Last year Steve Blank proposed a system for evaluating startups usable by educators and investors (our blog post about it here). Since then the manager of Sacramento Angels put the theory to the test and likes the results. It strikes me that here in the Pioneer Valley we have an opportunity to adopt practices like this throughout the entrepreneurship ecosystem to provide a consistant language for startups, investors, and partners. What do you think?
Key to his proposal is the real life example of "Moneyball" - where a team proved it could use cold-hard-metrics to dramatically improve upon the old gut-instinct-only system Steve thinks this can be done for startups, and I am inclined to agree with him.,
I invite you to read the full text on his website and engage in a dialog about it. Could this give angels a much better way to pick the winners out of the super-early-stage companies we love to work with? Might it be a better fit for angel groups outside of the major innovation hubs - angels that don't already believe they "got it" :).
And lastly, might it imply a different model for angel groups? Instead of bringing in a few companies a month for "1st dates" that emphasize pitching skills, should we be bringing in batches of companies and putting them through a Lean Launchpad experience and evaluating them after 10 weeks of hard work (that we witness)?