The Mid-Hudson Regional Business Plan Competition prides itself on innovation and technical merit. Both of these values are hallmarks of the main organizing universities, and we strive to integrate them into every aspect of the competition. To do so, we have established a transparent judging process with no conflicts of interest between our judges and the teams that they are evaluating. All of our judging panels are composed of a mix of private and public investors, business leaders, and advisors – all of whom have years of experience investing or advising in their respective industries. Moreover, we ensure to have technical subject matter experts – each of them with expertise in one of the categories – to evaluate the technical feasibility and scalability of the plans in their category.
If you are interested in participating as a judge for the 2015 New York Business Plan Competition, or know an investor who would be a good fit to judge the competition, please contact Susan Scanlon at email@example.com.
Meet the Judging Panel:
- Amy Bildzok, Director, System z Software Development, IBM
- Philip Bronzi, Vice President Commercial Lending, Tompkins Financial
- Frank Castella, President and CEO, Dutchess Regional Chamber of Commerce
- Eric Egeland, President, Capacity Business Consulting
- Beverly Franklin, Owner, Measured to Fit, LLC
- Irwin Glenn, Managing Director, Profit Velocity
- Andi Gray. CEO of Strategy Leaders
- Peter Gregory, President and CEO of The Westant Group
- Pam Hoodes, CEO, The River Innovation Center
- Anthony Hunter, Managing Member, Capstone Business Advisors, LLC
- Joseph Jessup, CFA, JCJ Co
- Johnny LeHane, Co-Owner, CIO and Partner Relations,WAKA Kickball and Social Sports
- Scott Locke, Esq., Chair of Intellectual Property Department, Dorf & Nelson LLP IP Attorney
- Jean Morris, Business Counselor, NYS Small Business Development Center, Mid-Hudson Region
- Mike Oates, CEO, Hudson River Ventures
- Walter Recher, CEO of SmallBall Marketing
- Laurie Rich, Founding Executive, LAR Business Writer
- Kirk Ritchey, Account Executive, InterSys Consulting
- Noa Simons, Partner, TianDi Growth Capital
- Joe Verderame, Executive Director, Enterprise Infrastructure, Morgan Stanley
Judges Rule Book
The New York Business Plan Competition (NYBPC) prides itself on innovation and technical merit. Both of these values are hallmarks of the organizing universities, and we strive to integrate them into every aspect of the competition. To do so, we have established a transparent judging process with no conflicts of interest between our judges and the teams that they are evaluating. In addition, all judges except for sponsor representatives must meet the following criteria:
- Active or early stage private (angel, venture capital, private equity, etc.) and/or public (state and federal agencies) investors
- Prior experience investing in or desire to invest in New York startups
- Willingness and ability to work with early stage, student-led ventures
Judges at the business plan competition rate participating teams based on the following criteria:
- Compelling Idea/Venture
- Founders & Team
- Pitch Quality
Judging rubric categories:
WHY YOU? Does the individual or team have the ability, skills, and passion to implement this business or non-profit entity? If this requires technology or production of a prototype, does the team have the ability and resources to create it? Did the team articulate their stage in the development process?
WHO CARES? Is there a market for this product or service? For a social/non-profit entity, is there a significant need being met? Has a customer base been identified? Have the students distinguished themselves from the competition?
WHY THIS IDEA? Is this product or service innovative and compelling? Is there a concise mission and vision for this venture? What is the revenue potential for this venture? For a non-profit, is the revenue model sustainable?
HOW WILL IT GET THE WORD OUT? Is the marketing plan is realistic, innovative and explained well by the team?
PRESENTATION AND Q&A: Was the presentation clear, concise and effective? Did the team provide a solid overview of the venture, product and/or service? Was the team able to succinctly respond to judges’ inquiries and give substantive, persuasive answers?