Prepared by:
Ohio Third Frontier
Entrepreneurial Services
Provider Program
(CY 2017-2018)
Evaluator’s Final Report
March 29, 2017
Entrepreneurial Services Provider (ESP) Program Evaluator’s Final Report
2
Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 3
2 Entrepreneurial Services Provider Program Description ............................................................. 4
2.1 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Components of an ESP Network .................................................................................................................... 4
2.3 OTF Commission Guidance .............................................................................................................................. 5
3 Evaluation Results ........................................................................................................................................ 6
3.1 ProMedica Innovations (PMI) ......................................................................................................................... 7
3.1.1 Organization, Governance, and Administration............................................................................. 8 3.1.2 Institutional Technology Commercialization (ITC) ...................................................................... 9
3.1.3 Venture Development Services (VDS) ............................................................................................. 10
3.1.4 Enterprise Development Services (EDS) ........................................................................................ 11
3.1.5 Cross-Cutting Activities .......................................................................................................................... 12
3.1.6 Metrics Projections .................................................................................................................................. 12
3.1.7 Budget ........................................................................................................................................................... 12
3.2 The Entrepreneurs Center (TEC)................................................................................................................. 14
3.2.1 Organization, Governance, and Administration........................................................................... 15
3.2.2 Institutional Technology Commercialization (ITC) .................................................................... 16
3.2.3 Venture Development Services (VDS) ............................................................................................. 16
3.2.4 Enterprise Development Services (EDS) ........................................................................................ 17
3.2.5 Cross-Cutting Activities .......................................................................................................................... 18
3.2.6 Metrics Projections .................................................................................................................................. 19
3.2.7 Budget ........................................................................................................................................................... 19
3.3 Quality Today, LLC ............................................................................................................................................. 21
Appendix 1: Evaluation Process and Criteria ........................................................................................... 22
Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................................................................................................... 22
Appendix 2: About Urban Venture Group (UVG) ..................................................................................... 24
UVG Company Background ........................................................................................................................................... 24
Nature of UVG Business Activities ............................................................................................................................. 24
Entrepreneurial Services Provider (ESP) Program Evaluator’s Final Report
3
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Over the past decade, the Ohio Third Frontier (OTF) has built a national reputation of innovation
and entrepreneurship for the State of Ohio. A core program of the OTF has been the
Entrepreneurial Signature Program (ESP), now known as the Entrepreneurial Services Provider
Program. The ESP program has delivered substantial economic impacts throughout the state by
supporting regional networks of entrepreneurial resources and services. In 2016, the State issued a
request for proposals (RFP). The new embodiment of the ESP program retains the goals and vision
of its predecessors, while implementing a new framework for describing and implementing ESP
services.
The ESP Program RFP requires applicants to present their proposals in a different format than past
RFPs. Specifically, the RFP requires applicants to articulate three distinct types of client services:
• Institutional Technology Commercialization (ITC), which focuses on identifying
commercially relevant intellectual property and other assets;
• Venture Development Services (VDS), which support client company formation, initial
talent and capital attraction, and validating a core business case; and
• Enterprise Development Services (EDS), which support companies as they grow and
transition toward revenue sustainability and/or professional investment.
In addition, the applicants were given the opportunity to propose “Cross Cutting” activities such as
branding, inclusion, and attracting talent and capital. The RFP also includes specific criteria for
governance, oversight, metrics projections, and budget.
The evaluators reviewed applicant proposals using a rubric based on the merit criteria defined in
the RFP. The team members bring expertise spanning entrepreneurship, innovation, technology
transfer, and a variety of technical fields.
Three submissions were received:
• ProMedica Innovations (PMI) from Northwest Ohio is recommended for funding. PMI
brings substantial health science and medical technology development experience and
resources. PMI has partnered with the University of Toledo, who will lead non-medical
technology and innovation efforts. PMI has also attracted new partners to the network,
including Mercy Health and Bowling Green State University.
• The Entrepreneurs Center (TEC) from West Central Ohio is recommended for
funding. TEC emphasizes Institutional Technology Commercialization and Venture
Development Services, leveraging the region’s strong academic and Federal research base.
TEC has partnered with Wright State University, Nucleus Co-Share, and multiple other
collaborators.
• Funding is not recommended for Quality Today, LLC. Quality Today proposed curricula
and other resources to attract underserved, especially rural, individuals into Quality
Assurance (QA) careers. The scope and focus of the Quality Today submission does not align
well with ESP Program requirements. The evaluators do suggest the applicant continue
dialogue with the State to identify other possible avenues for collaboration or support.
Entrepreneurial Services Provider (ESP) Program Evaluator’s Final Report
4
2 ENTREPRENEURIAL SERVICES PROVIDER PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
2.1 Purpose
The Ohio Third Frontier (OTF) is a $2.1 billion economic development initiative to support
technology, entrepreneurship, and job growth in the state of Ohio. The objectives of OTF are to
enable strategic approaches to support the development and growth of entrepreneurial
communities, and in turn generate and accelerate significant economic impacts in Ohio. These
impacts are created in the form of new Ohio jobs, investment capital attracted to the state, and
product sales.
The centerpiece of the OTF is the Entrepreneurial Services Provider (ESP) Program, which supports
regional entrepreneurial service networks within Ohio. The ESP networks provide entrepreneurs
with access to technology, business assistance, capital, and talent that can turn high-potential
technology into thriving Ohio companies.
The ESP mission is to advance high-potential, technology based companies. The ESP Program and
its applicants identify and address the key needs of entrepreneurs in the region. ESP funding
enables the continued success of effective services and organizations; the growth and development
of existing activities and programs to multiply their positive impacts on Ohio; and the
implementation of new services and programs to fill existing gaps in the entrepreneurial
ecosystem.
2.2 Components of an ESP Network
An ESP network consists of a Lead Applicant
partnered with a variety of stakeholder
organizations. The partners collectively provide
services, expertise, capital, and other resources
to client companies and other regional
innovation stakeholders. The overall integration
of components of an ESP are depicted in Figure 1.
The Lead Applicant is responsible for managing
the ESP network and establishing Governance and Oversight structure for the regional ESP. The
Lead Applicant tracks and reports economic
impact metrics and manages budget and financial
reporting to the State. The Lead Applicant also
leads the region’s strategy, including defining
“Cross Cutting” activities (such as branding,
marketing, outreach, and client tracking).
