aps 1015 class 7 - market validation
DESCRIPTION
Students will be exposed to methods for evaluating the “business potential” of their entrepreneurial idea, and evaluate some of the challenges associated with synthesizing market data and applying this data to business decisions. This class will also feature a “live case” with a guest social entrepreneur.TRANSCRIPT
1
APS 1015: Social Entrepreneurship
Class 7: Validation of Market-Based Solutions
Monday, October 21, 2013
Instructors:Norm Tasevski ([email protected]) Assaf Weisz ([email protected])
2
© Norm Tasevski & Assaf Weisz
Agenda
• Recap of Business Modelling (Class 5)• Screening Entrepreneurial Ideas• Break• Validation Techniques• Next week
© Norm Tasevski & Assaf Weisz
Recap: Business Modelling
4
Screening Social Enterprise Ideas
5
© Norm Tasevski & Assaf Weisz
The Idea Funnel
Idea Brainstorm
Internal Screen
External Screen
Validated Solution
# Ideas = Dozens
# Ideas < 10
# Ideas = 1 to 3
6
© Norm Tasevski & Assaf Weisz
Step 1: Idea Brainstorming
• Our idea jam…
7
© Norm Tasevski & Assaf Weisz
Step 2: Internal Screen
• Goal: assess the quality of the entrepreneurial idea before conducting market research
• Why screen internally first?
• 2 Parts:– Assessment of Business Potential– Assessment of Social “Fit”
8
© Norm Tasevski & Assaf Weisz
Business Potential
• Evaluate based on:– Potential financial performance/sustainability of the
venture (and scalability)– External need/want of the product/service– Market barriers
9
© Norm Tasevski & Assaf Weisz
Business Potential
Measure
Rating
0 1 2 3Level of Customer Need
Not a significant needNeed that is addressed by others reasonably well
Unmet need and strong customer base willing to pay for it
High level of unmet need amongst people with the ability to pay
Competitive Advantage
Competitive disadvantage – many other competitors are serving needs well
No significant difference from competitors
Good value proposition but could easily be matched
No other competitors, and sustainable unique solution for niche
Profit/Surplus Potential
Likely loss $0 - $50,000 $50,000 - $100,000 $100,000 +
Additional Investment Required
Major investment required (>$20,000)
Moderate investment required ($10,000-20,000)
Little investment required (<$10,000)
Could be done with existing resources
Return on Investment Timeframe
Long payback period not justified by return
Reasonable ROI over 2 or 3 years
First year profit = first year investment
Strong positive return on investment in first year
Access to Required Start-Up Funds
Not fundable
Could be fundable but unsure of sources and or %; funding difficult to attain
Relatively easy to find funding for start-up costs, but for a smaller proportion
Very easy to get funding for start-up costs
10
© Norm Tasevski & Assaf Weisz
Social “Fit”
• Evaluate based on:– Desired social outcomes– Internal capacity to deliver value
11
© Norm Tasevski & Assaf Weisz
Social “Fit”
Measure
Rating
0 1 2 3Fit with Desired Mission/Vision
Does not fit with mission and values
Minimal link to mission and vision
Some fit with mission and values
Strong fit with mission and values
Ability to Generate Social Benefit
None Low Medium High
Existence of Skills and Capacity
Large amount of skills missing
Skills available from partners and/or consultants
Minimal training necessary
Current team already has the necessary skills
Risk High risk Moderate riskManageable risk (strategies to address) No risk
Partnership/Collaboration Opportunity
No probable partners exist
No partnership needed, or probable partners exist and are interested
Advances Our Name/Reputation/Values
Potential for negative impact
Slight increase in awareness of org
Moderate increase in awareness of org
Direct significant increase in awareness of org
Other Barriers Significant cultural or other changes required
Some barriers which may be difficult to address
Some barriers, but likely to be able to address
No significant barriers
12
© Norm Tasevski & Assaf Weisz
Screening MatrixB
usin
ess
Pote
nti
al
Social “Fit”
Low social impact/internal
capacity
High social impact/internal
capacity
HighFinancial &
Market Potential
LowFinancial &
Market Potential
Consider Second Top Priority
Not StrategicDo Not Consider
Further
Possible Quick Win
13
© Norm Tasevski & Assaf Weisz
Now…
• Screen your initial ideas according to social fit and business potential
14
© Norm Tasevski & Assaf Weisz
Initial Reactions
• What assumptions did you make that drove either high or low ratings of your ideas?
• Were any ideas ranked artificially high or low due to a misperception of the opportunity? If so, would a change in perception change your rating?
• What info do we not know now that are important in confirming the potential of the idea?
15
Break
16
Validation Techniques
© Norm Tasevski & Assaf Weisz
Data Sources
17
Call key industry players(suppliers, competitors, etc)
Search databases(industry, scholastic, etc)
Conduct web search(Google, etc)
Ask people!!!(friends, potential customers, etc)
Primary
Sources
SecondarySources
18
© Norm Tasevski & Assaf Weisz
Primary Research Methods
Step 1: Identify people to speak with– Create a spectrum of participants based on desired
criteria (e.g. gender, age, socio-economic status)– Identify sources/places to meet participants– Identify community contacts to arrange meetings with
participants
Tip: identify participants on the “extremes”– E.g. if spectrum is based on “adoption of technology”,
pick the quickest technology adopters and those who are resistant to new technology
19
© Norm Tasevski & Assaf Weisz
Primary Research Methods
Step 2: Determine your method– Individual interview– Group interview– In-context immersion– Self-documentation– Community-driven discovery– Expert Interviews
20
© Norm Tasevski & Assaf Weisz
Primary Research Methods
Individual Interview: one-on-one gathering of rich/deep information on the behaviours, reasoning and daily realities of the interviewee
Group interview: one-to-many gathering of information focused on understanding group dynamics/community life
In-context immersion: meeting people where they live/work/socialize (i.e. observing their context directly, walking “in their shoes”)
Self-documentation: empowering the participants to document their own experience (e.g. through journal writing, note taking)
Community-driven discovery: empowering participants to also be researchers (e.g. have them conduct interviews)
Expert Interviews: one-on-one gathering of info with academics, industry experts, other researchers, etc
21
© Norm Tasevski & Assaf Weisz
The Interview Guide
• A semi-structured set of questions that allow for dialogue while retaining focus on a specific topic
• What to ask?– Start by listing the assumptions you’ve made in your idea screen. Turn these
assumptions into research questions– Categorize the questions by topic. For instance, you may want to ask
participants several questions on “livelihood” or on “cultural dynamics”
• How to ask?– Start specific (e.g. “yes/no”, simple-answer questions)– Then ask broader questions (e.g. “how”, “what” questions)– Then probe deeper (e.g. “why” questions)
• Tips:– Avoid “abstract” questions (e.g. “how much would you pay for…”). Instead,
create a scenario (e.g. “you have a choice between A & B…”)
22
© Norm Tasevski & Assaf Weisz
Some other Techniques
23
© Norm Tasevski & Assaf Weisz
A Point on Asking People…
There are…
Lovers Don’t give a %&$#ers
Haters
Listen to HALF of what they say!!!
24
© Norm Tasevski & Assaf Weisz
What did we learn?