Wsome Business Plan - Florin Pogocsan Vlad Manea KU 2014

wsome
Business plan
Vlad Manea and Florin Pogocsan

1
Contents
Background
Tech opportunity
Pain > Solution > Value
For municipalities
For citizens
For businesses
For consumers
Team background
Venture goals
Market leader in municipality citizen satisfaction analysis goal
Achieved objectives
Short term objectives
Medium term objectives
Long term objectives
World class review system goal
Company corporate form
Organization
Development and User eXperience squads
Sales and Marketing squad
Software production
Finance aspects
Business management
Facilities
Product description
Development
Law
Value chains
Market description
Geography
Customers
Competitors
Trends
Marketing plan
Categories of citizens
Marketing within the commune
Marketing in the private sector
Risks
Finances
6 year financial projections
Product price
Labour costs
Start-up investments
2
Shares
Exit option
Risks
Sensitivity analysis
Five forces
SWOT Analysis

3
Background
The world around us is rapidly speeding up. How do you navigate all of these
offers? How do you know which provide good service, and how can you be part
of the review process? These are serious issues in a daily life where time is
incredibly important! Moreover, is there anything you can do to help them know
when you got great service, so that you can get more of the same?
As a service provider, what distinguishes you from others? How do you evaluate
what your customers think? Pulling in end-users to a lab-like setting and asking
them will always be biased and statistics based on company economy do not
always give you all of the angles you need. How do you perform low-effort
evaluation, while at the same time boost customer satisfaction and retention?
Tech opportunity
As technologies such as NFC ship with smartphones, as QR codes spread into
mainstream and are visible all around, and finally as 2014 is a booming year for
smart watches and glasses, the ability to access and integrate with the world
around us rapidly increases.
QR codes have not been extensively used in Denmark as of today. For the most
part, advertisements have had QR codes in the corner so that interested
individuals photograph them and visit a website of the company. QR codes
therefore provide a handy one-click way to perform actions. For instance, a QR
code on the wall of a concert hall may open up a page requiring you to type your
email, and enter a free ticket competition. Try out this QR code!
NFC chips allows nearby devices to register and send data back and forth.
1
Smart watches and glasses have been on the rise since 2013, and 2014 is the
expected year for these to become mainstream.
Pain > Solution > Value
For municipalities
Municipalities, sometimes called communes (kommune), need to know not only
what kind of issues citizens have. They need to build trust, assess the knowledge
of their employees and obtain quicker solution turnovers. They can:
1. get to know the outcome of a service provided by an employee at the office
2
1
There are NFC tag stores, such as RapidNFC, which sell NFC technology inside various items.
2
A public database with the employees is available at KORA. The Communes already have access to
guidelines and best practices to conduct citizen surveys and they have launched a portal in 2013,
which only shows data gathered through external self-contained citizen surveys. This website
provides valuable information about specific areas for citizens to be asked about: primary school,
home care, clubs and nursing facilities, and others.
4
2. incentivize employee performance by measuring the quality of service,
and rewarding them according to their merits
3. improving satisfaction by assessing the quality of service through citizens
directly, gather the data, and perform analytics
3
For citizens
Citizens need to have access to good service from their municipalities, whether it
is about employment, tax, police or health and education. Yet sometimes it is hard
to assess how many of the problems are not solved, and issues escalate. But now
they can:
1. quickly assess the service they receive
2. have their problems heard without lawyers and letters
3. pinpoint areas of improvement in the knowledge and expertise for the
commune employees
This pain has been confirmed by our quantitative and qualitative studies, as put
into the appendix. For instance, multiple people complained about the commune
employees simply not knowing what to do and sending the citizens back home or
to call somewhere. Satisfaction studies also indicate issues in some communes .
4
For businesses
Businesses, and in particular those offering services with direct
customer-employee interaction, need a way to assess their customers experience.
Satisfaction depends on these employees, but businesses are painfully forced to go
through expensive and artificial advertisements instead. They now can:
4. achieve organic advertisement with real people
5. incentivize employee performance by measuring the quality of service,
and reward employees according to their merits
6. improve satisfaction by assessing the quality of service through customers
directly, and gathering analytics. Particularly, businesses improve their
average experience, such that most employees in the business provide very
good quality services, and therefore consumers trust the company as a
whole!
These needs have been confirmed by the two Venture Cup feedback responses we
got. They can be found in the appendix. We also found this article on the subject.
3
For example, the give rating or share action in our platform can be integrated into Google
Analytics and companies can use the tools provided with this service. Along with social networks
such as Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn, which provide their own analytics tools, we can prove the
success achieved by using our platform. We can help companies track these data where
application programmable interfaces (APIs) are available.
4
An article on the Commune of Greve indicates they hired a consulting firm. Is our product less
expensive? We think so. The Solrod Commune also performed a satisfaction survey recently.
5
For consumers
Consumers are inclined to thank people, and are happy to express gratitude , but
5
searching for the business page and writing a review is time-consuming; they
will simply quit in the process. Consequently, it is hard for people to get a
perspective out of a few sparse reviews. They now are able to:
1. find good services, by seeing the relevant businesses interactively
6
2. give them ratings which build trust in businesses
7
3. earn a public reputation (awesome citizen) for directly contributing to their
favorite business relevance in searches and success
4. share the experience by on social channels
8
This need has been addressed by the other Venture Cup feedback response, with
observations on the importance of incentivizing people.
Team background
The founding team consists of two developers: Florin Pogocsan and Vlad Manea.
Currently we are pursuing our candidate studies at the University of Copenhagen
and we work together. This provides us the framework to use engineering skills
into applied entrepreneurship and meet people within the spectrum of disciplines.
Vlad Manea has worked in global engineering companies, notably Microsoft,
Google and Amazon. Prior to this, he administered a national online educational
program, co-founded a development club and managed a team of 40 students in
college, raising $10K from partners such as Amazon, Continental, Movial and
Microsoft. He now develops shiny features in a startup based in Copenhagen.
These steps helped him gather knowledge in both mature and incipient projects.
Florin Pogocsan is a software engineer with prior experience at Microsoft, and
has extensive knowledge in smartphone application development. In his college
years, he created road paving robots and competed in the ACM international
programming competition. Vlad claims that Florin is the wisest developer there is.
Below is the radar chart with the skills of our founders. All radar charts portray a
scale from 0 (zero skills) to 10 (expert skills).
5
Gratitude is proven to improve happiness and meaning of life, according to professors at UC
Davis, UC Berkeley, UPenn and others. Projects were tracked (2013) and Youtube videos (may
contain sound!) were made.
6
Relevance is computed based on factors such as the average count of ratings employees received.
7
New businesses can enter our system because we only use ratings given in a certain last period.
8
Some appropriate channels are: LinkedIn for being aimed at professionals; Twitter for its
broadcast speed; Google+ for the superior post quality; Facebook for its large customer bases.
6
Two remote people have expressed their wishes to join our team as board
members when needed. Sebastian Codrin Ditu, M.Sc., wishes to act as a salesman
and marketer, yet still has experience in mobile and cloud computing. His key
traits, however, are his a native social management skills. Alexandru Darie, M.A.,
is an educated designer and has played a key role as the advertising director in
companies. We have worked directly with our friends in the past. With these two
people in our team, our skillset enhances with regard to business networks and
specific market experience.
7
We still have limited business competency in sales and marketing, small business
management and venture capital experience, but we are up to the challenge to
