However, observed through the lens of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR), Schwab’s 4-type intelligence proposition appears to lack ‘disposition’ (natural or acquired tendency, inclination, or habit), specifically in relation to the actual realisation (making real) of solutions. Disposition as a ‘type’ of intelligence implies one’s habitual inclination, and in terms of 4IR could mean how one habitually recognises opportunities and acts to create value. I therefore propose expanding Schwab’s 4-type intelligence proposition to include entrepreneurial intelligence from a ‘disposition’ paradigm. I regard entrepreneurial intelligence asthe ability to recognise opportunity through synthesis of the whole and creatively combining resources that result in the creation or renewal of value that makes economic and/or social meaning.

Schwab’s 4-type intelligence proposition to meaningfully address the challenges of 4IR largely relates to ‘being’, i.e. human existence as it relates to mind, heart, soul and body. In the context of 4IR it thus proposes nurturing and applying the four different types of intelligence to shape 4IR to ensure that it is empowering and human-centred, rather than divisive and dehumanising. I, however, argue that in support of translating the acknowledged benefit of individual and collective contextual-, emotional-, inspired-, and physical intelligence to real solutions, entrepreneurial intelligence is the requisite “active agent.” Subsequently, I suggest expanding Schwab’s 4-type intelligence proposition to also include entrepreneurial intelligence in order to increase the probability of fundamental, lasting impact and shaping a future that offers many potentialities, i.e., possible outcomes that could occur but have not yet occurred because, to be actualised, they require the enactment of entrepreneurs.

It reminds me of the anecdote of the frog being boiled to death due to the increase in the temperature being so gradual it didn’t realise it’s boiling to death. However, as far as the Fourth Industrial Revolution is concerned, the increase in temperature is no longer gradual…  it is exponential.

Along with many others, I believe instead of reactively waiting to see how things pan out, we should rather be pro-actively participate in, and contribute to shaping a future beneficial to current and future generations.

In his book, “The Fourth Industrial Revolution,” Klaus Schwab propagates for mobilising the collective wisdom of our minds, hearts and souls by adapting, shaping and harnessing the potential of disruption by nurturing and applying four different types of intelligence, namely, contextual (the mind), emotional (the heart), inspired (the soul), and intelligence (the body).

In a small way I endeavour to contribute to the South African context in that I have undertaken a research project to determine how South African management practitioners stack up to Klaus Schwab’s 4-type intelligence proposition. After watching the video I invite South Africans to contribute to the study. I believe it could help set an agenda for greater awareness-making and to facilitate dialogue between stakeholders in the South African public and private sectors, academia and civil society.

To go to the online survey, please click HERE. Responses are completely anonymous, as no personal information is required nor recorded.

I also believe an important agenda has been set for the future of management practice, and the urgency of the matter resulted in a research project I am undertaking to assess the readiness of South African managers to meaningfully address the challenges of the 4IR.

Klaus Schwab believes that the challenges of the 4IR can only be meaningfully addressed by mobilising the collective wisdom of our minds, hearts and souls. To do so, he believes we must adapt, shape and harness the potential of disruption by nurturing and applying four different types of intelligence, namely: (1) contextual (the mind) — how we understand and apply our knowledge; (2) emotional (the heart) — how we process and integrate our thoughts and feelings and relate to ourselves and to one another; (3) inspired (the soul) — how we use a sense of individual and shared purpose, trust, and other virtues to effect change and act towards the common good; and (4) physical (the body) — how we cultivate and maintain our personal health and well-being and that of those around us to be in a position to apply the energy required for both individual and systems transformation.

Combined, I refer to these as 4IR-Intelligence, and developed a survey instrument setting out to determine an individual’s 4IR-Intelligence Quotient (4IR-Q) – the emphasis being on “How frequently do I engage in the behaviour described?”  

In light of the above I am humbly petitioning for South African leaders to contribute to this research project. Responses will be completely anonymous, as no personal information is required nor recorded by the online platform. To participate, please click <here> to take you to the 20-question online survey which should take you no more than 20 minutes to complete.