ESP services delivered to clients are gated by stage of innovation: Institutional Technology
Commercialization (ITC), Venture Development Services (VDS), and Enterprise Development
Services (EDS):
• Institutional Technology Commercialization (ITC). The purpose of the Institutional
Technology Commercialization (ITC) Service Component is to create value from early stage
Figure 1: Components of an ESP
Cross-Cutting Services (CC)
Institutional Technology Commercial-ization (ITC)
Venture Development
Services (VDS)
Enterprise Development
Services (EDS)
Metrics Projections
Budget Reasonableness
Governance, Oversight, and Management
Increasing Company Maturity
Entrepreneurial Services Provider (ESP) Program Evaluator’s Final Report
5
intellectual property. Goals and activities of this component include engaging with regional
research institutions, health care systems, and other sources of technology to promote deal
flow, identifying and validating technology, streamlining with licensing, and providing initial
validation funding.
• Venture Development Services (VDS). Venture Development Services (VDS) engage
enterprises at the earliest stages of company formation. Focused on building “first customer”
relationships, VDS services may include incubation space, accelerator programs, prototyping
services, mentoring, Entrepreneurs-in-Residence (EIRs), early stage seed capital, and
professional services such as legal assistance for company incorporation.
• Enterprise Development Services (EDS). Enterprise Development Services (EDS) include
high-quality services for high-potential, high-growth clients. The services provided at this stage
of development are focused on enabling firms to achieve rapid growth and sustainability. The
primary goals of EDS are capital access, in-depth customer access, specialized mentoring, access
to talent to fill roles in growing companies, and delivery of high-value professional services,
including legal, regulatory, quality assurance, or marketing assistance.
2.3 OTF Commission Guidance
The OTF commission directed the creation of the newest ESP Program RFP with explicit guidance
that merit criteria and the review process used should reflect the early stage of development of the
ESP networks in Northwest and West Central Ohio. For instance, applicants are not required to
propose services in all component areas, and all service components need not be fully addressed for
a positive funding recommendation to be made.
The evaluators have fully incorporated this guidance into the review process and
recommendations. In some cases, shortcomings have been identified by the evaluators. Articulation
of potential risks or issues does not mean the applicant cannot overcome these obstacles as they
implement a new ESP. The goal, therefore, is to ensure applicants and DSA are each aware of
potential hurdles as plans are implemented.
Entrepreneurial Services Provider (ESP) Program Evaluator’s Final Report
6
3 EVALUATION RESULTS
Funding is recommended for ProMedica Innovations (Northwest Ohio) in the amount of
$4,375,000. This amount is augmented with cash cost share in the amount of $4,263,000 and
donated services of $112,000, for a total project budget of $8,750,000. Funding is recommended for
The Entrepreneur’s Center (West Central Ohio) in the amount of $2,900,000. This amount is
augmented with cash cost share in the amount of $2,689,000 and donated services of $511,000, for
a total project budget of $6,100,000. Funding is not recommended for Quality Now, LLC
(Southwest Ohio).
Table 1: ESP Program Evaluation Findings
Applicant
Funding
Recommendation State Funding Total Budget
ProMedica Innovations (NWO) Recommended $4,375,000 $8,750,000
TEC (WCO) Recommended $2,900,000 $6,100,000
Quality Now (SWO) Not Recommended - -
The merit review results for each applicant are summarized in the following sections.
Entrepreneurial Services Provider (ESP) Program Evaluator’s Final Report
7
3.1 ProMedica Innovations (PMI)
ProMedica Innovations (PMI) is the Lead Applicant for the Northwest Ohio region. PMI is creating
an internal division called NextTech, which will be charged with leading and advancing the region’s
ESP network. Major collaborators include The University of Toledo (UT), Mercy Health Partners,
and Bowling Green State University (BGSU). In addition, JumpStart, the Lead Applicant for the
Northeast Ohio ESP, is a key partner of the Northwest Ohio ESP. ProMedica Innovations and Mercy
Health will focus on health care and health IT opportunities, while UT is charged with leading non-
medical efforts.
PMI brings significant investment and technical capabilities related to commercialization of medical
technology. The University of Toledo also brings a long-standing, effective incubator. In addition,
PMI’s proposal has attracted investment from a new regional innovation player, Mercy Health, and
a regional university that had not previously partnered with the ESP Program, BGSU. Attracting the
participation of new collaborators is viewed positively. These key strengths serve as the foundation
of the NWO ESP, and the basis for substantive proposed economic impact metrics.
In the previous review cycle, evaluators
expressed concerns about the
independence of NextTech from PMI. In
this proposal, PMI has proposed a more
independent governance structure,
including an independent Governing
Board for NextTech. PMI has committed to
adopting policies and procedures to
identify and resolve potential conflicts of
interest. These are each significant
improvements over the prior proposal.
PMI has met the requirements
established in the new RFP. For this
reason, funding is recommended.
Reductions are recommended in specific
funding elements, including personnel and
purchased services. Concerns remain
about management experience and structure, and budget reasonableness, as detailed below. The
evaluators recommend that PMI and its partners thoughtfully and thoroughly address each
concern, and that DSA work with the team to verify effectiveness and compliance.
The merit evaluation results are presented in Table 3.
Table 2: ProMedica Innovations Funding
Recommendation Summary
Recommended Total Budget $8,750,000 Requested Total Budget $10,074,837
Difference ($1,324,837)
State Funds $4,375,000
Requested State Funds $5,035,510
Difference ($660,510)
Total Cost Share $4,375,000
Cash Cost Share $4,263,000
Donated Services $112,000
2017 Total Budget $3,750,000
2017 State Funds $1,875,000
2018 Total Budget $5,000,000
2018 State Funds $2,500,000
Entrepreneurial Services Provider (ESP) Program Evaluator’s Final Report
8
Table 3: ESP Program Evaluation Findings O
rga
niz
ati
on
, G
ov
ern
an
ce,
Ad
min
istr
ati
on
Inst
itu
tio
na
l T
ech
no
log
y
Co
mm
erc
iali
zati
on
Ve
ntu
re
De
ve
lop
me
nt
Se
rvic
es
En
terp
rise
D
ev
elo
pm
en
t S
erv
ice
s
Cro
ss C
utt
ing
Me
tric
s P
roje
ctio
ns
Bu
dg
et
Exceeds Requirements Meets Requirements Does Not Meet Requirements
3.1.1 Organization, Governance, and Administration
The overall organizational and governance structure and intent of the proposed ESP meet the
requirements of the RFP. Several concerns were identified that should be addressed in order to
ensure smooth establishment and effective operation of the ESP, as detailed below.