start our own venture. We will look for students in sales and marketing, and also
for development help. With help from our project students, our skill chart may
appear more balanced:
The total skill set for the core team is more complete now, yet with little small
business and venture capital wisdom. On a positive side, we are happy to have
sales and marketing afloat, and we are now a young and active core team.
8
Venture goals
Market leader in municipality citizen satisfaction analysis goal
Establish and maintain a position as a market leader in providing an effective
and truthful way for all municipalities to analyze citizen satisfaction
The most important task of a municipality is to provide good service to their
citizens. A few municipalities employ techniques like GAP analysis to gauge
citizen satisfaction (such as Gladsaxe). Some municipalities do not analyze this at
all, or if they do they do not publicize it (such as Glostrup and Rdovre). Yet others
are looking into how to improve their service and citizen satisfaction (such as
Albertslund). Our product provides a solution whether the municipality already
employs several techniques (by augmenting with another, possibly more truthful
angle) or not. This goal spans across 3+ years.
Achieved objectives
Testing the water
Submit a short description to the Venture Cup Idea Competition by end of
Q4 2013. This helped us get valuable feedback from possible investors. More
importantly, we have discovered slightly similar opinions.
Develop a proof of concept, consisting of a single page mockup application.
This has been achieved in end of Q4 2013, and helped us pitch our idea and
accompany the submission.
Organize an initial quantitative customer study throughout Denmark, with
regard to commune services by start of Q2 2014. This has been achieved
through an online study on 77 people , and helped us better answer our
9
question: are they willing to try a customer service reporting product?
Organize an initial qualitative customer study throughout Denmark, with
regard to the commune services by start of Q2 2014. This has been achieved
through interviewing 3 citizens.
Short term objectives
Starting up in Denmark. Continuing to analyze the market
Continue quantitative customer studies throughout Denmark, with regard
to commune services by end of Q2 2014. The purpose of these studies is to
gather more specific information from a diverse market.
9
We wish to thank Asbjorn Thegler and Martin Grunbaum for providing the raw responses.
9
Continue intensive customer studies throughout Denmark by end of Q2
2014. This covers people drawn from a normal demographic distribution,
and also commune representatives.
Applying for the Venture Cup Startup competition. Incorporating feedback
Deploy a minimum viable product, which satisfies the user reviews the
service in commune X user story in Q2 2014. This will help us get feedback
on a quick and general version, to make sure we are on the right track
from a user experience standpoint.
Submit a business plan to the Venture Cup Startup Competition by its
deadline in Q2 2014. This allows us to gain further feedback from investors,
once the minimum product is available for a test drive.
Medium term objectives
Our first commune partner! And the first money...
Establish a partnership with one innovator commune by start of Q3 2014 to
sell early. This includes the application up and running for one citizen
accessible room, and all the QR codes and/or NFC devices in place, for
citizens to start reviewing. The commune is our special innovator customer
and is granted significant discounts when pricing kicks in.
Organize technical user studies on features of our product by Q4 2014, and
continuous validation throughout the development cycle with help from
our commune.
Develop an initial desktop version for the commune statistics
administration panel, for the reviews to be seen by the commune
employees by end 2014. This is iterated with the commune employees as
our customers.
Deliver a 3-month situation report to our early adopting commune when
due. The commune is issued a detailed report at the end, but always has
access to the intermediate data. Extra features are developed to better suit
its needs in the meantime. Cash in the charge from the first in Q4 2014, for
5 expected employees.
More communes to come. Better reviews
Establish partnerships with other early adopting communes by end of Q4
2015, for a total of 140 employees. This includes having validated and also
invalidated aspects of our product, as discovered with our first adopter
commune.
Publish data about existing communes progresses on different criteria
(e.g., social services, employment) to incentivize other communes to join.
10
Digital expansion
Extend to Android smart phones and smart watches, Google Glass, iPhone
and Windows Phone (in this order, based on mobile market penetration
stats) by end of 2015. These feature are iterated with citizen users and
communes, and by that time they are assumed to be mainstream.
Market leader in municipality and private sector satisfaction
analysis goal
Establish and maintain a position as a market leader in providing an effective
and truthful way for municipalities and business sector companies, to analyze
customer and citizen satisfaction, respectively
We claim that the same good service the commune is bound to offer can now
spread onto the private sector. This is why we wish to expand our product for any
private business to use. The markets: Denmark and the United States.
Long term objectives
Study of the private market
Continue the implementation of the system in the late majority of Danish
communes, without visible time bounds (at this moment).
Conduct customer studies for the Danish businesses markets by mid of Q4
2015. This includes minimum viable products suiting needs. Methods (may
change): use trust gathered in communes to build trust in corporations
based in Denmark and small businesses; quantitative and qualitative
analysis.
Conduct customer studies for the United States businesses markets by mid
of Q4 2015. This includes minimum viable products suiting needs.
American know-how necessary, modelled as travel and R&D expenses.
Methods (may change): social media coverage and ads, quantitative and
qualitative analysis.
Launch of our product for the private businesses
Expand into the private Danish sector with innovators: establish a
partnership with companies having a total of 220 employees by end 2015,
using our experience and trust we built within the commune system.
Reiterate the steps as performed with the innovator commune: use them as
leading feature customers.
Launch a reviewing product fully functional for private company use in
late 2015 on both the US and Danish markets. Significant marketing
invested, modelled as R&D expenses. This includes dashboards for the
companies, and rate it! features for citizens. The review product for
11
multiple platforms (as above, and as studies and technological leap dictate
at that point) to be developed by end 2016.
Continue partnerships with other communes as a late majority. This
includes performing the steps from above, reiterated with the knowledge
we have at that point, and suited for the needs of each commune.
Gradually expand into the private sector in the United States as the early
adopters, as a publicly accessible service for assessing customer service by
end 2016, available for all companies. Expected employee count: 500.
Continue the expansion on both Danish and American markets to achieve
early and late majority in their respective sectors. Expected employee count
at end of 2019: 62470.
World class review system goal
Provide a world class review system for both governmental and private
service providers, which is the de facto place where citizens review.
Reach full late majority. The laggards are required by the market to join.
Company corporate form
Initially, the company will be a partnership (I/S), while we are not bound by any
contracts with any customers or suppliers. The venture is still in a very low risk
and low cost phase, and as such, there is no need to protect ourselves from
bankrupts. All expenses are paid immediately, and no long running contracts are
made with other companies. This phase will be used for developing a prototype
and creating the proper marketing material needed for getting the first customer.
When we are ready to implement with our first commune customer, the company
will be transformed into a limited private company (ApS), at a cost of 80000 DKK
which we will inject ourselves by being mainstream developers in Denmark. This
will protect the founders economically, in case of a bankrupt. This phase will
have a higher cost for the company, since we now have to deliver the product.
Also, when we sign a long-term contract with the customer, more risk arises, due
to the success unpredictability.
Organization
We are aiming to create a young and dynamic environment in our company. This
is why we aim to find student workers in all disciplines, that will help us shape
the product as we go. For example, we will pitch our company at the start of the
KU Project Course Development Studio and find a number of students from there
to use our product as a case study. Similar courses exist at DTU, ITU and CBS. Our
students, regardless of discipline, have a pole position when hiring arrives. We
assume that we hire them as full-time employees starting from the fourth year
12