Thanking you in advance for your contribution in helping us shape a preferred future.

The dichotomy between the two themes is apparent. Scott Allen Mongeau’s article, “Manager-machine: analytics, artificial intelligence, and the uncertain future of management“ highlights the dramatic advancements in machine intelligence that are progressively gaining ground in the domain of decision making traditionally associated with management. With algorithms increasingly able to make complex decisions, the contemporary scope of management is under pressure to consider the future scope of management practice.

Martin Dewhurst and Paul Willmott, in the Mckinsey Quarterly article “Manager and machine: The new leadership equation” further assert that machine learning has reached the vertical part of the exponential curve, and state that “computers are replacing skilled practitioners in fields such as architecture, aviation, the law, medicine, and petroleum geology – and changing the nature of work in a broad range of other jobs and professions.” In addition, Scott Allen Mongeauargues that management practice will progressively need to become more innovative in terms of affirming its value proposition in relation to emerging advanced decision technologies. “As many traditional industrial age business functions become subject to disintermediation by automation and expert analytics systems, new industries and value propositions will need to be framed by an emerging generation of leaders.”

Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee’s book “The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies” also emphasise that we find ourselves in an age of unprecedented digital technological progress, which will continue to improve, bringing about not only beneficial transformations, but also profound challenges, likely to bring economic disruption.

In another Mckinsey Quarterly article, “Artificial intelligence meets the C-suite”, Rik Kirkland interviewed Andrew McAfee, Erik Brynjolfsson, Jeremy Howard and Anthony Goldbloom, in which the plausibility of companies having less need for some categories of employees as computers get more powerful becomes evident. Now, although senior managers are far from obsolete, machine learning is progressing at a rapid pace, and executives need to become adept in creating innovative new organisational forms needed to manage in an age of machine intelligence; accentuating creative abilities, leadership skills, and strategic thinking.

And this is where the challenge facing management education enters the equation: how should management education redefine itself for a future of exponential automation across the various sectors of the economy? How should management practice evolve to navigate the anticipated disruptions to organizations and associated impact on the social fabric?

I am convinced that management educators need to initiate urgent dialogue regarding the aforementioned… there is a future unfolding before us that I believe contemporary management practice will not be able to deal with in the way that we are accustomed to today. And the way we go about it also key, because how we conceptualise the future when considering management practice in relation to resources, processes and organisational architecture presents another challenge. My sense is that our way of thinking and reasoning about the future is somehow constrained by our natural inclination to simply extend the past into the future in linear fashion. We tend to project potential futures by taking our past experiences, and extending it into the future at a trajectory that applied up to the present. The problem is that linear regression and exponential regression are dramatically different. How can management advancement, approached in a linear fashion, address an exponential variable, that being technological advancement in this case? I believe the simple linear algorithm inherent in current management thinking and research mostly fail to take into account the complex and dynamic nature of machine intelligence advancement and its impact on contemporary management practice.

Perhaps a starting point to prevent management educators getting painted out of the future picture, is to initiate strategic dialogue around Abraham Lincoln’s maxim that “the best way to predict the future is create it.” Management educators need to start deep-diving into the realm of artificial intelligence advancement, create future potentialities, and folding them back to the present to determine current management practice’s future deficiencies in order to redefine theory, practice and pedagogy.

Gen Eric Shinseki once said, “If you don’t like change, you’re going to like irrelevance even less”, and I think to have a “wait and see” approach would be to management educators’ own detriment.

While reading through Yvonne’s response I couldn’t help think of the similarities to a startup… and with credit to Yvonne, change her comments to a startup context with the maxim in a startup being, launch well and the founder gets the credit; launch badly and everyone else gets blamed. We could also say, every startup is hard to launch if you do it well. In the same way as conducting an orchestra, launching a successful enterprise requires great attention to detail from everyone on the team, and, any startup is very difficult to launch.