ProMedica Innovations will form an internal unit called “NextTech” that will manage the ESP.
PMI articulated a concrete goal and timeline for establishing NextTech as an independently
operating entity. NextTech will have a five-seat Governing Board, consisting of one representative
from each of the four collaborators and a fifth, independent representative. The Governing Board
will oversee the ESP director, staff, and a set of Working Group(s), which will be created to establish
processes and manage the day-to-day activities of the ESP. This oversight alleviates many of the
Conflict of Interest concerns expressed during the previous review. ProMedica Innovations will
provide administrative and ‘back office’ support. This structure provides a path to establishing the
independence of NextTech, and PMI confirmed during Q&A their interest in making NextTech fully
independent as expediently as possible.
The core staffing plan for the ESP has weaknesses that reflect its early stage of development. The
newly named ESP Director has valuable experience in managing relationships among large
organizations, which will be necessary to support the emerging ESP network. However, he has
limited direct innovation and entrepreneurship experience. The staffing plan also includes a large
fraction of newly hired staff, who will need to be on-boarded.
The applicant demonstrates good knowledge of gaps and assets within the region, and the
proposal is generally responsive to both the regional network and the intent of the ESP Program
and Service Components. The ESP is focused on ‘ecosystem building’, engagement, and enhancing
newly formed connections within the community. Each collaborator is tasked with creating a
common suite of client services. JumpStart, the Northeast Ohio ESP lead, has been contracted to
provide support in establishing ESP operations. The applicant acknowledges that access to capital
and talent are barriers for NWO, which lags behind other regions in the state.
A key strategic risk was identified with respect to how the partners will work together. There is a
clear division between PMI and Mercy around specific health technology types they intend to
support. UT and BGSU will be relied upon to engage clients outside of healthcare markets. Dividing
partners’ roles by market sector, and staffing each with independent, parallel resources, creates the
Entrepreneurial Services Provider (ESP) Program Evaluator’s Final Report
9
potential for the partners to become siloed. The evaluators have significant concerns about the
ability and commitment of the collaborators to work in a truly integrated fashion. The applicant has
established a governance board and working groups that, if implemented well, will enhance service
cohesion.
NextTech’s new governance structure alleviates some of the evaluators’ previous concerns about
conflicts of interest (COI). However, several critical concerns remain in the staffing plan. PMI
requested funding for multiple PMI managers who are tasked with guiding ESP staff and service
operations. This structure establishes avenues for PMI management influence on NextTech staff,
which does not align well with PMI’s stated intent to minimize its operational influence on
NextTech. This structure creates the opportunity and increases the likelihood of COI, such as PMI
priorities taking precedence over ESP priorities. The evaluators believe PMI’s interests are
adequately served through its seat on the Board of Directors, and seek to minimize PMI’s role in
day-to-day operations.
Furthermore, PMI’s plan requires NextTech to rely extensively on PMI staff whose duties will be
split between ESP and non-ESP functions. NextTech is not a separate entity, and these personnel
are employees of PMI. Heavy reliance on staff with split duties exacerbates the potential for COI.
This problem is not limited to PMI; Mercy Health and BGSU both rely on key personnel whose
duties are split among ESP and non-ESP functions.
Through both its managerial and operational structure, the proposed organizational structure
increases the potential for conflicts of interest, where PMI priorities could take precedence over ESP priorities. One of the strongest recommendations of the evaluators is for PMI to restructure its
leadership and staffing to favor dedicated staff and create clear lines between PMI and
NextTech staff and duties.
In order not to reduce the service capacity of the organization, the evaluators have focused on PMI
leadership involved in the plan. PMI’s Chief Innovation Officer (CIO) serves as a liaison between
NextTech and PMI. This role is well articulated and limited (28%). The role for PMI’s Associate Vice
President (AVP) is less clear, and also more substantial (75%). Therefore, the evaluators
recommend that the AVP function, along with corresponding administrative support, is not funded
under the ESP program. Specifics of this recommendation are detailed in Section 3.1.7.
PMI can further manage conflicts of interest by developing formal COI policies and procedures
that cover not only the ESP overall, but specifically address personnel who have split duties.
Regular, independent audits of the relationship between NextTech and PMI need to be conducted to
ensure true separation with disclosed and managed COI, if and when they are identified.
The proposed staffing structure has shortcomings beyond COI. Maintaining a larger staff with split
responsibilities is a greater managerial challenge, and likely will be less efficient than, a smaller
dedicated team. The structure dilutes the focus of key personnel, reinforcing concerns about
operations becoming siloed. Increasing potential for COI, reducing regional cohesion, and reducing
operating efficiency, the proposed structure could delay the region’s achievement of projected
economic impact metrics.
3.1.2 Institutional Technology Commercialization (ITC)
PMI’s ITC approach is focused on quick idea vetting and deciding early whether to provide support
to commercialize a Client’s idea. The written Q&A responses commit to a cohesive, collaborative
Entrepreneurial Services Provider (ESP) Program Evaluator’s Final Report
10
approach, with monthly meetings about deal flow and establishing best practices. The Working
Group is charged with ensuring consistency and synergy across partners. Over 40% of the ESP
budget is dedicated to ITC. This is reflective of the early-stage focus of UT, BGSU, and Mercy.
While collaboration was well-described at the leadership level, the staffing plan and budget
structure may undermine PMI’s collaborative intent. Each collaborator has proposed to build
largely independent, parallel capabilities around technology transfer, EIRs, and other services.
Although collaboration is promised, the proposal lacked clear mechanisms for coordinating and
sharing best practices. Considering the relatively nascent ITC capabilities at some of the region’s
partners, one idea for NextTech to support and promote collaboration is to develop a common set
of template licensing agreements for all collaborators. This would promote cooperation and
alleviate the transactional burden for entities less experienced in technology transfer.
The evaluators inquired about roles of institutional partners, and potential for competition or
duplication of effort between Mercy and ProMedica Innovations. In the application, ProMedica
Innovations proposes to primarily focus on medical device and health IT, while Mercy will focus on
personalized medicine, virtual health, aging, data science, 3d printing, and neurosciences. UT and
BGSU will lead non-health efforts. Because BGSU and Mercy are only recently developing ITC
efforts, each may require time to become proficient. It is essential that the other partners help in
this effort. At the outset, existing opportunities at the research institutions can be easily mined
(‘low hanging fruit’), but as the project progresses, educational programming needs to be developed
to ensure that researchers are aligned with commercialization and that new researchers are brought into the process.
