Glider Pitch Deck
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Glider Pitch Deck

on

  • 803 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
803
Views on SlideShare
554
Embed Views
249

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

2 Embeds 249

http://one.valeski.org 244
http://feeds.feedburner.com 5

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Glider Pitch Deck Glider Pitch Deck Presentation Transcript

  • Glider - Jud Valeski, June ‘06
  • BigCo Challenges• Paradigm focused on large-scale investments, tied to existing process.• Model perpetuates leveraging industry breakthroughs rather than creating them.• Inertia ensures the prior two points. 2
  • Success Criteria• ROI measured along multiple planes.• Financial – Prototypes could yield subscription, pay- as-you-go, and one-time revenue. – Potential spin-out opportunities.• Re-use – Technologies, processes, prototypes, paradigms incorporated back into BigCo. 3
  • BigCo 2.Open Solution• Rapid prototype development, with high frequency development cycles.• Model successful, isolated, development initiatives (e.g. Mozilla).• Small, unbiased, offsite, development office leverages Web 2.0 technologies, and business opportunities.• Act more like GE in business separation. 4
  • Incremental Costs• 3 FTE & 4 interns/co-ops; ramped up over time (see next page).• Fully-loaded (Salary, Facilities, Benefits, Tax, IC, Other).• Data from HR/Finance.• ~$700k/year at full burn.• ~$175k in 2006 (assuming June start).• Total initial commitment: ~$1.25M across two years. 5
  • Costs Chart 6
  • Who’s paying?• Core Technologies.• REDACTED, REDACTED.• Innovation budget. 7
  • Model• Rapid, greenfield, development.• Maximum 3.5 month development lifecycles.• Sale, subscription, and ad revenue opportunities evaluated for each initiative.• Complete Focus change every year. 8
  • MantraBringing data to life. 9
  • Focus• Data; the final frontier.• Mashups.• Location Based Services. 10
  • Glider Challenges• Getting off the ground – Working through pre-flight checklist• Office space and BigCo Facilities• Co-pilot hiring 11
  • How can REDACTED help?• Concept support.• Mozilla relationship if/when time is right.• Board membership. 12
  • Inputs/Outputs• Inputs – Projects are generally Glider staff generated/approved, with BigCo BU influence. – Focus generated/approved by Board and Glider staff.• Outputs – Prototypes, experience. 13
  • Appendix
  • Maureen Action Items• Board composition.• Firewalled reporting structure.• Alternative incentive program options.• What does the REDACTED tie-in look like.• Office space/lease sans BigCo facilities involvement.• Chart of expenses/costs over time.• More granular view of first dev quarter tasks.• Accountability/ROI.• Understand intern/co-op cycles for University of Colorado. 15
  • Board - Proposed• REDACTED• Recommendation: Reach out to proposed members with project description, and role proposal. 16
  • Reporting Structure• Firewall between Glider and BigCo day-to- day is an operational requirement.• Employment contract to anchor two-year commitment to initiative.• Options: REDACTED• Recommendation: ? 17
  • Incentive Program Options• Traditional BigCo AIP and salary profiles.• Salary tradeoffs for: – Equity – Sabbaticals• AIP adjustments: – Higher percentage for performance (and vise versa).• Recommendation: Traditional incentive program given traditional attachment to BigCo LLC. 18
  • REDACTED Relationship• REDACTED identified as potential co-pilot.• REDACTED has data assets interesting to MapQuest and Glider from a mash-up standpoint.• REDACTED will either sign contract with MapQuest, or contract with Glider to mash-up data.• Recommendation: No formal relationship between the two initially. 19
  • Office Space• Three local Boulder locations identified.• Eliminated options: – MapQuest Denver office is an hour away from Boulder. – Level 3 space explored, but not currently an option; per REDACTED. – Google Boulder office space too full.• Recommendation: BigCo Facilities evaluates the three identified Boulder options. 20
  • Accountability/ROI• Board review each quarter: – Progress – Project specific monetization possibilities analyzed – Next quarter goals reviewed 21
  • 1st Dev Quarter Goals• Include more municipalities in Deed transaction application. – Add three new disparate locations. – Update UI to provide municipality selection. – Work with MapQuest dev team to eliminate bugs preventing move from Google’s API.• Prototype asset tagging & hierarchy data model and UI. – Build out mock data set assets, tags, and hierarchy.• Identify and mash-up at least one new data type.• Reach out to Mozilla Foundation for potential projects. 22
  • Interns/Co-ops• University of Colorado provides both intern and co-op opportunities.• Internship cycles: Fall (Sept-Dec), Spring (Jan- April), Summer.• Co-op cycles generally span multiple semesters, and are unique in duration.• Recommendation: Hire two of four paid interns during Fall ‘06 cycle. 23