Judging
Judging information for the Penn State Idea Pitch Competition
Judging for the Idea Pitch Competition will be done through two rounds. All ideas submitted before September 28, 2015 will be judged in the initial round. Judging in the initial round will be done through the independent assessment of at least two individuals from the following groups"
- Faculty members from Penn State University's Smeal College of Business
- Representatives from various "Angel networks" in PA
- Selected External Venture Capitalists and other funding sources.
Initial Round videos must be no more than two minutes in length, and will be judged on how clear the idea is communicated, market position and viability, and why you and your team are the best possible group to bring this idea to fruition.
Of the initial round of ideas, the top four will be selected for the second and final round of judging and will be eligible for cash prizes and potential investment opportunities. Representatives from the selected teams will be expected to present their presentation live to an audience of students, faculty and staff from Penn State University as well as other members of Pennsylvania's VC community. Select members of the Penn State and Pennsylvania entrepreneurship communities will judge the final round.
Final Round Judging Guidelines
Market |
Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.) | The team did a good job identifying its initial target market | |||||
| 2.) | The team is targeting a large and attractive potential market | |||||
| 3.) | The team showed credible market research data to support its market size claims | |||||
| 4.) | The team identified large and attractive secondary markets to serve over the long term | |||||
| Market Subtotal Score: | ||||||
Product or Service |
Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | |
| 1.) | The team has identified a compelling initial product or service. | |||||
| 2.) | The team has described a robust product/service additions roadmap going forward. | |||||
| Product or Service Subtotal Score: | ||||||
Customers |
Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | |
| 1.) | The team has identified its initial target customers and has given specific references. | |||||
| 2.) | The team has articulated a strong hard-dollar customer value proposition. | |||||
| Customers Subtotal Score: | ||||||
Technology / Service / Innovation |
Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | |
| 1.) | The team has presented a clear and concise overview of its unique capabilities and state of development. | |||||
| 2.) | There is very little fundamental technology or development risk left to resolve. | |||||
| 3.) | The team has a solid Intellectual Property position as well as plans to protect it. | |||||
| Technology / Service / Innovation Subtotal Score: | ||||||
Development Plan |
Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | |
| 1.) | The team has outlined a credible and thorough plan for developing its first product or service. | |||||
| 2.) | The team has clearly identified its resource requirements and these can be reasonably obtained. | |||||
| 3.) | The team has a plan to derive additional funding from alternative sources such as government grants, friends, bootstrapping, bank loans, etc. | |||||
| Development Plan Subtotal Score: | ||||||
Distribution Plan |
Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | |
| 1.) | The team understands and has clearly articulated its business model. | |||||
| 2.) | The team?s sales model is a good fit for its product/service and business model. | |||||
| 3.) | The team has articulated a plan to attract corporate partners. | |||||
| Distribution Plan Subtotal Score: | ||||||
Team |
Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | |
| 1.) | The team has a strong and complete founding management team or a well described plan to build such a team. | |||||
| 2.) | The team has attracted an impressive advisory board or has a well described plan to develop such a board. | |||||
| 3.) | The team clearly understands what additional people and skills it needs to build a team. | |||||
| Team Subtotal Score: | ||||||
Competition |
Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | |
| 1.) | The team comprehensively identified potential competitors. | |||||
| 2.) | The initial product or service has strong competitive advantages vs. existing alternatives. | |||||
| 3.) | The team?s unique innovations will confer sustainable competitive advantages on its products or services as these evolve over time. | |||||
| Competition Subtotal Score: | ||||||
Financial Projections |
Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | |
| 1.) | The team has clearly described its funding needs; these are reasonable and adequate to the task. | |||||
| 2.) | The team is well positioned to win initial grants from various federal and state funding agencies. | |||||
| 3.) | The team has presented attractive and credible 5 year financial projections. | |||||
| Financial Projections Subtotal Score: | ||||||
Exit Strategy |
Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree | |
| 1.) | The team has the potential to achieve significant (>$100M) enterprise valuation within 5-7 years. | |||||
| 2.) | The team has clearly thought about its exit strategy and has articulated a strong plan to get there. | |||||
| 3.) | The team has described an attractive list of prospective acquirers as well as reasons they might consider a strategic acquisition. | |||||
| Exit Strategy Subtotal Score: | ||||||
| Total Score: | ||||||