PMI proposes measuring success with standard metrics from the Association of University
Technology Managers (AUTM) around pipeline development, number of ideas, new companies
formed, and early-stage funding (e.g., SBIR, NIH, TVSF). However, some intermediate metrics, such
as number of patent applications filed, are not necessarily indicative of a robust, commercializable
pipeline. These early stage and intermediate indicator metrics should be tied with their eventual
outcome to inform the process in an iterative fashion. A common informatics platform can address
this need for data across the ESP.
3.1.3 Venture Development Services (VDS)
PMI proposes VDS services that include EIR support, early stage validation capital for professional
services and prototyping, and physical incubation space. Both PMI and UT house high-quality
incubators and offer services that provide continuity to ITC-stage technologies and early-stage
firms.
One major strength of the region is access to the clinical and health care operations expertise of PMI
and Mercy, and the ability of these partners to serve as ‘first customers’. The clear focus on health
care, devices, diagnostics, and health IT combined with the close ties to the ProMedica and Mercy
organizations present an opportunity for PMI to deliver superior VDS services, even compared with
existing ESPs. Client companies are expected to be sourced primarily from the partner institutions,
enhancing continuity and familiarity.
ProMedica Innovations plans a distributed model with partner-specific EIRs, which may be
administratively expedient, but was viewed as a minor weakness of the proposed approach. Best
practices identified by other ESPs suggest that EIR effort should be coordinated with a single
partner in a ‘hub and spoke’ model. Particularly within the less experienced partners, the approach
Entrepreneurial Services Provider (ESP) Program Evaluator’s Final Report
11
may struggle to produce quality services and outcomes. Effective EIR hiring, supplemented with
close, regular contact and information sharing between EIRs, will be a key to success.
PMI’s planned educational programming includes expansion of two successful regional events,
UT’s Pitch & Pour workshop and PMI’s annual Health Care Summit, among other events. UT
LaunchPad will serve as a hub of activity for both programming and physical space, primarily for
non-healthcare opportunities. Like many other of the services planned, programming is largely
siloed within each collaborator. The evaluators suggest exploring co-hosted events to enhance
cross-pollination of stakeholders within the region.
PMI noted that capital access remains a gap in the region. PMI plans a pipeline of small awards to
validate and de-risk early-stage opportunities and prepare them for pre-seed investment. The
region is home to the OTF-supported Rocket Ventures Fund II, a $6 million pre-seed fund.
Recognizing that many health and biotech opportunities require funding larger than this fund can
provide, PMI intends to leverage the relationships of JumpStart and of individuals within the ESP to
access new or larger sources of capital. Relationships are not an adequate substitute for systematic
program or process to attract capital to the region. The evaluators note that JumpStart has not fully
documented its commitment to serve in this capacity.
3.1.4 Enterprise Development Services (EDS)
PMI has identified key gaps in the region related to EDS, including capital access, attraction of C-
level talent, and a mentor network. They also offered a potential pipeline of EDS-ready client
companies. To address these gaps, PMI and Mercy can offer deep insight into health care delivery
and operations, a core strength of the region’s EDS capabilities. PMI also plans to leverage capable
professional service firms in support of EDS-ready clients.
The proposed EDS lack a clear systematic or programmatic structure. Rather than defining
specific procedures for accessing and deploying expertise, the applicant relies heavily on personal
relationships of EIRs and other staff. With the ESP lacking a clear strategy for EDS, JumpStart
support will be especially critical as these services are implemented. As with VDS, JumpStart has
not committed to serving in this capacity. There is a potential risk that PMI may require support
from JumpStart but is unable to secure that support in either a timely or an affordable fashion. Such
a circumstance could delay progress of client companies or negatively impact the ESP budget. This
concern could be resolved with a more concrete plan for JumpStart involvement and a
corresponding letter of commitment from JumpStart.
Beyond JumpStart, purchased services have been proposed to augment internal expertise with
contracted organizations like NAMSA, an Ohio-based regulatory firm. Because of the underlying
organizational expertise and pipeline presented, the evaluators judged the intent of these services
to meet the requirements of the RFP.
The ESP proposes to launch a mentor program in Q2 to link clients to customers, and expects that
it will have 12-15 mentors in place in 2017. The mentor program will be based on the proven MIT
Venture Mentor Network model. The development of a more formal mentor network may create a
positive effect on talent recruitment, as some mentors will want to become more involved in the
Clients/opportunities they are mentoring.
The region’s EDS-ready pipeline is modest in 2017, but projects a significant increase in client
firms projected in 2018. It will be critical to develop high-quality services and resources to be ready
Entrepreneurial Services Provider (ESP) Program Evaluator’s Final Report
12
for the expected increase in demand in 2018. Considering the small number of current EDS-ready
firms, a smaller budget than requested for purchased services in 2017 is recommended. This
recommendation is detailed in section 3.1.7.
3.1.5 Cross-Cutting Activities
The applicants acknowledge that marketing and branding the new NextTech ESP will be a major
driver of its success. Branding is a key activity, including relaunching the website, adding content
and utilizing digital marketing, and producing events. PMI has engaged JumpStart to support ESP
operations, client tracking, and other roles.
While PMI repeatedly refers to “inclusive outreach” and “inclusion programs,” its proposal lacks a
clear goal or strategy for inclusion, and contains few concrete examples of activities. One modest
strength of the proposal is that each partner has named positions and inclusion roles defined.
Enabling many heads to think about and address inclusion while the ESP is being established offers
the potential for a strategy to emerge. For outreach, the region’s plan leverages connectivity with
women- and minority-centered community organizations like the Toledo African-American
Chamber of Commerce, the Women’s Entrepreneurial Network (WEN), Northwest Ohio Hispanic
Chamber of Commerce, and the Minority Business Assistance Center (MBAC).
3.1.6 Metrics Projections
The proposed metrics are modest, and are reflective of an ESP at the early stages of formation, and
do show a substantial increase from 2017 to 2018. Moreover, the applicant notes “…it is expected
that 2019 and beyond will have much more significant metrics delivery of some of the most sought-
after metrics for the ESP, including revenues generated, capital raised or attracted to Ohio,
investment from out of the state, and jobs created.” The most substantial metric planned is capital
attraction, which is consistent with PMI’s medical focus. The large portion of the budget reserved
for contracted services also aligns with the conventional trajectory of medical device startups.
