1. Assessing a new Venture Lab class at SJSU Anu Basu Joe Giglierano

2. VLab started in Fall 2013 Purpose: To provide students with real-world experience in the early development of a new venture. Two sessions so far - Fall, ‘13, Fall, ’14 Limited to 15 UG students w/ideas they are seriously evaluating – Students apply to join course – Originally intended for student teams – But mostly individuals with projects

3. Nature of the course Experiential Students work on developing and testing a new venture idea – Blank’s Customer Development is Core – Business Model Canvas – Many interviews with potential customers, partners – Students required to create/test MVP Teaching team – marketing, finance, communication, CS advisor Mentors - industry experts, some coding help Guest Speakers + Flipped classroom In class discussions + student presentations Demo Day Preparation for Next Steps, Action plan

4. Desired Outcomes Familiarity and practice with applying core concepts Evaluating the viability of new venture ideas Broad exposure to practical problems and how to address them Practice presenting Expert perspectives and experiences Real start on Real Projects Understanding the key development processes in the overall startup process: – Product development – Customer development – Business model development – Financing development – Administrative and org structure design& development Learning to fail or pivot

5. Students’ Observations -- Positive Students positive about all aspects, especially – Customer development; interviewing – Practice presentations & feedback – One-on-one meetings with instructor – Mentors’ input – Guest speakers – Field trips to incubator(s), startups, Angels/VCs – Collaboration with students from other disciplines – Interactions with students in class Entrepreneurship seen as more do-able or attractive; more confidence in being able to do it – “VLAB gave me the tools, resources, and inspiration to further my entrepreneurial career”

7. Student’s Critiques Some wanted a little more structure – – milestones; speakers’ topics more relevant to projects Wanted different shaped space, not tiered classroom More one-on-one time with instructor Specific improvements (better ways of accomplishing learning objectives): – Weekly, 3-minute updates presented in class – Limit on number of teams

8. Outcomes Everyone got the idea of getting feedback and making pivots. Ideas were stronger to start with in second go-around. Demo day, with MVPs required, gets super results. Having a practice session for demo day one week before boosts the quality noticeably. One-third to one-half of final projects could continue development toward launch; some students have chosen to put projects on hold to finish degrees more easily. Seven projects from second VLab currently continue. Six ideas from the first VLab were continue-able; two of these are actively continuing, two are on pause, and two are unknown.

9. Conclusions Students acquired more effectual approach, more understanding of failing/learning process Maybe devote more class time to work on projects Maybe have more exercises to help with projects Maybe establish online forum for students to record observation & advice for their classmates Very time intensive for both instructors and students – hands on nature of course makes it difficult to scale beyond 7 or 8 projects (this is even a lot)

10. Questions on Moving Forward How to get teams instead of individuals? Student mixers before the start of the semester? How to handle variation in student commitment? How to handle variation in preparation and background? How to get more disciplines involved, particularly engineering? Mentor training?