, I conclude it was a bonus.

Why? The organizers share a purpose of supporting our region’s entrepreneurship and innovation ecosystem. This event was part of our larger portfolio of efforts to build our collective understanding of entrepreneurship and innovation, to build thick networks between people dedicated to the community and region and to have a really great time learning and pushing forward ideas toward impact. Our kickoff speaker from Action Sprout was amazing. The community came in and lent their experience and support through mentoring an coaching. The participants were diverse in demographics and experience. The teaching and learning throughout the weekend was meaningful and developmental.

In the end, I appreciated every project that made it to the final presentations. The energy was high, the problems addressed where real (travel access technology for those with disabilities was the judges #1 choice championed by a national advocate for the disabled…read the story). Participants, mentors and organizers learned and deepened our connections. The judging criteria was known in advance and was meaningful rather than a mystery. The judges cared and were not just looking for their next big investment score.

Well done partners. Bonus.

See below for the judging criteria. Feel free to borrow for your own work.

Start Up Challenge 2016

Judging Criteria

Opportunity/Problem: Is the opportunity/problem being addressed clearly stated?

CRITERIA 1: Customer Segment (Market)

Is the customer segment clearly understood and presented? Is their initial target market clearly stated and sensible? Is there evidence they can access this market? Is the size of the accessible market through their chosen channels large enough for scaled impact?

(Links to BMC: Customer segment, customer relationships, channels)

CRITERIA 2: Value Proposition (Product/Service)

Is the product/service offering clearly demonstrated and sensible? Is the value of the proposed offering clearly stated and sensible?

(Links to BMC: Value Proposition)

CRITERIA 3: Product-Market fit?

Has the team provided compelling evidence and logic that the product/service offering solves a compelling need/desire of the customer? Is there evidence that the value offered is compelling enough for customers to switch from current substitutes and alternatives?

(Links to BMC: Value Proposition and Customer Segment)

CRITERIA 4: Technical/Operational

Has the team provided evidence that the product/service can actually be created and delivered? Are the key activities of the venture clear and sensible? Are the key resources needed accessible?

(Links to BMC: Key Activities, Key Resources)

CRITERIA 5: Financial

Has the team provided evidence of potential financial success including potential sources of start-up capital and revenue/funding streams? Has the team provided evidence of key costs associated with the venture? Is there evidence that desired financial outcomes are achievable?

(Links to BMC: Revenue Streams, Cost Structure)

CRITERIA 6: Leadership/Team

Has the team provided evidence that they have a team that can succeed in starting up this venture? Do one or more of the team members have competence in the industry/product/service areas? Do they have connections to key partners?

(Links to BMC: Key Resources, Key Partners)