Q1. Vlad is exploring himself this path this year in a promising banking startup,
and is happy and motivated to have impact early.
Development and User eXperience squads
The development team will initially include Florin and Vlad. Vlad will work on
the front-end and user experience, and Florin will work on the back-end and
infrastructure. For the first year, we do not aim to find students for these squads.
As we partner with a first commune in the first year Q3, we start to enter into
agile feature personalization mode with them as our first client, and we plan to
find two developer students in the second year. In the third year, when multiple
communes have partnered with us, we plan to bring two more students, among
which one will be specialized in user experience and will work with our partner
Alexandru in Q3.
Sales and Marketing squad
We wish to find two students from CBS to help us right away; one well-educated
and convincing salesman, and one agile marketer who can deliver interesting
campaigns and materials in collaboration with the commune. In the second year
Q3, we will supplement our team with an extra sales student, and our friend
Codrin will head the sales and marketing squad. In the third year, Codrin will
have learnt sales enough (learning is two ways!) to start pitching himself.
Software production
Running the system will require little work, since we merely facilitate interaction
between the citizens and the municipality. There will have to be produced
identification tags for the municipality, which will be overseen by Codrin.
Finance aspects
The finances of the company will be handled by one of the CBS students, starting
from the point where the company is in limited state. After this point, but most
importantly before, we will continuously run liquidity analysis, to be on top of
how we progress financially, assess risk and adjust if necessary.
13
Here is how we aim our core team to develop. The names in capital correspond to
Florin, Vlad, Codrin and Alexandru. The names in small caps correspond to
specialties: development, sales, marketing, user experience. The sales and
marketing guys form one single squad. The dotted lines are direct collaborations.
The dashed lines are direct collaborations through supervision. The continuous
lines are board relations.
At the moment we see this team formation as optimal for a span of five years.
Business management
While sales and marketing will be our first big challenge, we will manage by
being very flexible and adaptable with our first few customers. As a small
company, we are not bound by anything but our customers, and as such we can
allow them to shape our product. This will hopefully help us greatly in selling our
product to further customers.
The board will meet as often as necessary, though at least once a week. Since we
have different areas of responsibility, we will all have a duty to gather and report
any important information to the board. This will help the board to get a coherent
vision of where the company is going, and make it competent to take the best
choices on direction.
The finances will be managed by a single student person from CBS, to ensure that
the company does not risk overspending and going bankrupt. Every expenditure
will be controlled in time, and the liquidity will be consulted.
While developing the product, we will use a widely appraised development
method known as SCRUM. This will ensure a controlled and effective
14
development phase, with emphasis on building the feature we conclude to be the
most valuable for the customer.
The management of the company will initially be handled by the founding team
until the two extra board members join our venture. After this step, Florin
becomes the technical manager, Vlad acts as the software architect, Alexandru
becomes the experience manager, and Codrin acts as the marketing manager.
Codrin also acts as the chief executive officer for the remaining period up to five
years. Now everybody is fancy!
Facilities
Since we are a software start-up we do not require many physical facilities. We
are also students, so we are leaving cheaply in rented rooms. After school is over,
we will work as software developers in Copenhagen.
We need computers, but we already have them. All developers and students can
use their own laptops for that. A powerful laptop or station used for development
would therefore not be necessary.
The total living cost covers only the two founding members. The students can
work at their home or school, just as it is done at Project Course Development
Studio. The other people involved can work remotely.
When we implement the system at our customer, we will have to generate and
print QR codes or setup NFC devices on our cost. Depending on how the customer
wants the codes to be located, we may need to invest in badges or the like.
Further, we are relying on the citizens having the required hardware to use our
system, which will not cost us anything.
Product description
For short, wsome (/sm/, as in awesome) is a platform which aims to enhance
10
the service experience in the public and private sectors. Our USP is: wsome | get a
service, say it loud, share the experience. Here is a quick mockup:
10
Our application will be located at wsome.com, which is now open for email subscriptions.
15
We can add value to the {citizen / consumer, employee, commune / business} trio
by streamlining feedback with just a few easy steps, while not requiring extensive
resources from either part. Basically, everyone needs only a smart device :
11
1. see the guy / girl with your smart device. Well, not the person, but a QR :)
2. press a button to give kudos for a job well done, or say what went bad
3. share a positive experience (if you want)
11
Solutions without permanent Internet connectivity are also possible, for example in Google
Drive.
16
Development
We aim to employ a web back-end on top of Amazon cloud instances that store
12
data and perform computation (statistics, analysis, trends) for each of our
customers. Our back-end will be published through an API, which will allow us to
have multiple clients. We have had a good experience with Java web frameworks,
such as Play, which work nicely with Amazon.
On the front-end, we wish to first deploy a mobile website that would be accessed
by the citizens. Then more specialized Android, iOS, Windows Phone, and also
specific wearable device client implementations will be deployed, as described in
the objectives.
On the short to medium term, our quantitative study indicates that 25% of the
potential customers would give a rating, and they go to the commune about 1.3
times per year. This means that for this period of time there is no imminent need
for scalability addressing.
When entering the business sector in Denmark, we still do not expect high
bandwidth necessity. However, the situation changes dramatically once we hit
the American market, but the process will be controlled and included in the
budget. That will happen long after we have cash inflow from the municipalities.
Law
The wsome name is unique, and it will play a big part in branding our product.
Therefore we will protect the name itself as a registered trademark. Since the
word itself is unique, we will both register it as a wordmark and a logo. This will
cost 5000 DKK. The logo will serve as quick recognition of our services, and the
wordmark will be easy to communicate across textual communication.
The use of codes and chips for unique identification is free for all, as long as we
comply with the standards for how they function. This is no problem, since we do
not alter or change the technology at all, we merely use them.
We have performed searches in several patent databases for terms such as: nfc,
13
qr, nfc review, qr review, nfc voting, qr voting, mobile review, employee review,
employee review nfc, employee review qr, in order to find any patents that we
might infringe with our product, and have not found any. This is probably due to
the simplicity of the technology, and since QR codes are free to use, given by the
patent holders. There is plenty of prior art to be found, on the methods we will
employ. We do not expect patent infringements to become a problem for us. For
the same reason, we will not attempt to register any patents, to protect our
business from competitors. Instead, we will focus on solid branding and high
adaptability.
12
Versions of our product may of course be deployed elsewhere by customer demand.
13
These include the Google Patents search engine
17
Value chains
Our product is part of the following backward integration value chains:
Amazon cloud database <<< all data <<< our application
Amazon cloud computer <<< raw data <<< our application
Our application <<< send rating <<< citizens
and the following forward integration value chains:
Amazon cloud service >>> all data >>> our application
Amazon cloud service >>> statistics results >>> our application
our application >>> employee data >>> the commune clerk (usually desktop)
our application >>> commune data (rating, statistics, history) >>> commune
our application >>> public commune data and statistics >>> citizens
and also helps achieve the following value chain:
Commune >>> faster solution to problems, in time >>> citizens
The corresponding value chains for the private business are similar.
Market description
Geography
According to University of Turku , in 2011 there were 2479 businesses with over
14