An orchestra is led by a conductor who directs the performance by way of visible gestures, unifying the orchestra, setting the tempo and facilitates the sound of the ensemble. In similar fashion, the founding leader directs, by way of planning, organising, leading and controlling, the application of money, markets, machines, methods, material, man, and information, unifying the combination of resources in a creative and parsimonious way, setting the rhythm and facilitating the performance of the team… But because the opportunity, team, and resources of a startup rarely match, successful founders must devise creative ways to marshal and gain control of resources, bootstrapping as they go, and encouraging a discipline of leanness where everyone knows that every penny counts.

Pattern recognition is thus key for the founding leader, as each of the requisite unique combinations of resources occurs in real time, akin to the conductor directing the members of an orchestra. Tell-tale signs that a startup symphony is achieving harmonious execution is when the venture (1) creates significant value to the customer, (2) solves a significant problem or meets a significant need for which customers are willing to pay a premium, (3) has strong market, margin, and revenue characteristics, (4) fits well with the founder and team, and (5) sustainably scales with impact.

Another commentator in the same Quora article, Greg Raether, Musician and Enterprise Architect, shared a video of a masterclass by renowned conductor, Bernard Haitink on the difficulties of directing Brahms’s Symphony No.3, which he regularly views for inspiration and guidance. Watching the video, I again couldn’t help recognise numerous similarities to the realities of a startup… Haitink refers to “a symphony which is famous for its difficulty… even for a grown-up conductor it is not easy… dangers are everywhere.” Likewise, high-potential startups are famous for their difficulty… even for experienced entrepreneurs… dangers are everywhere.

In the video clip, Haitink says to one student, “Good Leo… very good of you not to stop when there was this little omission… orchestral life is full of little things, which can happen during performance.” In a startup, things will not go as planned… it is an iterative journey of trial and error… and the point is not to stop or give up when things don’t go as planned.

The clip ends off with Haitink saying, “a very important aspect of a conductor is to have the right concentration – not to be upset when things are going wrong – you are there not to criticise them – you are there to give them confidence – even when things don’t go perfectly – show that you can ride that horse, because this is a horse.” In the context of a startup this relates to the important role of the founding leader… Focus and concentration; inspiring the team, building their confidence, even when things go wrong; leading by example…

One could find analogies to startup realities from numerous other professions, art forms, sport and the like, but I find the analogy of conducting a symphony rather powerful… As the conductor unifies the members of the orchestra, sets the tempo, executes clear rhythms and beats, listens critically and shapes the sound of the ensemble, so the startup founder creatively combines resources, sets the direction, executes strategy, thinks critically and facilitates team activities in order to create value where there was none before.

Quigley’s opening statement, “No education is worth much which does not help those who receive it to understand the world in which they live and to feel more at home and more confident in the world” sets the scene, followed by “no holds barred” persuasive arguments against academic disciplinary boundaries, of which a few notable extracts are listed below:

• “…leaves so-called educated people incapable of understanding the rapidly changing society in which we live…”
• “… leaves us facing gigantic problems to whose understanding and solution the existing educational structure has little to contribute.”
• “…the simple reason that the great problems of our day do not fall into any one academic discipline, and, indeed, cannot be dealt with by committees made up of persons from different academic specialties.”
• “The problems are obvious: (1) war and peace; (2) urban problems; (3) environmental pollution and destruction of our natural basis for living; (4) the rising tide of mental ill-health, emotional instability, and personality disorders; (5) racial problems; (6) growing social disintegration and violence; and (7) the problems of under-developed countries. Not one of these falls into one of the academic departments into which our educational establishment is divided.”
• “None of these problems which we must solve if we are not to perish falls cleanly, or even mainly, into any existing academic discipline.”
• “…even in the natural sciences, the only real advances are being made, not within subjects, but on the borders of the older academic fields where subjects are mixed.”
• “Today no great advances can be made, nor can the problems facing us be understood, by anyone who stays within the borders of one of the present academic disciplines.”
• “…the regular academic disciplines are now bankrupt, incapable of providing their explanations or solutions to problems.”
• “The chief group of discontented are, of course, the students, who grow increasingly restless, discontented, and alienated because of their recognition of the large-scale irrelevance of so much of what they have to learn.”
• “…to find it in the accepted wisdom of the existing academic structure is to put oneself in an intellectual prison…”

Just to remind us again… Quigley wrote these words some 48 years ago! What has changed since then? Have we indeed gained any ground to break out of the academic discipline-fixation-mould, or are we still stuck in the same place as when Quigley expressed his views?