Overall, the metrics trajectory proposed is consistent with the OTF Commissions guidance to
support efforts intended to build future capacity to deliver entrepreneurial services.
3.1.7 Budget
The evaluators funding recommendation includes the following changes to the proposed budget:
The PMI AVP, and an Executive Assistant supporting this role, do not have a clearly articulated ESP-
focused role other than general oversight. Staffing for the ESP is already substantial, and additional
PMI-centric oversight is directionally opposed to the independent operational vision for the ESP.
The evaluators urge the applicant to reduce NextTech staff’s dependence on PMI as quickly as is practical. For this reason, funding is not recommended for the AVP, Executive Assistant, and
associated indirect costs. The impact of this recommendation is anticipated to be a reduction of
approximately $500,000 over two years.
PMI’s purchased services budget does not align well with the pipeline presented. The projected
pipeline of client companies nearly triples from 2017 to 2018, yet the purchased services budget
remains nearly flat. The evaluators recommend the purchased services budget in 2017 reflect a
similar per-company average investment as in 2018. The evaluators recommend that JumpStart’s
budget be funded in full. Because PMI has not provided a clear process for approval, use, or amount
of funds, the evaluators advise DSA to monitor the allocation of these funds to ensure
Entrepreneurial Services Provider (ESP) Program Evaluator’s Final Report
13
reasonableness. The impact of this recommendation is to reduce purchased services and associated
indirect costs in the amount of ~$800,000.
Although no change in funding is recommended for other direct costs (ODCs), the evaluators do
recommend DSA verify the allowability of certain cost items proposed, including equipment
purchases for personnel who have shared PMI and ESP responsibilities.
The total program budget impact of the above recommendations is a reduction of ~$1,300,000,
with the associated recommended state funding reduced by ~$650,000.
Entrepreneurial Services Provider (ESP) Program Evaluator’s Final Report
14
3.2 The Entrepreneurs Center (TEC)
The Entrepreneurs Center (TEC) is the Lead Applicant for the West Central Ohio (WCO) ESP. Major
collaborators include Wright State University (WSU), Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce (DACC),
and Nucleus CoShare. TEC has proposed to expand and integrate Institutional Technology
Commercialization (ITC) among its academic partners, and to develop a suite of client services to
support spinout and organically sourced firms. The institutional partners in the ESP have noted
strengths in advanced materials; advanced manufacturing; aerospace; and information technology,
although stated focus areas in health care and health IT lack a similarly strong set of collaborators.
TEC emphasizes a reboot of the region’s ESP, with significant effort invested in building core
services and rebuilding the regional ESP brand. TEC’s proposal leverages the strengths of regional
assets, emphasizing early-stage technologies from AFRL and other local research organizations.
Client services proposed by TEC are directionally appropriate, although they are still early in
development. Many of the proposed services are still conceptual and lack experienced personnel.
The region lacks a pipeline of companies ready for EDS in the funding time frame. TEC noted,
“within the West Central region, very few companies fall within the definition of EDS.”
TEC has met the requirements established in the new RFP. For this reason, funding is
recommended. The large number of new hires represents a risk, especially to early stage
administration and quality service delivery for more mature, high-growth firms. With noted lack of
Clients ready for EDS, funding for EDS is not recommended.
The proposed inclusion efforts are siloed
within DACC and focus primarily on
attraction; even if TEC’s inclusion goals
are met, there will be little impact on
inclusion in the region. Funding is
recommended for a new staff member at
DACC that focuses on ESP-specific
inclusion, but not for existing DACC staff
whose roles are not ESP-specific. TEC is
strongly encouraged to rethink its
inclusion efforts, and how inclusion
services can be more effectively
integrated into the ESP network to span
beyond company attraction.
The economic impact metrics committed
by TEC are extremely modest. Even
acknowledging that the ESP is in an early stage of establishment and the uncertainty associated
with becoming fully staffed, the metrics committed signal a much longer time span to achieve a
positive return on the State’s investment. The evaluators recommend that DSA work with TEC to
define appropriate metrics for the project period.
The merit evaluations results are presented in Table 5.
Table 4: TEC Funding Recommendation Summary
Recommended Total Budget $6,100,000 Requested Total Budget $7,461,854
Difference ($1,361,854)
State Funds $2,900,000
Requested State Funds $3,352,888
Difference ($452,888)
Total Cost Share $3,200,000
Cash Cost Share $2,689,000
Donated Services $511,000
2017 Total Budget $2,900,000
2017 State Funds $1,378,688
2018 Total Budget $3,200,000
2018 State Funds $1,521,312
Entrepreneurial Services Provider (ESP) Program Evaluator’s Final Report
15
Table 5: TEC Evaluation Findings O
rga
niz
ati
on
, G
ov
ern
an
ce,
Ad
min
istr
ati
on
Inst
itu
tio
na
l T
ech
no
log
y
Co
mm
erc
iali
zati
on
Ve
ntu
re
De
ve
lop
me
nt
Se
rvic
es
En
terp
rise
D
ev
elo
pm
en
t S
erv
ice
s
Cro
ss C
utt
ing
Me
tric
s P
roje
ctio
ns
Bu
dg
et
Exceeds Requirements Meets Requirements Does Not Meet Requirements
3.2.1 Organization, Governance, and Administration
Overall, TEC has presented a reasonable management and governance structure that integrates
existing Federally funded efforts with new ESP-funded efforts. TEC is an independent 501(c)3
organization with ESP operations existing as a ‘business unit’ within TEC. The Director of the ESP
will report to the President of TEC. The ESP team will leverage the administrative support of TEC.
TEC will take the primary role in managing partner deal flow, building necessary relationships,
delivering services, and other core ESP functions. The continuity provided by TEC is an important
strength of the proposal.
The TEC board will oversee overall TEC performance and operations and guide the 7-member
Executive Committee in both ESP and non-ESP functions. The evaluators recommend TEC establish
a dedicated board, or at least a subcommittee of the board, to oversee and guide its ESP operations.
An independent board would ensure that ESP and Ohio priorities are emphasized, and reduce
potential conflicts of interest related to competing priorities set by Federal and other TEC
stakeholders. If such a board cannot be formed prior to award, the evaluators suggest that TEC
form such a board during the project period.
TEC has not hired its planned ESP Director or any of the EIRs. This staffing uncertainty is a major
weakness and a risk, particularly given the short time frame of the program. The risk is mitigated to
an extent by the TEC President serving as interim ESP Director. The President has a long history of
leadership at TEC and within the region, and strong knowledge of the community. In the written
Q&A response, it is noted that TEC has formed a search committee and has identified candidates for
this committee, as well as two potential ESP Directors. They expect to complete the process within
30 days of award and to have a selection completed within 60 days of award.