50 employees in Denmark. According to the European Commission , in 2012 there
15
were about 5360. The businesses from the first source usually all need to have
customer facing employees. We assume an adoption rate of 10% of these over the
course of 6 years, which accounts for 247 companies. We assume 10% of the
employees are consumer-facing, which would account for 10 employees on
average. This would imply a total of 2470 individual employees subscribed to our
service.
In USA there are at least 100K large businesses with over 100 employees according
to this study https://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html. If we assume that in
average there are 60 customer facing employees and the adoption rate is 1% then
we have a total of 60K individual employees in total.
Our product will not have seasonal fluctuations because it is a service available
throughout the year. Once a commune registers to use it, they will continue to use
it for quite a long time if they are happy with it. We are basically aiming for long
sustenance of the service within the company. The same applies for the private
businesses.
14
A report written by the University of Turku joint with the European Commission (2011)
15
A report written by the European Commission (2012)
18
Customers
In the short to medium term, we aim the communes. They decide whether to
continue or stop our service on a preset period of time contractually signed. We
will build trust by offering our service free for the first few trial months. This will
give the communes the opportunity to try our service risk free and thus build up
our reputation. The quantitative study reveals that in both Copenhagen commune
and in the other surveyed communes, about 25% of the citizens would be willing
to provide ratings should they have a smartphone and a system for this. All
qualitative studies also indicate use cases for our product, although in different
ways. See the appendix for the interpretations.
In the long term, we aim the community and private sector in Denmark, and the
private sector in the United States. The same general policies apply for them in
what regards our service and its possible termination, up to the legal
differences between the Danish and North American states.
While a limit of the possible quality of service in the communes will be reached
after some time, they are incentivized to use our service to make sure they keep
their ratings high. The same applies to businesses, but they are more fragile.
Competitors
In the short to medium term, there is no other service that can act as a direct
competitor. In the long term, when companies can benefit from our services,
those who offer similar services are listed below.
Yelp is used by people to search for everything, from burgers to cardiologists. The
reviews are difficult to write, making many businesses have an irrelevant rating.
Angie has reviews for utility, cleaning, dentists, and more. They ask for certified
data, but requires human resources.
Google allows companies to be found with Places. It provides AdWords
integration. Giving a review is a difficult process.
Facebook has a service which has a hard-to-spot review button. As opposed to our
model, it requires additional navigation and clutter in the page.
Foursquare aims for places only, and does not emphasize reviews.
Krak is the most used Danish app for searching services. Reviews can only be
given through desktop devices, so there is no way to rate a service on the go.
The competitors will not feel threatened, as we first deploy our product in the
commune sector, and continue to develop it with the commune. They will see
results in the service quality there, so they may assume that is our only plan.
When we launch, we will be prepared for attack on the business sector too!
19
Our model matches existing actions on the Internet. This can easily make our
competitors partners. Reviews can be translated into 5-star ratings on Yelp and
check-ins on Foursquare. A share can be a tweet or a Google+ or Facebook post.
But most importantly, a review on our system, which can be for a particular
employee person, can act as a LinkedIn endorsement!
Trends
We use state of the art hardware to deploy our software. We will have
smartphones, NFCs , smart watches seeing QR codes and even image
16 17 18
recognition . These are all at the front of the current technology. This will give a
19
seemingless user experience when giving ratings.
Marketing plan
We will first attack the area around the innovator commune. We aim to respond
to the needs of both the commune and the people who visit it, in particular
smartphone users who may have less than a minute to provide a quick feedback,
or 1-2 minutes for a few feedback answers. Our quantitative study targeted people
in this category. For instance, in Copenhagen there are approx. 5.5M inhabitants ,
20
among which according to the quantitative study, there would be about 3M who
visit the commune.
Categories of citizens
In an initial phase, we expect the following categories of citizens:
The innovator citizen: may consist of both idealistic citizens who feel a strong
need to contribute to the well being of their community, and citizens who have
suffered a loss due to the commune (we may say these are innovator citizens by
obligation...). From a demographic perspective, we expect people around 20-40
with a higher educational background and perhaps technology geeks.
The early adopter citizen: may consist of people who find out about our service by
word of mouth from the innovator, and who also have a strong feeling that this
may change the service they get to a better one.
16
For instance, Android provides secure NFC support (2013).
17
Examples of wearable devices are Samsung Gear (2013) and Google Glass (2013), and the latest
Android Wear (April 2014) and Motorola Moto 360 (April 2014; coming Summer 2014).
18
Some platforms offering native QR code support: Microsoft Windows Phone, Google Android,
and Apple iOS. This means that the user does not necessarily have to install any application
19
An image recognition service is Recognize. We may use this for custom images instead of QR,
which would allow us to devise a gamified experience (e.g., a king of this castle game).
20
According to the Denmark website (2012).
20
The early majority citizen: may consist of people who will be motivated by results
visibly published by that commune as a result of implementing our product.
Publishing results with the commune is paramount for their decision.
The late majority citizen: consists of the main mass of people. They may receive an
appraisal for their feedback from the commune (feedback goes both ways!). Their
technology skills are limited, but they have had prior experience with
smartphones . They know this system exists and is read by the authorities - and
21
will use it when in need.
The laggard citizen: consists of the skeptical people, who think that nothing can be
changed, or that they cannot contribute to the commune feedback.
Marketing within the commune
We are assuming that the innovating commune implements our system for 5
employees, for a price of 250 DKK per employee per month. This includes all
physical devices (e.g. NFC chips, QR code prints), and also the digital access. There
are online dashboards and statistics, available separately for the commune
employees and citizens. There is also a gamified public place for people to see
statistics too, and to see the progress of the commune. All contracts with the
commune are performed directly, without making use of agents or dealers.
The marketing at this stage consists of the physical device itself (which might
make people curious), and also posters, adverts and the like in the places the
commune publishes announcements (e.g., a boards, walls, websites).
As the number of communes grows (we make this assumption on the success of
the initial commune, corroborated with the similarity between communes), and
money cash in, we plan to invest some of the profit back in marketing campaigns,
with extensive help from our CBS students. We have planned 15000 DKK in 2015
for marketing campaigns.
The commune may be interested in publishing ads, and have their channels setup
already. We may use for example the following channels:
Governmental websites: draw the attention onto the public that such a
service exists (example campaign, conservative: and a happy John Doe
with the Commune name and a number of 500 cases solved behind).
Flyers, in the rooms: in waiting rooms and against exits.
Public transport, trains and highway.
Social networks, such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google+ and local
social places, such as Rejseplanen, DMI and Krak (example campaign:
21
A report written by the European Travel Commission (2012), which states that more than 50% of
the population has smart devices and the number is quickly increasing (by 33% between 2011 and
2012).
21
every line you understand in your tax statement, a kitten is born - and show a
kitten, to be more viral)
Marketing in the private sector
As we move on in time and we open for private businesses, we will expand the
marketing channels towards the customers we will find suitable at that time
through subsequent studies. We have modelled the growth of funds allocated to
marketing, from 5000 DKK in Q3 2015 to 450000 DKK in Q4 2019.
We are aware that our expansion in the private Danish sector is easier if we
solved problems for the commune or a corporation in Denmark already, but the