Well, I think we’ve made progress to some extent, even if it just a greater awareness of the limitations of absolute disciplinary separation. Since Quigley, significant contributions have been made by progressive thinkers about the way we construct knowledge and the way we live and think in a pluralistic society characterised by volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity, such as Edgar Morin, Basarb Nicolescu, Alfonso Montuori, Bent Flyvbjerg, and Michel Aldadeff-Jones to name but a few.

In addition, within higher education institutions structures across the world, we’ve also seen numerous initiatives in the form of centres and research units that endeavour to cross academic disciplinary boundaries with interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary or transdisciplinary orientations to address problems such as those referred to by Quigley. Examples are future studies, complexity studies, sustainability studies, integrative studies, integral studies etc. Furthermore, there are many academic journals, such as The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa, Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering & Science,Sustainability, International Journal of Complexity in Applied Science and Technology, and Complexity Economics, to name a few, that endeavour to find pragmatic solutions to some of the very complex problems mankind is confronted with.

That there are some serious challenges facing humanity is a no-brainer, and it is expected that institutions of higher education actively participate and contribute in finding solutions to these challenges. Ironically similar to Quigley’s 7 “obvious problems”, the Millennium Project lists 15 Global Challenges facing humanity, which, to again draw on Quigley, not one of these falls neatly within one of the traditional academic disciplines into which most educational institutions are divided.

Although progress has been made, I believe we’ve still got a long way to go, not only in changing the norms about absolute academic discipline separation, but especially what Quigley referred to as “the chief group of discontented… the students…” which implies the way curricula and syllabi are structured to appropriately prepare students for a pluralistic world characterised by volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity. A recent article, “Universities need to change so students learn to keep up with the world” by Rowan Brookes also emphasised this need for change.

Quigley’s words, echoing from the distant past, is a stark reminder that politics cannot be separated from economics, and neither can either be detached from psychology, literature, history, technology, mathematics, or the natural sciences, as they are all closely interrelated, and all of them are fused in all the major problems facing us.

[Also posted on my LinkedIn page]

Over the years extensive inquiry has been devoted to entrepreneurship, covering a multitude of themes, which, among others include the creation of new venture, wealth creation, innovation and the creation of new products and markets, the recognition and pursuit of opportunities, cognition and capabilities, the rewards of entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial intentions, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, etc. There is also growing interest in the importance of context in understanding various aspects of entrepreneurship, and systems approaches to understanding the phenomenon have become increasingly common.

We also know that there is general agreement about entrepreneurship’s key role as driver to the market economy, involving the bringing about of new economic, social, and institutional arrangements through individuals or groups. It is central in economic progress as it manifest its fundamental importance in identifying, assessing and exploiting opportunities; in creating new ventures and/or renewing existing ones, and stimulating the economy through innovation, job creation and generally improving the wellbeing of society. It is thus understandable that entrepreneurship attracts so much attention from scholars, practitioners, policymakers, journalists, educators and the like… However, amidst all this engagement with the entrepreneurship phenomenon it appears that relatively little progress towards agreement in relation to the essence of the phenomenon has been made. The status quo is characterized by a plethora of theories, definitions and classifications that often conflict and overlap, and the controversy, whether entrepreneurship is a legitimate, bona fide separate field or rather merely a topic of research in the more traditional fields, remains.