Personnel from Ohio University, including some active with the SEO ESP, TECHGrowth, plan to be
engaged in the WCO region. OU has offered time from these personnel as cost share. Specific staff
have been assigned ESP-specific roles, but the majority of the cost share is dedicated to senior
personnel that have no clearly articulated responsibility to the ESP or individual component(s).
Because of the unclear nature and focus of these activities, they are not recommended for inclusion
in the TEC budget. However, because TEC has overmatched its 1:1 cost share requirement, this
recommendation does not impact the overall state funding request.
Entrepreneurial Services Provider (ESP) Program Evaluator’s Final Report
16
3.2.2 Institutional Technology Commercialization (ITC)
TEC clearly articulated the regional strength in research and development, and dedicated
focused effort on engaging partners such as AFRL, UDRI, WSU, and WBI. The challenge in the region
is converting quality research to commercial opportunities and high growth companies. TEC notes
that without the development of this ‘top of funnel’ approach, it would be difficult to develop
opportunities and an ecosystem in the region. TEC’s overall opportunity and goal is to better
leverage regional R&D assets, and to establish robust processes to both vet technologies and
transition these to high growth businesses.
TEC’s approach leverages federally funded ITC infrastructure and process with Air Force
Research Lab, a prominent regional research entity. TEC plans to extend this expertise into
academic and other collaborators. TEC uses a proprietary system (ArchiTech), and “Commercial Readiness Assessments” using a proprietary methodology licensed to TEC. The exact process for
scaling and transferring ITC capabilities to partners is unclear, especially given the wide disparity
in budgets between WSU, UDRI, and WBI.
Given the region’s focus on aerospace, manufacturing, and materials, it is unclear how the same
processes, evaluation criteria, market assessments, and people will function for health and
biotechnology opportunities. The applicant notes that, “…experienced staff is required to oversee
and provide services and to generate satisfactory program results…”, an aim that is undermined by
the need to hire a new ESP Director and EIRs, as well as to expand into health and biotechnology.
Relationships with key health institutions in the region, such as Ascend Innovations, are nascent.
TEC does participate in the Ohio Federal Research Network (OFRN), consisting of 11 Ohio research
Universities and 52 Ohio industry partners engaged across six Centers of Excellence (COEs). One
COE, Human Performance and Health Sciences (HPHS) Center of Excellence led by WSU and WSRI,
may help with the identification of new Client opportunities in the biomed/biohealth space. TEC
also is connected with the 711th Human Performance Wing located on Wright-Patterson Air Force
Base in Dayton. However, the need for domain expertise in the commercialization of these types of
technologies remains.
While plans for technology assessment received significant attention in the proposal, other
necessary aspects (such as streamlining licensing and talent attraction for initial company creation)
received less attention, despite being identified as risks by the applicant. For example, it remains
unclear how TEC will build on technology assessment activity, to attract talented entrepreneurs
to form companies around promising technologies. This transition to VDS should remain a focus as
TEC builds out its ITC infrastructure.
3.2.3 Venture Development Services (VDS)
TEC articulates a broad and compelling need in the region for high-value services for early-
stage businesses, noting, “…the region does not currently have robust general business support
capabilities or formal business acceleration services available to most companies within the eight-
county proposed ESP service area.” TEC has identified and provided a pipeline of 31 companies that
could benefit from formalized Venture Development Services (VDS).
TEC and its partners plan to offer a diverse array of services such as expanded incubation space,
general business support, EIR support, customer access (“First Customer”), and an Application
Discovery Program. Service delivery will occur primarily through to-be-hired EIRs. This is a key
risk to success, but perhaps unavoidable given the lack of a fully functioning ESP in the region.
Entrepreneurial Services Provider (ESP) Program Evaluator’s Final Report
17
The vision for TEC’s First Customer program is an appropriate component of VDS services,
although it may not be adequately resourced, particularly for health/biotech clients. TEC has built
relationships with leading regional businesses like General Electric, and has an MOU in place with
Ascend Innovations for access to health care innovation assistance. Reaching outside the region,
including engaging other regional ESPs, may help fill any holes identified in TEC’s customer
networks.
The VDS component includes support for SBIR companies and a highly flexible set of purchased
services. The WCO Ohio economy has an unusually large segment of SBIR companies. These firms
often struggle to grow and raise capital. TEC plans specialized support for SBIR companies.
Purchased services include substantial ($900,000) support for professional services, technical and
business validation, and customer connectivity.
The major long-term risks TEC faces in its VDS efforts are the fundamental challenges the ESP
seeks to address. Initially, uncertainty around staffing, including a new Director, EIRs, and analyst
roles is a primary concern. In the long term, the most significant risk is investment-quality deal
flow. While a current pipeline of VDS-ready companies exists, the long-term success of TEC’s VDS
approach depends on its ability to: (1) move new potential Clients through the early stage
commercialization process; and (2) to focus considerable effort on rebranding and attracting VDS-
ready firms from the community – the two primary goals of the overall ESP effort.
3.2.4 Enterprise Development Services (EDS)
The West Central Ohio region appears to lack a clear, current need for EDS. TEC notes, “Within
the West Central Region, very few startups fall within the parameters of the Enterprise
Development Services (EDS) service component: early-stage companies that are ready for Series A
investments ($2-$5M), with significant revenues, and proven organizational leadership.” The
evaluators requested additional information on any EDS-ready firms that TEC could identify. TEC
provided a list of firms that may require EDS during the project period, but did not adequately
substantiate the firms’ EDS-readiness. The evaluators judged that several firms listed by TEC were
not EDS-ready. If TEC can successfully deliver VDS services, some clients may become candidates
for later EDS, and the connectivity to SBIR companies may provide some additional eventual deal
flow. It is unlikely that an EDS pipeline will emerge during the project period to justify separate EDS
funding.
Without a current pipeline, EDS must be judged in terms of future benefits of having a ready
structure and staging of resources. However, much of TEC’s EDS client acquisition process is ad hoc,
depending on “interaction and outreach.” TEC notes that they expect to identify clients through “the
organic ecosystem via marketing in outreach,” or through location in the TEC facility, or
participation in the ESP Acceleration program or VDS.
Moreover, the EDS articulated by TEC appear likely to occur even if EDS funding is not provided.