United States works on a different model. There startups usually start with
delivering results from day 1. We hope that our knowledge with the communes
and our iterations in the Danish private sector will help us shortcut some steps in
expanding there. We know that the United States corporate are constantly willing
to better measure and improve the performance of their employees, and our tool
will help them do just that - for a little cost.
While not modelled in the budget, we aim to provide incentives for innovators
and early adopters. These may be discounts or premium services, which will be
decided after deeply studying the market there. A more interesting way would be
to mention them and their results in our commercials - double marketing.
Risks
Our marketing risks are minimal, as the communes do not need special setup for
the system. The sums of money are also limited for a commune with a few
employees.
Finances
6 year financial projections
Our cost of production is almost none since we are a software company. The only
cost that can be considered in this category is the price we pay for hosting.
Using our initial calculations, our service is profitable, but it takes 4 years to
mature and gain significant momentum. This is achieved after a consistent push
into the US market, performed by injecting earned funds into advertising and
expanding onto multiple networks. By year 2019 a profit of 40 million DKK is
expected.
22
The cash flow shows the same increase as the summary graph. We have a slow
start, but the breakthrough in the US generates big profits.
Product price
Our target demographic consists of businesses which afford to pay the price of
our service of 250 dkk per employee. Having this cost we can sustain ourselves.
Labour costs
In order for our business to be viable we need to keep our salaries quite low and
use interns as much as possible. In year 2018 we will have heftier salaries.
Start-up investments
For financing our startup we use our own savings at the beginning. We rely on
this funding as much as possible, and we do not include possible funding from
23
startup accelerators. We include as investment the savings that we gather each
quarter as part-time software developers in regular jobs.
Shares
We wish to keep the ownership majority onto our venture. For this reason, Vlad
and Florin have taken 25% of the share value, and an extra of 1 share for each -
totalling 50% +1. The remaining shares are split among the two other board
members. A 30% amount is reserved for further investors and employees:
Exit option
Our service relies on endorsing employees. This is similar to the business
conducted by LinkedIn, which could be considered as an exit strategy.
We can see that in the 2017 our business becomes a possible venture case. We
have considered venture capital, but we chose to rely on our own powers to get
our product up and running. This will offer us freedom in developing our product
as we and our customers like.
24
Risks
Our main risk is not having enough self-funding to get through the development
phase and gather initial clients. An additional risk is that we do not get enough
traction to the clients, which would mean again that we will not have enough
money to sustain our team.
The risk for the communes is small, as the data is used for quality of progress
measurements. By the time we work with multiple communes, we already have
changed our company corporate type, which protects the founders from damage.
The sums of money are also limited from the perspective of the government.
25
Sensitivity analysis
Five forces
SWOT Analysis
Performing the SWOT analysis shows that we are able to deliver the product but
we dont have startup experience beforehand, which could hinder our ability to
do the business side of the startup. We hope we can ask our CBS students for help.
Strengths
very good software builders
agile small team
first to try this market
common engineering backgrounds
of founders
expertise in software development
gathered from working in global
engineering companies
Weaknesses
no startup experience beforehand
minimal visibility at the dawn of the
business, even with CBS students
limited marketing knowledge, even with
CBS students
26
Opportunities
untapped market, become leaders
improve lives of many people in the
commune
extend to the big US cash cow
Threats
another small agile team implementing
the same model
slow adoption phase, that could stop us
from continuing development
Annexes
Annex A. Quantitative questions & purpose
Annex A1. Quantitative answers and stats
Annex A1a. Smartphone types in all surveyed communities
Annex A1b. Smartphone types in the Copenhagen commune
Annex B. Qualitative questions & purpose
Annex B1. Qualitative interview 1 & interpretation
Annex C1. Venture Cup judge feedback 1 & interpretation
Annex C2. Venture Cup judge feedback 2 & interpretation
Annex D. Budget
27
Annex A. Quantitative questions purpose
Questions
Purpose: to be able to compare responses based on municipalities
What municipality do you belong to?
Purpose: to see how often people visit municipalities
How often do you visit the municipality center, on a yearly basis?
Never
1 - 3 times a year
4 - 10 times a year
11+ times a year
Purpose: to see whether the municipalities provide bad service; to see how many
seem to never have had a bad service
Have you ever received bad service at your municipality center?
Yes
No
Purpose: to see whether the municipalities provide good service; to see how many
seem to never have had a good service
Have you ever received good service at your municipality center?
Yes
No
Purpose: to quantify the overall quality of service for the municipalities
On a scale from 1 - 5, how would you rate the service at your municipality center?
1 = Incredibly bad 5 = Amazingly good
Annex A. Quantitative questions purpose
Purpose: to see whether people are thanking for a good service; this may provide
the incentive for more feedback
Yes
No
Purpose: to see whether people wish to share their feedback; deliberately not tied
up to the commune in particular, as the concept is new and the people may have
not understood
Have you ever wanted to share the fact that you received good service (from
anywhere)?
Yes
No
Purpose: to see the amount of people who own a smartphone
Do you own a smartphone? (e.g. an iPhone, a Samsung Galaxy or similar with a
touch screen)
Yes
No
I dont know what a smartphone is
Purpose: to pinpoint the exact make and model, which would easily allow us to
see what technologies they are compatible with; this would of course allow us to
target particular technologies with higher priority and return of investment
If you have a smartphone, what make and model do you have?
Municipality Frequency Bad service Good service Rating of quality Express gratitude Feel like sharing Have smartphone Smartphone type
gentofte aldrig nej ja 3 ja nej nej -
herlev 1 - 3 gange om ret ja ja 3 nej nej nej -
kbenhavn 1 - 3 gange om ret nej nej 3 nej nej ja -
kbenhavn 1 - 3 gange om ret ja ja 4 nej nej nej -
kbenhavn 1 - 3 gange om ret nej ja 3 ja nej nej -
kbenhavn 1 - 3 gange om ret nej ja 3 ja nej nej -
kbenhavn 1 - 3 gange om ret nej ja 3 nej ja nej -
kbenhavn aldrig nej nej 1 nej ja nej -
kbenhavn aldrig nej nej 3 nej ja nej -
lyngby- aldrig nej ja 4 nej nej nej -
skanderborg 1 - 3 gange om ret nej ja 3 nej ja ja -
kbenhavn 1 - 3 gange om ret nej ja 4 ja ja ja asus
kbenhavn aldrig nej ja 4 nej ja ja htc
kbenhavn aldrig nej nej 3 nej nej ja htc desire
kbenhavn 1 - 3 gange om ret nej ja 3 nej nej ja htc one
kbenhavn aldrig nej nej 3 nej nej ja htc rhyme
lejre aldrig nej ja 4 ja ja ja htc sensation z710e
odense aldrig nej nej 3 nej nej ja htc wildfire
gladsaxe aldrig nej nej 3 nej nej ja huawei
gladsaxe 1 - 3 gange om ret nej ja 4 ja ja ja huawei ascend y300
frederiksberg aldrig nej ja 3 nej nej ja iphone
gladsaxe 1 - 3 gange om ret nej nej 3 nej nej ja iphone
glostrup aldrig nej ja 3 nej nej ja iphone
kbenhavn aldrig ja ja 3 ja nej ja iphone
kbenhavn 1 - 3 gange om ret nej ja 3 nej nej ja iphone
kbenhavn aldrig nej ja 4 ja nej ja iphone
ballerup 4 - 10 gange om ja ja 3 nej nej ja iphone 3
gladsaxe 1 - 3 gange om ret ja ja 3 ja ja ja iphone 3gs
kbenhavn 1 - 3 gange om ret nej ja 4 nej ja ja iphone 3gs
aarhus 1 - 3 gange om ret nej ja 3 ja nej ja iphone 3s
frederikssund 4 - 10 gange om nej ja 3 ja ja ja iphone 4
gentofte 4 - 10 gange om ja ja 3 ja ja ja iphone 4
Annex A1. Quantitative study responses - Raw
holbk aldrig nej nej 3 nej ja ja iphone 4
kbenhavn 1 - 3 gange om ret ja ja 3 ja ja ja iphone 4
lejre 1 - 3 gange om ret nej ja 4 ja nej ja iphone 4
slagelse 1 - 3 gange om ret nej ja 3 ja ja ja iphone 4
frederiksberg 1 - 3 gange om ret nej ja 4 nej nej ja iphone 4s
gentofte 1 - 3 gange om ret nej nej 3 ja nej ja iphone 4s
gladsaxe 1 - 3 gange om ret nej ja 4 nej nej ja iphone 4s
gladsaxe 1 - 3 gange om ret nej ja 4 nej nej ja iphone 4s
kbenhavn aldrig nej ja 3 nej nej ja iphone 4s
kbenhavn aldrig nej nej 2 nej nej ja iphone 4s
lejre 1 - 3 gange om ret ja ja 3 ja nej ja iphone 4s
lejre aldrig nej ja 4 ja ja ja iphone 4s
lyngby- aldrig nej ja 3 nej ja ja iphone 4s
frederiksberg 1 - 3 dange om ret ja ja 3 nej ja ja iphone 5
kbenhavn 1 - 3 gange om ret ja ja 4 nej nej ja iphone 5
kbenhavn 1 - 3 gange om ret ja ja 3 nej nej ja iphone 5
rudersdal 1 - 3 gange om ret nej ja 4 ja ja ja iphone 5
vallensbk aldrig ja ja 4 ja nej ja iphone 5
lyngby- aldrig nej nej 3 nej nej ja iphone 5c
esbjerg aldrig nej ja 3 nej nej ja lg g2