My personal journey with entrepreneurship – from my own experience as entrepreneur, to being a student of the phenomenon, to engaging with many entrepreneurs, scholars and thought leaders over the past 25 odd years has brought me to a place where I am questioning many of my own assumptions as well as those of other in terms of what entrepreneurship really is, how and why it manifests, and whether it could be truly regarded as a separate field of study. My curiosity thus led me over time to also take intensive “walkabouts” through less-travelled domains such as complexity, ecosystems, philosophy, transdisciplinarity, social systems, neuroscience etc… all which fundamentally challenged my preconceived views and altering my perspectives about entrepreneurship.

Emanating from these influences, the multiplicity of entrepreneurship became acutely apparent, and I became more and more persuaded that the phenomenon is too complex to attempt to neatly compartmentalize in a single field of study. There are a multitude of diverse elements that are inseparably connected, and the way events unfold, actions, interactions, retroactions, determinations, and chance constitute a complex world which implies non-linear dynamics within the dynamic entrepreneurship phenomenon. As such, I have become convinced that entrepreneurship is not a standalone discipline but that it rather transcends all disciplines; being at once between the disciplines, across the disciplines, and beyond all disciplines – transdisciplinary.

When one considers that a venture spans, among others, money, markets, machines, methods, material, man, and information one starts to appreciate the multiplicity of entrepreneurship. Disciplines such as strategy, finance, marketing, operations, HR, technology, corporate governance, environment, sustainability, future studies, management, leadership, etc. are just a few imperatives in the effective and efficient running of a venture through its entire lifecycle – from start-up through to exit. All of which obviously plays out in a volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous environment. It is within this ambit that the transdisciplinary nature of entrepreneurship becomes more apparent.

Alfonso Montuori, professor in transformative inquiry argues that transdisciplinarity is inquiry-driven rather than discipline-driven, and in transdisciplinarity, scope is defined by the needs of the subject matter (entrepreneurship in this case), not determined and guided by the boundaries of the discipline. Bent Flyvbjerg, professor and economic geographer conceived that “transdisciplinarity draws on systems and complexity theories to propose a way of thinking that is different from reductive/disjunctive disciplinary thought. It requires thinking that contextualises, starting with the assumption that any system needs to be understood in terms of its larger environment and relationships, and connections, showing how to bring the information from separate disciplines together so that it can be useful knowledge that allows us to act wisely.”

I have stuck my neck out and expect fierce opposition… nevertheless, the scene is now set for robust dialogue to move towards further deepening our understanding of entrepreneurship.

I propose two reasons for the fragmented state of affairs in our understanding of entrepreneurship, namely the underlying complexity of entrepreneurship and the way in which we go about constructing knowledge about entrepreneurship.

By complexity I mean the complex intricacies of the “ecosystem” or environment in which entrepreneurship plays out and manifests. Human societies are just as complex as ecosystems, with many different actors and environmental conditions and complicated relationships between the actors and their environments. Just as in an ecosystem, where environmental factors have an impact on organisms, and these organisms have an impact on one another and their environment, so too does societal environmental factors have an impact on people, and people on one another and their societal environment  – an environment consisting of various sub-systems which interact in complex ways that both affect and are being affected by the actors.

To illustrate this complexity, consider for a moment, the pattern of activities, roles, and interpersonal relationships experienced by the entrepreneur in a particular setting with particular physical and material features, and containing other people with distinctive characteristics, personalities and systems of belief. Consider further the larger social system that consists of events, incidents, decisions, and policies over which entrepreneur has no influence, as well as the given culture, subculture, or broad social context that consists of the overarching pattern of values, belief systems, lifestyles, opportunities, customs, and resources embedded therein. Then, finally, consider the short- and long-term time dimensions of the entrepreneur over the course of a lifespan, as well as the socio-historical time dimension of the larger system in which the entrepreneur lives.

As such I believe these numerous forces and actors stimulating entrepreneurship cannot be studied independently. We need to attempt to understand entrepreneurship within the context of the system of relationships that form the entrepreneur’s environment… And herein lies the basis for my second reason for the fragmented state of affairs in our understanding of entrepreneurship, namely the way we’ve gone about building the knowledge base on entrepreneurship.