EDS will be deployed through similar channels as VDS services, including EIRs, mentor networks,
and customer access, which already appear to be funded through the VDS component. TEC is
currently working on the formation of a new angel network in the region; however, this is also
likely to occur independent of EDS funding. Personnel and purchased services funded in the VDS
component are likely to be sufficient to support any EDS-ready firms that emerge. These activities
will also provide a platform for future EDS delivery.
Entrepreneurial Services Provider (ESP) Program Evaluator’s Final Report
18
Other elements appear misaligned with EDS-ready company needs. TEC notes that “[t]he West
Central Region faces a shortage of entrepreneurial talent […] to lead a high-potential company…”,
but the proposed mitigations focus almost exclusively on student talent at university partners. Such
programs may be more relevant in transitioning ITC technology into new ventures, or adding
staffing to existing firms, but not for sourcing key leadership to EDS-ready firms.
Other areas of effort, including plans to prime the region for later investment through angel
networks, developing relationships, and events, are equally relevant for VDS firms, and are likely to
occur without OTF support for EDS. Examples include, in addition to the above-mentioned angel
network, executing MOUs with regional sources of capital, cataloging opportunities in ArchiTech,
and developing a Capital Sources Advisory Group, all of which are cross-cutting and supported by
individuals funded in other components.
TEC’s EDS plans not only must succeed themselves, but also rely on the concurrent success of
Cross-Cutting and VDS efforts. The VDS component, and TEC’s ability to establish a stable pipeline,
are already risk elements that depend on their ability to re-brand and translate technology scouting
services into early-stage companies. When considering these risks combined with extremely
modest success metrics, the evaluators do not recommend funding for TEC’s EDS component.
3.2.5 Cross-Cutting Activities
Perhaps the most important activity planned by TEC is its marketing and branding initiative. TEC
seeks to connect and integrate regional stakeholders and convince potential Clients that the TEC-
led ESP offers a true value proposition. Awareness efforts and networking events will help. The
planned single-point-of-entry “Aggregation Platform” website that describes the value proposition
of the ESP and links to the appropriate partners will also be critical. The planned mentor network
should champion TEC in the community.
TEC seems to have a good grasp of the regional ecosystem. TEC has executed MOUs with several
area stakeholders who may provide domain expertise, source talent, and assist with marketing. TEC
has developed relationships with most regional sources of R&D activity. Donated service provider
commitment appears strong. A nascent, but improving relationship with Ascent Innovations may
improve capabilities for healthcare-relevant clients.
TEC plans a unified onboarding process, also a key need for any ESP. A general onboarding and
client management process is described. TEC describes this as a three-phase process, based first on
an intake form linking to a central SalesForce database. Second is an assessment and qualification
review where clients meeting ESP criteria are referred to TEC’s 18-hour commercialization
readiness program. Third is assignment to an EIR and utilization of common technology platforms
like ArchiTech to assess and link resources.
Inclusion is critical to a successful ESP. TEC has proposed inadequate inclusion efforts. Inclusion
programs are focused exclusively within the Minority Business Partnership organization within the
Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce (DACC). The only clear difference from their current offerings
is a new staff member focused on attracting ESP-relevant companies.
The shortcomings of the region’s inclusion strategy are unlikely to be addressed by funding
the activities planned.
• TEC and DACC mention outreach programs, but do not provide a differentiating premise or
ESP-specific expected outcome.
Entrepreneurial Services Provider (ESP) Program Evaluator’s Final Report
19
• Rural engagement is substantially overlooked.
• Strikingly absent is attraction of diverse innovators into the ecosystem. Considering the
region’s focus on Institutional Technology Commercialization, a lack of a diverse pool of
innovators will negatively impact downstream efforts such as VDS.
• No plans are presented to tailor Venture or Enterprise Development Services for inclusion.
Even if fully successful, TEC projects a very small (9) total number of companies under its inclusion
metrics in the project period. The amount of funding and the return on that investment, as defined
by the metrics, do not align.
The clearly new function, ESP-specific outreach, is recommended for funding. The other items
(including existing staff and DACC programs) requested to be state-funded are not recommended.
The evaluators recommend that TEC refocus its efforts on inclusion in future funding proposals,
such as by implementing better coordination between TEC resources and tailored services for
woman-owned, minority-owned, and rural businesses. Inclusion should be a prominent feature
throughout the network, not localized within a partner that has no other role in the ESP.
3.2.6 Metrics Projections
TEC’s proposed economic impact metrics represent a very low bar, and if taken as a true goal,
would represent a poor return on State investment. While some metrics are impressive, such as
238 jobs created, others severely lag, such as third-party investment in Ohio of under $4 million.
The diversity and inclusion metrics fall short of expectations.
The evaluators interpret these metrics not as targets, but rather as another indication of the early
stage of development of the ESP. TEC notes that mathematical functions were used to determine
many of the metrics (e.g. “…based on ESP data for 2009-2014 period from Development Projects,
Inc. and TechGrowth Ohio…”). No narrative or rationale describing clearly how the numbers are
related specific to the region and would follow the proposed services and plans. For this reason, the
evaluators encourage DSA to engage TEC and explore developing new metrics that more accurately
represent the realistic potential of the region for generating economic impacts.
3.2.7 Budget
TEC was unable to demonstrate a valid pipeline of firms ready for EDS, nor were they able to
articulate how EDS would programmatically differ from VDS. Mentor networks, EIRs, and other
activities have funding under VDS. TEC noted: “within the west central region, very few companies
fall within the definition of EDS services”. For this reason, EDS funding is not recommended. The
impact on the total TEC budget of this is $617,187.
In addition, changes to the inclusion program budget are recommended. DACC plans a team of
individuals who will focus on attracting ESP client firms, including three existing staff and one new
hire. Funding is recommended to support the new position dedicated to inclusive attraction of new ESP client firms. Future resources should be focused on integration of inclusion services across
partners and across the client life cycle, not siloed in an otherwise separately operating partner.
Tailoring of client services for woman-owned, minority-owned, and rural firms should be increased.
The evaluators recommend only the new ESP-focused hire be funded. The total budget impact of
this change is a ~$300,000 reduction to DACC.
Entrepreneurial Services Provider (ESP) Program Evaluator’s Final Report
20
Ohio University has committed as cost share several personnel and additional budget items.