lyngby- 1 - 3 gange om ret ja ja 3 ja nej ja lg nexus
gentofte aldrig nej ja 3 nej ja ja lg nexus 4
gladsaxe 1 - 3 gange om ret nej nej 3 nej ja ja lg nexus 4
rudersdal aldrig nej nej 3 nej nej ja lg nexus 4
kbenhavn aldrig nej nej 3 nej nej ja lg nexus 5
kbenhavn aldrig nej ja 4 nej nej ja lg optimus g pro
kbenhavn 1 - 3 gange om ret ja ja 4 ja nej nej nokia
frederikssund 4 - 10 gange om ja ja 4 ja ja ja samsung
lyngby- aldrig nej nej 3 nej nej ja samsung
frederikssund aldrig nej ja 4 ja nej ja samsung galaxy
frederikssund 1 - 3 gange om ret nej ja 3 nej ja ja samsung galaxy s2
kbenhavn 1 - 3 gange om ret nej nej 3 nej nej ja samsung galaxy s3
kbenhavn aldrig ja ja 3 nej ja ja samsung galaxy s3
kbenhavn aldrig nej ja 4 ja nej ja samsung galaxy s4
glostrup 1 - 3 gange om ret nej ja 3 nej ja ja samsung galaxy s4 mini
lyngby- 1 - 3 gange om ret ja nej 2 nej nej ja samsung i9100
frederikssund 1 - 3 gange om ret nej nej 3 nej nej ja sony xperia
svendborg aldrig nej nej 3 nej ja ja sony xperia
gladsaxe 1 - 3 gange om ret nej ja 4 ja ja ja sony xperia go
gladsaxe aldrig nej ja 3 nej ja ja sony xperia go
kbenhavn 1 - 3 gange om ret nej ja 4 ja nej ja sony xperia go
gladsaxe aldrig nej ja 4 nej nej ja sony xperia ray m
gladsaxe aldrig nej ja 3 nej nej ja sony xperia x10i
Municipality Frequency Unique Frequency
frederiksberg 1 - 3 gange om ret 1 - 3 gange om ret 37
herlev 1 - 3 gange om ret 4 - 10 gange om 4
kbenhavn 1 - 3 gange om ret aldrig 36
kbenhavn 1 - 3 gange om ret
skanderborg 1 - 3 gange om ret
gladsaxe 1 - 3 gange om ret
aarhus 1 - 3 gange om ret
lejre 1 - 3 gange om ret
slagelse 1 - 3 gange om ret
frederiksberg 1 - 3 gange om ret
gentofte 1 - 3 gange om ret
lejre 1 - 3 gange om ret
rudersdal 1 - 3 gange om ret
lyngby- 1 - 3 gange om ret
Annex A1. Quantitative study responses - Frequency all
frederikssund 1 - 3 gange om ret
glostrup 1 - 3 gange om ret
lyngby- 1 - 3 gange om ret
ballerup 4 - 10 gange om ret
gentofte 4 - 10 gange om ret
gentofte aldrig
kbenhavn aldrig
kbenhavn aldrig
lyngby- aldrig
kbenhavn aldrig
kbenhavn aldrig
kbenhavn aldrig
lejre aldrig
odense aldrig
gladsaxe aldrig
frederiksberg aldrig
glostrup aldrig
kbenhavn aldrig
kbenhavn aldrig
holbk aldrig
kbenhavn aldrig
kbenhavn aldrig
kbenhavn aldrig
lejre aldrig
lyngby- aldrig
vallensbk aldrig
lyngby- aldrig
kbenhavn aldrig
esbjerg aldrig
gentofte aldrig
rudersdal aldrig
kbenhavn aldrig
kbenhavn aldrig
lyngby- aldrig
frederikssund aldrig
kbenhavn aldrig
kbenhavn aldrig
svendborg aldrig
gladsaxe aldrig
gladsaxe aldrig
gladsaxe aldrig
Average Median Mode
Municipality Frequency Estimate 1.3247 2 2
frederiksberg 1 - 3 dange om ret 2
herlev 1 - 3 gange om ret 2
kbenhavn 1 - 3 gange om ret 2
skanderborg 1 - 3 gange om ret 2
gladsaxe 1 - 3 gange om ret 2
aarhus 1 - 3 gange om ret 2
lejre 1 - 3 gange om ret 2
slagelse 1 - 3 gange om ret 2
frederiksberg 1 - 3 gange om ret 2
gentofte 1 - 3 gange om ret 2
rudersdal 1 - 3 gange om ret 2
lyngby- 1 - 3 gange om ret 2
Annex A1. Quantitative study responses - Frequency stats all
Average Median Mode
frederikssund 1 - 3 gange om ret 2
glostrup 1 - 3 gange om ret 2
ballerup 4 - 10 gange om 7
frederikssund 4 - 10 gange om 7
gentofte 4 - 10 gange om 7
gentofte aldrig 0
kbenhavn aldrig 0
kbenhavn aldrig 0
lyngby- aldrig 0
kbenhavn aldrig 0
kbenhavn aldrig 0
kbenhavn aldrig 0
lejre aldrig 0
odense aldrig 0
gladsaxe aldrig 0
frederiksberg aldrig 0
glostrup aldrig 0
kbenhavn aldrig 0
kbenhavn aldrig 0
holbk aldrig 0
Average Median Mode
kbenhavn aldrig 0
kbenhavn aldrig 0
kbenhavn aldrig 0
lejre aldrig 0
lyngby- aldrig 0
vallensbk aldrig 0
lyngby- aldrig 0
kbenhavn aldrig 0
esbjerg aldrig 0
gentofte aldrig 0
rudersdal aldrig 0
kbenhavn aldrig 0
kbenhavn aldrig 0
lyngby- aldrig 0
frederikssund aldrig 0
kbenhavn aldrig 0
kbenhavn aldrig 0
svendborg aldrig 0
gladsaxe aldrig 0
gladsaxe aldrig 0
gladsaxe aldrig 0
Average Median Mode
aarhus 1 - 3 gange om ret 2
ballerup 4 - 10 gange om 7
esbjerg aldrig 0
frederiksberg 1 - 3 dange om ret 2
frederiksberg 1 - 3 gange om ret 2
frederiksberg aldrig 0
frederikssund aldrig 0
gentofte 1 - 3 gange om ret 2
gentofte 4 - 10 gange om 7
gentofte aldrig 0
gentofte aldrig 0
gladsaxe aldrig 0
gladsaxe aldrig 0
gladsaxe aldrig 0
gladsaxe aldrig 0
glostrup 1 - 3 gange om ret 2
glostrup aldrig 0
Annex A1. Quantitative study responses - Frequency stats KBH
Average Median Mode
herlev 1 - 3 gange om ret 2
holbk aldrig 0
kbenhavn 1 - 3 gange om ret 2 1 1 2
kbenhavn aldrig 0
kbenhavn aldrig 0
kbenhavn aldrig 0
kbenhavn aldrig 0
kbenhavn aldrig 0
kbenhavn aldrig 0
kbenhavn aldrig 0
kbenhavn aldrig 0
kbenhavn aldrig 0
kbenhavn aldrig 0
kbenhavn aldrig 0
kbenhavn aldrig 0
Average Median Mode
kbenhavn aldrig 0
kbenhavn aldrig 0
kbenhavn aldrig 0
lejre aldrig 0
lejre aldrig 0
lyngby- aldrig 0
lyngby- aldrig 0
lyngby- aldrig 0
lyngby- aldrig 0
odense aldrig 0
rudersdal 1 - 3 gange om ret 2
rudersdal aldrig 0
skanderborg 1 - 3 gange om ret 2
slagelse 1 - 3 gange om ret 2
svendborg aldrig 0
vallensbk aldrig 0
Municipality Bad service Unique Frequency
gentofte nej nej 60
herlev ja ja 17
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn nej
lyngby- nej
skanderborg nej
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn nej
lejre nej
odense nej
gladsaxe nej
gladsaxe nej
frederiksberg nej
gladsaxe nej
glostrup nej
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn nej
ballerup ja
gladsaxe ja
kbenhavn nej
Annex A1. Quantitative study responses - Bad service histogram all
aarhus nej
frederikssund nej
gentofte ja
holbk nej
kbenhavn ja
lejre nej
slagelse nej
frederiksberg nej
gentofte nej
gladsaxe nej
gladsaxe nej
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn nej
lejre ja
lejre nej
lyngby- nej
frederiksberg ja
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn ja
rudersdal nej
vallensbk ja
lyngby- nej
kbenhavn nej
esbjerg nej
lyngby- ja
gentofte nej
gladsaxe nej
rudersdal nej
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn ja
frederikssund ja
lyngby- nej
frederikssund nej
frederikssund nej
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn nej
glostrup nej
lyngby- ja
frederikssund nej
svendborg nej
gladsaxe nej
gladsaxe nej
kbenhavn nej
gladsaxe nej
gladsaxe nej
aarhus nej
ballerup ja
esbjerg nej
frederiksberg nej
frederiksberg nej
frederiksberg ja
frederikssund nej
frederikssund ja
frederikssund nej
frederikssund nej
frederikssund nej
gentofte nej
gentofte ja
gentofte nej
gentofte nej
gladsaxe nej
gladsaxe nej
gladsaxe nej
gladsaxe ja
gladsaxe nej
gladsaxe nej
gladsaxe nej
gladsaxe nej
gladsaxe nej
gladsaxe nej
gladsaxe nej
glostrup nej
glostrup nej
herlev ja
Annex A1. Quantitative study responses - Bad service KBH
holbk nej
kbenhavn nej nej 23
kbenhavn ja ja 7
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn nej
lejre nej
lejre nej
lejre ja
lejre nej
lyngby- nej
lyngby- nej
lyngby- nej
lyngby- ja
lyngby- nej
lyngby- ja
odense nej
rudersdal nej
rudersdal nej
skanderborg nej
slagelse nej
svendborg nej
vallensbk ja
Municipality Good service Unique Frequency
gentofte ja ja 55
herlev ja nej 22
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn nej
lyngby- ja
skanderborg ja
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn nej
lejre ja
odense nej
gladsaxe nej
gladsaxe ja
frederiksberg ja
gladsaxe nej
glostrup ja
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn ja
ballerup ja
gladsaxe ja
kbenhavn ja
Annex A1. Quantitative study responses - Good service all
aarhus ja
frederikssund ja
gentofte ja
holbk nej
kbenhavn ja
lejre ja
slagelse ja
frederiksberg ja
gentofte nej
gladsaxe ja
gladsaxe ja
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn nej
lejre ja
lejre ja
lyngby- ja
frederiksberg ja
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn ja
rudersdal ja
vallensbk ja
lyngby- nej
kbenhavn nej
esbjerg ja
lyngby- ja
gentofte ja
gladsaxe nej
rudersdal nej
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn ja
frederikssund ja
lyngby- nej
frederikssund ja
frederikssund ja
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn ja
glostrup ja
lyngby- nej
frederikssund nej
svendborg nej
gladsaxe ja
gladsaxe ja
kbenhavn ja
gladsaxe ja
gladsaxe ja
aarhus ja
ballerup ja
esbjerg ja
frederiksberg ja
frederiksberg ja
frederiksberg ja
frederikssund ja
frederikssund ja
frederikssund ja
frederikssund ja
frederikssund nej
gentofte ja
gentofte ja
gentofte nej
gentofte ja
gladsaxe nej
gladsaxe ja
gladsaxe nej
gladsaxe ja
gladsaxe ja
gladsaxe ja
gladsaxe nej
gladsaxe ja
gladsaxe ja
gladsaxe ja
gladsaxe ja
glostrup ja
glostrup ja
herlev ja
Annex A1. Quantitative study responses - Good service KBH
holbk nej
kbenhavn nej nej 10
kbenhavn ja ja 20
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn nej
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn ja
kbenhavn ja
lejre ja
lejre ja
lejre ja
lejre ja
lyngby- ja
lyngby- ja
lyngby- nej
lyngby- ja
lyngby- nej
lyngby- nej
odense nej
rudersdal ja
rudersdal nej
skanderborg ja
slagelse ja
svendborg nej
vallensbk ja
Municipality Bad service Good service Rating of quality Municipality Good per not good Municipality Bad per not bad Municipality Average rating Relevance
gentofte nej ja 3 herlev 1 herlev 1 vallensbk 4 1
herlev ja ja 3 skanderborg 1 ballerup 1 lejre 3.75 4
kbenhavn nej nej 3 lejre 1 vallensbk 1 rudersdal 3.5 2
kbenhavn ja ja 4 frederiksberg 1 lyngby- 0.3333 gladsaxe 3.4545 11
kbenhavn nej ja 3 glostrup 1 frederiksberg 0.3333 frederikssund 3.4 5
kbenhavn nej ja 3 ballerup 1 gentofte 0.25 frederiksberg 3.3333 3
kbenhavn nej ja 3 aarhus 1 lejre 0.25 kbenhavn 3.2333 30