Think of complexity in entrepreneurship as unrelated elements that are inseparably associated… it confronts us with the contradiction of the one and the many… with events, actions, interactions, reactions, determinations, and probabilities that constitutes the world as we experience it.

Tradition and convention have us conditioned to approach research of all facts or situations that is observed from the perspective of a single discipline, for example psychologists might study the psychology of opportunity recognition, and sociologists might study the sociology of new venture creation.

Whilst disciplinary approaches have indeed produced some admirable research, it is nevertheless limited and restrictive as it provides only a one-sided view, often accepted as the complete picture. I believe that a one-sided view through which entrepreneurship in its entirety is observed is problematic, because unlike academic disciplines entrepreneurship cannot be broken down into neat, separate categories. I am therefore convinced that the absolute separations and simple linear approach intrinsic in current research time and again fails to take into account the complex and dynamic nature of entrepreneurship and often represents an inappropriate oversimplification of the phenomenon and its extent. The way in which entrepreneurship researchers and practitioners live and think in a pluralistic society, with complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity are, in my view, possibly at the core of the fragmented state of affairs in our understanding of entrepreneurship.

I regard scholarship in the field of entrepreneurship is absolutely meaningful from a practical and theoretical perspective because it adds value to the aspirations of enterprising individuals, organizations, societies and nations. My sense, however, is if we continue to negate what I call “Entrepreneurship Ecological Complexity” and continue down the path of the conventional research paradigm and absolute separations between various areas of research, the fragmented status quo will remain.

I believe robust dialogue should be encouraged regarding the multiplicity of entrepreneurship’s nature, scope, extent and research methods to advance towards a more ecological complexity oriented paradigm. We need to move beyond reductive and disjunctive disciplinary thinking to thinking that contextualises entrepreneurship in terms of its larger environment and relationships, pulling information from separate disciplines together to create a more convergent framework for understanding entrepreneurship holistically.

Socrates said, “How can a man understand the name of anything, when he does not know the nature of it.” Not negating the wonderful work that has been done in entrepreneurship research over the decades I do, however, believe the time has come for engaging with the phenomenon from a transdisciplinary perspective, not only to aspire to achieve a more convergent paradigm of entrepreneurship research, but more so to address the grand challenges facing mankind though entrepreneurship.

Failing to live up to the terms of the agreement for me would imply that my fundamental rights are no longer protected, i.e. my rights to life, liberty, health, and property; that my fundamental rights are threatened or removed by the very “servant”; that the government attempt to take away, and destroy my property, or to reduce me to slavery under arbitrary power. In terms of Locke’s conviction, this breach of trust will absolve me from any further obedience.

Thus if the government breaks the fundamental rule of society and “either by ambition, fear, folly or corruption, endeavour to grasp [for] themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people (Chaffee, 2013, p. 579), it will forfeit the power its citizens had put into its hands, and transfer back to the citizens “who have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society…” (Chaffee, 2013, p. 580).

The question, however, beckons, what would mark the definitive point where citizens could resume their original liberty and establish a new legislative? Surely the breaking of the fundamental rule of society does not happen overnight? But when could the populous rightfully dismiss the state? Is it when citizens’ tolerance for the distorted ambition, corruption and self-righteousness of the state has reached a point of intolerability? But how would we know we have reached that point? And would all citizens reach that point as a collective? I believe not…  What if those whose patience has run out are in the minority? Has Locke considered the complexity of societies consisting of diverse ideologies, diverse levels of inequality, diverse levels of education and the like? Then there are also the dark elements that flourish in times of instability, that would do everything to retain the status quo in which they can give expression to their dark motives.