However, OU’s senior leadership and management roles are not specific to the ESP. These positions
lack a clear, direct role in the ESP (if any). For this reason, these resources are not recommended to
be allowed as cost share. It is important to note that OU is not receiving state funds, and TEC’s
budget is over-matched. Therefore, this cut does not impact the state funds request. The total
budget impact is a ~$400,000 reduction, but there is no impact on the state funding amount.
The evaluators requested during Q&A a more detailed accounting of software costs, but the total
software expenditure remains unclear. A significant amount of resources is dedicated to software
development. DSA should include provisions in the grant agreement that will ensure that these
costs are necessary, reasonable, and appropriate for the program. In addition, the evaluators advise
DSA to confirm that Wright State University’s personnel budgets comply with cost sharing rules.
The total budget impact compared with TEC’s requested budget is a reduction of ~$1,350,000. The
corresponding State funding impact is much less than half that amount, totaling ~$450,000. This
includes ~$300,000 cut from TEC’s budget and ~$150,000 from DACC.
Entrepreneurial Services Provider (ESP) Program Evaluator’s Final Report
21
3.3 Quality Today, LLC
Quality Today, LLC proposed a program to recruit underserved individuals, particularly individuals
from rural areas, into Quality Assurance (QA) careers. The proposal seeks funding to implement
curricula and testing to identify and support qualified individuals. Quality Today’s goal is for these
individuals to be qualified for hire into Ohio-based companies in QA positions. The applicant makes
an impassioned argument for the dual benefits of helping underserved individuals and reducing the
cost, time, and burden of hiring on Ohio employers.
The evaluators found the goals and vision of Quality Today to be admirable. The benefits to
underserved individuals can be profound. Easier hiring of QA staff could be a benefit to many Ohio
firms. All regions’ ESP networks could benefit from improved inclusion. However, the services
described by Quality Today do not align with the programmatic intent of the ESP Program RFP. The
vision of this applicant is profoundly different than the capital access, entrepreneurial coaching,
customer access, and other services envisioned by the ESP program. It is unclear how Quality
Today’s program could benefit more than a narrow subset of ESP client firms, nor how they would
preferentially impact OTF-focused industries. For these reasons, funding for Quality Today, LLC
is not recommended.
In order to fully realize the potential value in the programs offered by Quality Now, the evaluators
recommend that the applicant engage with other agencies or programs within Ohio in order to find
a closer programmatic fit.
Entrepreneurial Services Provider (ESP) Program Evaluator’s Final Report
22
APPENDIX 1: EVALUATION PROCESS AND CRITERIA
UVG’s primary mission in reviewing ESP proposals is to deliver clear and substantiated funding
recommendations to the Ohio Third Frontier Commission. The purpose of this review is three-fold:
(1) to justify funding recommendations for applicants; (2) to identify gaps in proposals and offer
opportunities for improvement; and (3) to provide programmatic insight and recommendations
about the ESP Program as a whole to the Ohio Third Frontier Commission.
To support this mission, UVG has sought to perform a thoughtful, objective, and consistent
assessment of each proposal. The proposals have been evaluated according to the ESP Program RFP
merit criteria, Ohio Development Services Agency (DSA) requirements, specific guidance from the
OTF Commission, and overall OTF mission and objectives. UVG has placed special emphasis on
confirming the alignment and integration of the applicant’s vision, organizational structure,
collaborators, and key stakeholders.
UVG performed an in-depth review of the written proposal, followed by a round of detailed written
and oral questions to the applicants. The review included a thorough validation of the budget and
cost share for the proposal including an in-person session with each applicant to review budget and
cost share questions. Based on this review process, UVG developed and presented
recommendations to the OTF commission.
Evaluation Criteria
1. Organization, Governance, and Administration
• Qualifications of Lead Applicant
• Strategy
• Organizational Structure
• Governance
• Conflicts of Interest
2. Institutional Technology Commercialization
• Opportunity/Gap/Need
• Goal/Outcome
• Approach/Process
• Leadership/Key Personnel
• Client Acquisition and Service Delivery
• Key Success Criteria
• Core Resources
• Key Risks and Mitigations
• Leadership Team and Stakeholders
• Alignment with Client Type
• Budget Reasonableness
3. Venture Development Services
• Opportunity/Gap/Need
• Goal/Outcome
• Approach/Process
• Leadership/Key Personnel
Entrepreneurial Services Provider (ESP) Program Evaluator’s Final Report
23
• Client Acquisition and Service Delivery
• Key Success Criteria
• Core Resources
• Key Risks and Mitigations
• Leadership Team and Stakeholders
• Alignment with Client Type
• Budget Reasonableness
4. Enterprise Development Services
• Opportunity/Gap/Need
• Goal/Outcome
• Approach/Process
• Leadership/Key Personnel
• Client Acquisition and Service Delivery
• Key Success Criteria
• Core Resources
• Key Risks and Mitigations
• Leadership Team and Stakeholders
• Alignment with Client Type
• Budget Reasonableness
5. Cross-Cutting Activities
• Marketing, Branding, and Outreach
• Pipeline Development and Client Management
• Diversity and Inclusion
• Stakeholder Engagement
• Budget Reasonableness
• Other Proposed Initiatives
6. Metrics Projections
7. Overall Budget Reasonableness
Entrepreneurial Services Provider (ESP) Program Evaluator’s Final Report
24
APPENDIX 2: ABOUT URBAN VENTURE GROUP (UVG)
UVG Company Background
Urban Venture Group, Inc. (UVG) is a consultancy based in Columbus, Ohio. UVG principals are
experienced technology entrepreneurs with over fifty years combined experience founding,
funding, growing, and selling technology-based businesses in Ohio.
Nature of UVG Business Activities
UVG provides consulting services focused on commercialization of early stage technologies. Our
clients span energy, materials, transportation, medical, defense, and information industries. Our
business focuses on market engagement and attraction and effective allocation of resources to
advance commercialization. UVG’s principal business activities include:
• Commercialization Strategy – Identifying paths to market, validating customer needs,
planning and funding operations, and identifying exit strategies.
• Entrepreneurial Coaching – Helping technology entrepreneurs overcome the barriers to their
success, including operations, strategy, and managing internal and external relationships.
• Grant Writing – Non-dilutive (grant) funding strategy, grant writing support, funding agency
access, spanning Federal and State agencies.
• Venture Services – Preparing a firm for capital investment, including business planning and
strategy, pitch deck preparation, and strategic engagements.
• Technical Market Research and Analysis – Primary and secondary market research, trend
and growth analysis, opportunity analysis.
• Sales Pipeline – Coaching, training, and infrastructure to manage and accelerate sales.