kbenhavn nej nej 1 slagelse 1 kbenhavn 0.2333 herlev 3 1
kbenhavn nej nej 3 vallensbk 1 frederikssund 0.2 ballerup 3 1
lyngby- nej ja 4 esbjerg 1 gladsaxe 0.0909 lyngby-taarbk 3 6
skanderborg nej ja 3 frederikssund 0.8 skanderborg 0 gentofte 3 4
kbenhavn nej ja 4 gentofte 0.75 odense 0 skanderborg 3 1
kbenhavn nej ja 4 gladsaxe 0.7273 glostrup 0 odense 3 1
kbenhavn nej nej 3 kbenhavn 0.6667 aarhus 0 glostrup 3 2
kbenhavn nej ja 3 lyngby- 0.5 holbk 0 aarhus 3 1
kbenhavn nej nej 3 rudersdal 0.5 slagelse 0 holbk 3 1
lejre nej ja 4 odense 0 rudersdal 0 slagelse 3 1
odense nej nej 3 holbk 0 esbjerg 0 esbjerg 3 1
gladsaxe nej nej 3 svendborg 0 svendborg 0 svendborg 3 1
gladsaxe nej ja 4
frederiksberg nej ja 3
gladsaxe nej nej 3
glostrup nej ja 3
kbenhavn ja ja 3
kbenhavn nej ja 3
kbenhavn nej ja 4
ballerup ja ja 3
gladsaxe ja ja 3
kbenhavn nej ja 4
aarhus nej ja 3
frederikssund nej ja 3
gentofte ja ja 3
holbk nej nej 3
kbenhavn ja ja 3
Annex A1. Quantitative study responses - Champion communes
lejre nej ja 4
slagelse nej ja 3
frederiksberg nej ja 4
gentofte nej nej 3
gladsaxe nej ja 4
gladsaxe nej ja 4
kbenhavn nej ja 3
kbenhavn nej nej 2
kbenhavn nej nej 3
lejre ja ja 3
lejre nej ja 4
lyngby- nej ja 3
frederiksberg ja ja 3
kbenhavn ja ja 4
kbenhavn ja ja 3
rudersdal nej ja 4
vallensbk ja ja 4
lyngby- nej nej 3
kbenhavn nej nej 3
esbjerg nej ja 3
lyngby- ja ja 3
gentofte nej ja 3
gladsaxe nej nej 3
rudersdal nej nej 3
kbenhavn nej nej 3
kbenhavn nej ja 4
kbenhavn ja ja 4
frederikssund ja ja 4
lyngby- nej nej 3
kbenhavn nej nej 3
kbenhavn ja ja 3
kbenhavn nej ja 4
glostrup nej ja 3
lyngby- ja nej 2
frederikssund nej nej 3
svendborg nej nej 3
gladsaxe nej ja 4
gladsaxe nej ja 3
kbenhavn nej ja 4
gladsaxe nej ja 4
gladsaxe nej ja 3
Municipality Feel like sharing Have smartphone Municipalities Relevance Willing smartphone Not willing smartphone Willing no smartphone Not willing no smartphone Can do Can do % Would do Would do
aarhus nej ja aarhus 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
ballerup nej ja ballerup 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
esbjerg nej ja esbjerg 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
frederiksberg nej ja frederiksberg 3 1 2 0 0 1 33.33 1 33.33
frederiksberg nej ja frederikssund 5 3 2 0 0 3 60 3 60
frederiksberg ja ja gentofte 4 2 1 0 1 2 50 2 50
frederikssund ja ja gladsaxe 11 5 6 0 0 5 45.45 5 45.45
frederikssund ja ja glostrup 2 1 1 0 0 1 50 1 50
frederikssund nej ja herlev 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
frederikssund ja ja holbk 1 1 0 0 0 1 100 1 100
frederikssund nej ja kbenhavn 30 5 18 3 4 5 16.67 8 26.67
gentofte nej nej lejre 4 2 2 0 0 2 50 2 50
gentofte ja ja lyngby- 6 1 4 0 1 1 16.67 1 16.67
gentofte nej ja odense 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
gentofte ja ja rudersdal 2 1 1 0 0 1 50 1 50
gladsaxe nej ja skanderborg 1 1 0 0 0 1 100 1 100
gladsaxe ja ja slagelse 1 1 0 0 0 1 100 1 100
gladsaxe nej ja svendborg 1 1 0 0 0 1 100 1 100
gladsaxe ja ja vallensbk 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
gladsaxe nej ja total 77 25 42 3 7 25 28
gladsaxe nej ja percent 100 32.47 54.55 3.9 9.09 32.47 36.36
gladsaxe ja ja
gladsaxe ja ja
gladsaxe ja ja
gladsaxe nej ja
gladsaxe nej ja
glostrup nej ja
glostrup ja ja
herlev nej nej
holbk ja ja
kbenhavn nej ja
kbenhavn nej nej
kbenhavn nej nej
kbenhavn nej nej
kbenhavn ja nej
kbenhavn ja nej
kbenhavn ja nej
kbenhavn ja ja
kbenhavn ja ja
kbenhavn nej ja
kbenhavn nej ja
kbenhavn nej ja
kbenhavn nej ja
kbenhavn nej ja
Annex A1. Quantitative study responses - Smartphone and willing market all
kbenhavn nej ja
kbenhavn ja ja
kbenhavn ja ja
kbenhavn nej ja
kbenhavn nej ja
kbenhavn nej ja
kbenhavn nej ja
kbenhavn nej ja
kbenhavn nej ja
kbenhavn nej ja
kbenhavn nej ja
kbenhavn nej nej
kbenhavn nej ja
kbenhavn ja ja
kbenhavn nej ja
kbenhavn nej ja
lejre ja ja
lejre nej ja
lejre nej ja
lejre ja ja
lyngby- nej nej
lyngby- ja ja
lyngby- nej ja
lyngby- nej ja
lyngby- nej ja
lyngby- nej ja
odense nej ja
rudersdal ja ja
rudersdal nej ja
skanderborg ja ja
slagelse ja ja
svendborg ja ja
vallensbk nej ja
Annex A1. Quantitative study responses - Smartphone and willing market all
aarhus nej ja
ballerup nej ja
esbjerg nej ja
frederiksberg nej ja
frederiksberg nej ja
frederiksberg ja ja
frederikssund ja ja
frederikssund ja ja
frederikssund nej ja
frederikssund ja ja
frederikssund nej ja kbenhavn 30 5 18 3 4 5 16.67 8 26.67
gentofte nej nej
gentofte ja ja
gentofte nej ja
gentofte ja ja
gladsaxe nej ja
gladsaxe ja ja
gladsaxe nej ja
gladsaxe ja ja
gladsaxe nej ja total 30 5 18 3 4 5 8
gladsaxe nej ja percent 100 16.67 60 10 13.33 16.67 26.67
gladsaxe ja ja
gladsaxe ja ja
gladsaxe ja ja
gladsaxe nej ja
gladsaxe nej ja
glostrup nej ja
glostrup ja ja
herlev nej nej
holbk ja ja
kbenhavn nej ja
kbenhavn nej nej
kbenhavn nej nej
kbenhavn nej nej
kbenhavn ja nej
kbenhavn ja nej
kbenhavn ja nej
kbenhavn ja ja
kbenhavn ja ja
kbenhavn nej ja
kbenhavn nej ja
kbenhavn nej ja
kbenhavn nej ja
kbenhavn nej ja
Annex A1. Quantitative study responses - Smartphone and willing market KBH
kbenhavn nej ja
kbenhavn ja ja
kbenhavn ja ja
kbenhavn nej ja
kbenhavn nej ja
kbenhavn nej ja
kbenhavn nej ja
kbenhavn nej ja
kbenhavn nej ja
kbenhavn nej ja
kbenhavn nej ja
kbenhavn nej nej
kbenhavn nej ja
kbenhavn ja ja
kbenhavn nej ja
kbenhavn nej ja
lejre ja ja
lejre nej ja
lejre nej ja
lejre ja ja
lyngby- nej nej
lyngby- ja ja
lyngby- nej ja
lyngby- nej ja
lyngby- nej ja
lyngby- nej ja
odense nej ja
rudersdal ja ja
rudersdal nej ja
skanderborg ja ja
slagelse ja ja
svendborg ja ja
vallensbk nej ja
Annex A1. Quantitative study responses - Smartphone and willing market KBH
Municipality Smartphone type Unique Frequency
aarhus iphone 3s iphone 3s 1
ballerup iphone 3 iphone 3 1
esbjerg lg g2 lg g2 1
frederiksberg iphone iphone 6
frederiksberg iphone 4s iphone 4s 10
frederiksberg iphone 5 iphone 5 5
frederikssund iphone 4 iphone 4 6
frederikssund samsung samsung 2
frederikssund samsung galaxy samsung galaxy 1
frederikssund samsung galaxy s2 samsung galaxy s2 1
frederikssund sony xperia sony xperia 2
gentofte - - 11
gentofte iphone 4 lg nexus 4 3
gentofte iphone 4s huawei 1
gentofte lg nexus 4 huawei ascend y300 1
gladsaxe huawei iphone 3gs 2
gladsaxe huawei ascend y300 sony xperia go 3
gladsaxe iphone sony xperia ray m 1
gladsaxe iphone 3gs sony xperia x10i 1
gladsaxe iphone 4s samsung galaxy s4 mini 1
gladsaxe iphone 4s asus 1
gladsaxe lg nexus 4 htc 1
gladsaxe sony xperia go htc desire 1
gladsaxe sony xperia go htc one 1
gladsaxe sony xperia ray m htc rhyme 1
gladsaxe sony xperia x10i iphone 5s 1
glostrup iphone lg nexus 5 1
glostrup samsung galaxy s4 mini lg optimus g pro 1
herlev - nokia 1
Annex A1. Quantitative study responses - Smartphone types all
holbk iphone 4 samsung galaxy s3 2
kbenhavn - samsung galaxy s4 1
kbenhavn - htc sensation z710e 1
kbenhavn - iphone 5c 1
kbenhavn - lg nexus 1
kbenhavn - samsung i9100 1
kbenhavn - htc wildfire 1
kbenhavn -
kbenhavn asus
kbenhavn htc
kbenhavn htc desire
kbenhavn htc one
kbenhavn htc rhyme
kbenhavn iphone
kbenhavn iphone
kbenhavn iphone
kbenhavn iphone 3gs
kbenhavn iphone 4
kbenhavn iphone 4s
kbenhavn iphone 4s
kbenhavn iphone 4s
kbenhavn iphone 5
kbenhavn iphone 5
kbenhavn iphone 5s
kbenhavn lg nexus 5
kbenhavn lg optimus g pro
kbenhavn nokia
kbenhavn samsung galaxy s3
kbenhavn sony xperia go
lejre htc sensation z710e
lejre iphone 4
lejre iphone 4s
lejre iphone 4s
lyngby- -
lyngby- iphone 4s
lyngby- iphone 5c
lyngby- lg nexus
lyngby- samsung
lyngby- samsung i9100
odense htc wildfire
rudersdal iphone 5
rudersdal lg nexus 4
skanderborg -
slagelse iphone 4
svendborg sony xperia
vallensbk iphone 5
aarhus iphone 3s
ballerup iphone 3
esbjerg lg g2
frederiksberg iphone
frederiksberg iphone 4s
frederiksberg iphone 5
frederikssund iphone 4
frederikssund samsung
frederikssund samsung galaxy
frederikssund samsung galaxy s2
frederikssund sony xperia
gentofte -
gentofte iphone 4
gentofte iphone 4s
gentofte lg nexus 4
gladsaxe huawei
gladsaxe huawei ascend y300
gladsaxe iphone
gladsaxe iphone 3gs
gladsaxe iphone 4s
gladsaxe iphone 4s
gladsaxe lg nexus 4
gladsaxe sony xperia go
gladsaxe sony xperia go
gladsaxe sony xperia ray m android
gladsaxe sony xperia x10i
glostrup iphone
glostrup samsung galaxy s4 mini
herlev -
Annex A1. Quantitative study responses - Smartphone types KBH
holbk iphone 4
kbenhavn - - 7
kbenhavn - asus 1
kbenhavn - htc 1
kbenhavn - htc desire 1
kbenhavn - htc one 1
kbenhavn - htc rhyme 1
kbenhavn - iphone 3
kbenhavn asus iphone 3gs 1
kbenhavn htc iphone 4 1
kbenhavn htc desire iphone 4s 3
kbenhavn htc one iphone 5 2
kbenhavn htc rhyme iphone 5s 1
kbenhavn iphone lg nexus 5 1
kbenhavn iphone lg optimus g pro 1
kbenhavn iphone nokia 1
kbenhavn iphone 3gs samsung galaxy s3 2
kbenhavn iphone 4 samsung galaxy s4 1
kbenhavn iphone 4s sony xperia go 1
kbenhavn iphone 4s
kbenhavn iphone 4s
kbenhavn iphone 5
kbenhavn iphone 5
kbenhavn iphone 5s
kbenhavn lg nexus 5
kbenhavn lg optimus g pro
kbenhavn nokia
kbenhavn sony xperia go
lejre htc sensation z710e
lejre iphone 4
lejre iphone 4s
lejre iphone 4s
lyngby- -
lyngby- iphone 4s
lyngby- iphone 5c
lyngby- lg nexus
lyngby- samsung
lyngby- samsung i9100
odense htc wildfire
rudersdal iphone 5
rudersdal lg nexus 4
skanderborg -
slagelse iphone 4
svendborg sony xperia
vallensbk iphone 5
Annex A1. Quantitative study responses - Chart1
Annex A1. Quantitative study responses - Chart2
Annex A1a. Smartphone types in all communes