Perhaps the definitive point lies with an individual rather that the collective, i.e. someone who stands up and declares that the State has failed to live up to the terms of the agreement, thus forfeiting the power its citizens had put into its hands and must now be transferred back to the citizens to establish a new legislative. It was Edmund Burke, orator, philosopher and politician who said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Reference: Chaffee, J. (2013). The Philosopher’s Way: Thinking Critically About Profound Ideas (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ : Pearson.

Remember, VC’s have to listen to pitches every day of their lives on supposed “first to market” concepts that will displace competitors and make the founders insanely rich. Investing in an idea is serious business and VC’s carefully and meticulously evaluate the ideas thrown at them trough the filters of various criteria they are very well versed in. Therefore one needs to be well prepared and know what they will be looking for.

Another important consideration is that VC’s specialise in different sectors. Do your homework before the time to prevent you wasting your and the VC’s time. If your idea is in renewable energy, don’t approach VC firms that specialise in biotech. Look for VC’s that have an appetite for renewable energy ventures.

Now onto the pitch… With a pitch the intent is not to present your entire business plan, but rather to entice the VC’s with the highlights, much like a teaser of a movie is used to entices people to go watch the full film. The objective is thus to get them desirous for further, more in-depth engagement with you, your idea and your business plan. At most you’ll be awarded 60 minutes airtime to convince them, but I suggest you rather prepare to get your message across in 20 to 30 minutes. You therefore cannot put together a sixty slide presentation; limit yourself to ten to fifteen slides. The challenge however is to get the pertinent information into that limited number of slides.

For that purpose you could consider using the 12-slide pack below covering the main criteria VC’s look for in an investment opportunity. It also forces you to get to the point, succinctly, focused, impactful, with the requisite depth and scope. Obviously it is not the be all and end all of VC pitch slide packs, as there are a myriad of similar examples available. Nevertheless, from my own experience and drawing on the experience of various other thought leaders on the matter, I believe the 12-slide pack contains all that is necessary to get your point across successfully. The twelve slides to prepare are as follows:

1. Opening Slide: Venture name; your name and contact information. Include a one sentence blurb that describes your idea / concept.
2. Problem: Explicitly define the problem and describe the pain that you’re alleviating. The objective is to draw the audience into the problem on a rational and emotional level.
3. Solution: Explain how will solve the problem and how you will alleviate this particular pain. Demonstrate by means of an example, demo or prototype. Ensure that the audience clearly understands what you sell and what your value proposition is.
4. Business Model: Explain how you make money, and emphasise revenue drivers, channels of distribution and your gross margins. Describe how you envisage scaling the business.
5. Underlying “Game Changer”: Describe the technology, algorithm, or game changer behind your product or service. Clearly explain your unique IP.
6. Marketing & Sales: Explain the market size and potential. Cleary define your target market and explain how you are going to reach your customer. Indicate any current customers, plus your marketing leverage points.
7. Competition: Provide a complete view of the competitive landscape reflecting key competitors, what differentiates you, and barriers to entry for others.
8. Management Team: Describe the key players of your management team, advisors, as well as your major investors.
9. Financial Projections & Key Metrics: Provide a five-year forecast containing not only currency but also key metrics, such as number of customers and conversion rate.
10. Funding Requirements & Valuation: Explicitly state the funding required and any funding raised in the past. Describe the proposed valuation and the equity stake on offer. Explain the rationale for the valuation and how it was calculated. Share exit considerations.
11. Current Status: Explain the current status of your product or service, what you have accomplished to date, what the near future looks like, important milestones and how you’ll use the money you’re trying to raise.
12. Conclusions: Summarise highlights and open floor for questions.

Using these guidelines will greatly enhance your chances, but important to note, however, is that there are no guarantees… Many variables are at play in a very complex world. If, for one reason or the other, you are turned down (and you probably will), don’t give up… the colour of money is the same everywhere… keep on knocking on VC doors. If you have a solid, high potential idea that creates or adds significant value to customers or end users, solves a significant problem, or meet a significant want or need for which consumers will pay a premium, has robust market, margin, and money-making characteristics, fits well with you and management team, and is scalable, some VC’s door is bound to open for you.