Final Action Report

Drawing from all prior assignments, your Miro board and any other documentation, you need to conduct a comprehensive “action report” detailing your efforts and the lessons learned during the mentor sessions and the validation of your idea based on customer interactions.

Make sure you cover in a detailed and focused way how your idea evolved based on: a) mentor feedback b) customer feedback, c) feedback from other experts and relevant stakeholders. 

Please provide specific evidence of feedback collected (e.g. quotes, recordings, etc.), and be concrete about the order and stages of the evolution of the idea. 

If you have anything tangible to showcase, such as a prototype, paying customers or any other achievements that indicate the idea is getting closer to a launch, please also describe and justify these in the Team action Report. 

Finally, make sure you also explain what are the next specific steps that need to be taken to bring the idea to a successful launch. 

The action report is primarily about what concrete actions you took during the mentoring and idea development during the course. However, you are expected to also critically reflect on the actions taken and intersperse the report with any lessons learned at different steps during the process.

Please familiarise yourselves with the assessment criteria and rubric before embarking on the assignment: 

Component

Sophisticated (grade = 5)

Competent (grade = 3, 4)

Not Yet Complete (grade = 1, 2)

Evolution of idea (30%)

The team has exhibited with clarity how the idea progressed and developed over time. They have been specific about how interactions with mentors and more importantly potential customers have brought about thoughtful re-assessments of their idea. They have also explained convincingly and in detail what improvements of the idea they have undertaken and why they are expected to improve value for the customer.   

 

The team has presented with some detail the evolution of their idea over time. They have used some examples of mentor/customer feedback and the re-assessments that these triggered, but these are limited. They have explained to some extent what improvements of the idea they have undertaken and why they are expected to improve value for the customer.   

The description of the idea evolution process is limited, too broad or missing. The team has focused on the finished product without providing any insights into the iterative process that went into the idea creation, nor the factors or individuals that influenced this. There is little or no evidence of improvements undertaken based on feedback.

Supporting evidence (30%)

The deliverable is convincing of the teams’ claims. The narrative is internally consistent, and consistent with earlier team submissions. The team has provided additional materials (e.g. photos/quote transcripts of reactions of potential customers, demos or trials of venture idea, other audiovisual material) that strongly substantiate their claims.   

The presentation / report is somewhat convincing of the teams’ claims. The narrative has some degree of internal consistency, and consistency with earlier team submissions. The team has provided additional materials (e.g. photos/quote transcripts of reactions of potential customers, demos or trials of venture idea, other audiovisual material) that somewhat substantiate their claims.

The presentation / report is not very convincing of the teams’ claims. The narrative lacks internal consistency, as well as consistency with the earlier team submissions. The team has provided inauthentic, too few or no additional materials (e.g. photos/quote transcripts of reactions of potential customers, demos or trials of venture idea, other audiovisual material) to substantiate their claims.

Lessons learned (30%)

The deliverable suggests that the team has reflected deeply on the team experiences. They show great insight and reflexivity into their strengths and limitations as a team, and have identified areas where they could improve both the process and outcomes of venture ideation in the future.  

The deliverable suggests the team have reflected somewhat on the experiences gained. They show some insight and reflexivity into their strengths and limitations as a team, as well as in the identification of areas of improvement in both the process, as well as outcomes of venture ideation in the future.

The deliverable has too few or no reflections – or underdeveloped reflections – into any experiences the team has gained. The report lacks insight and reflexivity into their strengths and limitations of the team, and does not identify areas of improvement. 

 

 

Composition (10%)

The deliverable is focused, well structured, engaging and easy to follow. It has no spelling or grammar mistakes. It transmits great enthusiasm for the team’s work.

The deliverable is somewhat focused, structured, engaging and easy to follow. It is largely free of spelling or grammar mistakes. It transmits some enthusiasm for the team’s work.

The deliverable lacks focus, structure, and is not engaging or easy to follow. It has a large number of spelling and grammar mistakes. It transmits little enthusiasm for the team’s work.