A critical evaluation of the standardisation potential of business plan evaluation aids (BPEA) used in venture capital investment decision-making

The research objective was to perform a critical evaluation and comparison of four, representative Business Plan Evaluation Aids (BPEA) to facilitate constructive discussion of the proposition that greater standardisation of venture capital decision-making might be both desirable and possible.The four BPEA were systematically compared using a structured, taxonomic process employing seven key criteria. The evidence of this investigation suggests a clear superiority for BPEAs, which are based on the known attributes of successful ventures and use actuarial modelling. Discussion centred on the importance of using BPEAs in a quest for greater consistency of venture capital investment decision-making.<br /

Toward the standardization of venture capital investment evaluation : decision criteria for rating investee business plans

This study examined the criteria used by venture capitalists to evaluate business plans in order to make investment decisions. A literature survey revealed two competing theories: &ldquo;espoused criteria&rdquo; where evaluation decisions are based on what venture capitalists say are the decisive factors; versus the use of &ldquo;known attributes&rdquo; that successful ventures actually possess. Brunswik&rsquo;s Lens Model from Social Judgment Theory guided an empirical investigation of several different evaluation methods based on information contained in 129 business plans submitted for venture capital over a 3 year period. Data evaluation culminated in the comparison of the percentage of correct decisions (&ldquo;hit-rate&rdquo;) for each method. We found that decisions based on the known attributes of successful ventures have significantly better hit-rates than decisions made using espoused criteria. Discussion centred on the goal of achieving consistency in the conduct of venture analysis. Process standardization can aid in the achievement of consistency. Future research will both deepen and broaden insights.<br /

A systematic approach to writing and rating entrepreneurial business plans

This investigation provides the predicate for an intended series of studies in the field of Venture Capital deal screening. At issue is the use of theory-based standards for systematic creation and assessment of entrepreneurial business plans. A systems based approach guided synthesis of research-based principles contained in the literature. Results culminated in the formal articulation and operationalization of 10 principles in the form of a questionnaire (entitled EBPAR, for &lsquo;entrepreneurial business plan evaluation regime&rsquo;). The instrument can serve dual duty as a guide for writing and a regime for rating Entrepreneurial Business Plans. Discussion focused on utility of the assessment regime and future research directions.<br /

Is the quality of entrepreneurial business plans related to the outcome of a new venture?

The evaluation of new ventures often involves two key aspects of entrepreneurial business plans: how best to write them and how best to rate (evaluate) them. Ultimately the performance of the venture should be the definitive criterion of quality. Surprisingly, the writing, rating and performance effects of entrepreneurial business plans (EBPs) comprise three related but under researched areas. This paper empirically tested principles for writing and rating entrepreneurial business plans to draw inferences on how to improve the private equity investment evaluation process. A simplified perspective of General Systems Theory guided our empirical investigation of the input and outcome of the VC investment decision. Our empirical investigation reveals that entrepreneurial business plans that comport with the writing principles from the literature improve a new venture&rsquo;s likelihood of success.<br /

Caprice versus standardization in venture capital decision making

This study examined the criteria used by venture capitalists to evaluate business plans in order to make investment decisions. A literature survey revealed two competing theories: "espoused criteria" where evaluation decisions are based on what venture capitalists say are the decisive factors, versus the use of "known attributes" that successful ventures actually possess. Brunswik's Lens Model from Social Judgment Theory guided an empirical investigation of several different evaluation methods based on information contained in 129 business plans submitted for venture capital over a three-year period. Data evaluation culminated in the comparison of the percentage of correct decisions ("hit rate") for each method. We found that decisions based on the known attributes of successful ventures have significantly better hit rates than decisions made using espoused criteria. Discussion centered on the goal of achieving consistency in the conduct of venture analysis. Process standardization can aid in the achievement of consistency. Future research will both deepen and broaden insights

The benefit : a well-written entrepreneurial business plan is to an entrepreneur what a midwife is to an expecting mother

The evaluation of new ventures often involves two key aspects of entrepreneurial business plans: how best to write them and how best to rate (evaluate) them. Ultimately the performance of the venture should be the definitive criterion of quality. Surprisingly, the writing, rating and performance effects of entrepreneurial business plans (EBPs) comprise three related but under researched areas. This article empirically tested principles for writing and rating entrepreneurial business plans to draw inferences on how to improve the private equity investment evaluation process. A simplified perspective of General Systems Theory guided our empirical investigation of the input and outcome of the VC investment decision. Our empirical investigation reveals that entrepreneurial business plans that comport with the writing principles from the literature improve a new venture\u27s likelihood of success

Assessing the efficacy and standardization potential of five competing venture capital investment evaluation approaches

The research objective behind this article was to perform a critical evaluation and comparison of five representative business plan evaluation aids (BPEAs) to facilitate constructive discussion of the proposition that greater standardization of venture capital decision-making might be both desirable and possible. The five BPEAs were systematically compared using a structured, taxonomic process. The evidence of this investigation suggests a clear superiority of BPEAs that are based on the researched attributes of successful ventures and use actuarial modeling. Discussion centered on the importance of using BPEAs in a quest for greater consistency during venture capital investment decision-making