Annex A1b. Smartphone types in the Copenhagen commune

Annex B. Qualitative questions purpose
Participants
Name - interviewee
Current activity
Level of education
First Name Last Name - interviewer
Basis of interview
Reasons why this person was interviewed
Questions and answers
The interviewee is allowed to discuss around the questions.
The total interview time is 30 minutes.
Purpose: to see whether the person owns a smartphone, and which, if any
What devices do you use when going out? - If you have more, write the ones that
you frequently use (e.g., Samsung Galaxy S4, Nexus 10).
Purpose: to see which recent technologies the smartphone has
Which features do these frequently used devices have? Choose all that apply.
Camera
Permanent internet connection
QR codes
Near field communication (NFC) - if you know
Purpose: to see whether the person uses genera, mainstream social networks
How often do you use these social networks?
not using few times
a month
few times
a week
few times
a day
few times
an hour
Comments
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
Twitter
Purpose: to see whether the person is sensitive to networks for reviewing - a
major difference between these would indicate such a sensitivity - and would help
us understand that this user requests a more narrowed down functionality before
trusting us
How often do you use specialized apps and social to find services?
not using few times
a month
few times
a week
few times
a day
few times
an hour
Comments
Foursquare
TripAdvisor
Yelp
Trustpilot
Krak
Purpose: to seek for any other patterns in social presence, perhaps dependent on
the Danish culture in particular (e.g., countrywide social networks, groups).
If you use other services or apps, what do you use?
Purpose: to see commune interaction patterns, in a general way; most of these
are addressed in the following questions
How do you interact with commune services, and how often?
never 1-3 times
a year
4-10 times
a year
11+ times a
year
Comments
I go onto the street, and
I enter the place
I go with peoples advice
for good places
I know what
department to go
I use a search engine
(such as Google)
I use the governmental
websites
I use their social apps
on my smart device
I have another way
Purpose: to find other ways of interaction with the commune
If you have another way to find services, can you provide an example by
explaining what you do?
Purpose: to find general interaction time with the commune - predict issues of
scalability of our solution early
How often do you interact with the commune?
Never
1-3 times a year
4-10 times a year
11+ times a year
Purpose: to think about commune business; it also provides the mental incentive
for thinking about more problem types the interviewee addressed at the
commune; sometimes they show up later in the responses
What kind of problems did you need solved at the commune?
Purpose: to find if the person is using the internet, and the commune websites
Did you use the website at the commune? If so, which of them?
Purpose: to see how often the website is used - this is important for, e.g.,
marketing options for our product
How often do you interact with the website?

Never
1-3 times a year
4-10 times a year
11+ times a year
Purpose: to see how efficient the website is, in a qualitative form, and to identify
exit points from the website
Could you solve the issues through the website?

Yes, I managed, by going through the options
Yes, I managed, but I asked help from a friend
Yes, I managed, but finally got to a commune person to speak by phone
No, I went to the commune to solve the issue
No, I just gave up on it
Purpose: to see how efficient the website is, in a quantitative form - does this
response match with the previous?
To which extent are you satisfied with the results through the website?
1 - very bad
2 - bad
3 - moderate
4 - good
5 - very good
Purpose: to see how used the phone is
How often do you interact with the commune phone?
Never
1-3 times a year
4-10 times a year
11+ times a year
Purpose: to see how efficient the phone is, in a qualitative form, and to identify
exit points from the website
Could you solve the issues by phone only?

Yes, I managed, by selecting the numeric options
Yes, I managed, but I finally got to a commune person to speak
Purpose: to see how efficient the phone is, in a quantitative form - does this
response match with the previous?
To which extent are you satisfied with the results through the phone?
1 - very bad
2 - bad
3 - moderate
4 - good
5 - very good
Purpose: to see how used the municipality rooms are
Never
1-3 times a year
4-10 times a year
11+ times a year
Purpose: to see if the municipality personnel is totally competent; if not, it is
possible that a bad event is described
Yes
No
Purpose: to see if the municipality personnel is totally flawed; if not, it is possible
that a good event is described
Yes
No
Purpose: to see how efficient the personnel is, and also to compare it with the
ratings for the website and phone services - the better, the more necessary
On a scale from 1 - 5, how would you rate the service at your municipality?
1 - very bad
2 - bad
3 - moderate
4 - good
5 - very good
Purpose: to use it as a connector for the next question, which is more difficult;
most people respond this question with yes
Have you ever thanked someone at a municipality center for good service?
Yes
No
Purpose: to see if there is intent for sharing good service
anywhere)?
Yes
No
Purpose: to see how many clerks are good service providers
How many of the commune clerks provide good customer service?

all of them (I know how to find them)
most of them (there were a few misses)
some of them (some others not so good)
few of them (most were mediocre)
none (am I too picky?)
Purpose: to see used ways of expressing gratitude for good service
When the person provided a good service, what would yo do?
smile to the person
tell him/her how good the service was
contact the manager to praise him/her
ask to write a short message on a guestlist
use my smartphone to rate the service
feel like doing something, but was not entirely sure what to do...
not do anything
something else (please specify)
Purpose: to see whether they wanted to use the internet; if so, to quantify easiness
If you used the Internet to rate the service, how easy was it?
very hard
hard
moderate
easy
very easy
Purpose: to uncover any situation when they are not
Do you feel that your words are listened at the commune?
Purpose: to discover any improvement point
If you feel your words are not listened, what do you think will change it?
Purpose: to quantify the time availability of giving feedback
How much time would you spend to give feedback?
Less than a minute, I am on the run
1-2 minutes
3-5 minutes
5-10 minutes
10 minutes
Purpose: to see if the interviewee would review on mainstream social networks
Where would you share a great service? Choose all that apply.
write on my blog
tweet on Twitter
post on Facebook
post on Google+
post on forums, discussions
do something else (please specify):
Purpose: to see if the interviewee would review on specialized social networks
Where would you endorse a great service? Choose all that apply.
review on Yelp
review on TripAdvisor
review on TrustPilot
checkin on Foursquare
endorse on LinkedIn
use another (please specify)
Demographic questions
1. What age are you?
11-13 years old
14-17 years old
18-24 years old
25-34 years old
35-44 years old
45-54 years old
55-64 years old
65-74 years old
75 years or older
2 What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed? If currently
enrolled, please choose highest degree received.
Elementary or secondary school
High school diploma
Undergraduate degree (BA, BSc, AD, ...)
Graduate degree (MA, MBA, MSc, PhD, ...)
Other (please specify)
3. Are you currently?

Student
Employee
Self-employed
Out of work
Retired
Other (Please Specify)
Discussion if time permits
This should follow the questions. The interviewee is free to discuss his or her
interaction with the commune. Good and bad.
Annex B1. Qualitative questions interview 1
Participants
Bogdan - interviewee
Software development engineer
Engineering degree in computer science
Gentofte commune
Vlad Manea - interviewer
Basis of interview
Young professional, medium interaction with the commune
Uses his smartphone for social networking
A bit conservative (late majority)
The blue text is the response of the interviewee. No blue text for one question
means that the interviewee declined to provide an answer.
Nexus 4
Camera
QR codes
not using few times
a month
few times
a week
few times
a day
few times
an hour
Comments
Facebook o
Google+ o
LinkedIn o
Twitter o
not using few times
a month
few times
a week
few times
a day
few times
an hour
Comments
Foursquare o
TripAdvisor o
Yelp o
Trustpilot o
Krak o
Endomondo, Quora
never 1-3 times
a year
4-10 times
a year
11+ times a
year
Comments
I enter the place
o
for good places
o
I know what
department to go
o
(such as Google)
o
websites
o
on my smart device
o
I have another way see below
I call them by phone
Never
1-3 times a year
4-10 times a year
11+ times a year
pension (they send me messages), mail, scholarship (not much) - email / internet
tax (phone or in person)
Yes, I used the tax and the borger websites.

Never
1-3 times a year
4-10 times a year
11+ times a year

Depending on what I did:
Could not do tax for next year, so I went to the commune
Could solve my vacation money (feriekonto) directly on the website
Could solve tax discounts by phone only
1 - very bad
2 - bad
3 - moderate
4 - good
5 - very good
Never
1-3 times a year
4-10 times a year
11+ times a year

1 - very bad
2 - bad
3 - moderate
4 - good
5 - very good
Never
1-3 times a year
4-10 times a year
11+ times a year
Yes
No
Yes
No
1 - very bad
2 - bad
3 - moderate
4 - good
5 - very good
Yes
No
anywhere)?
Yes
No

smile to the person
not do anything
Just said thank you
very hard
hard
moderate
easy
very easy
Sometimes they didnt know and could not help me (tax reduction, Gentofte did
not know), and I had to call by phone, and those knew. Generally, they know.
1-2 minutes
3-5 minutes
5-10 minutes
10 minutes
I would spend 10 minutes if it were a survey, but once a year tops
write on my blog
tweet on Twitter
post on Facebook
post on Google+
review on Yelp
endorse on LinkedIn
What age are you?
11-13 years old
14-17 years old
18-24 years old
25-34 years old
35-44 years old
45-54 years old
55-64 years old
65-74 years old
75 years or older
What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed? If currently
High school diploma
Are you currently?

Student
Employee
Self-employed
Out of work
Retired
Interpretation
The interviewee owns a new generation smartphone, equipped with the latest
technologies. He is an experienced mainstream social network user, scoring high
on Facebook and LinkedIn, and moderate on Google+, yet he does not respond to
more specialized networks. Following the study, it seems that he is the
professional sporty type, so we can assume he is mostly on the move.
His interactions with the commune consists in normal tasks, such as pension,
mail, scholarship and tax. He is within the mean and average visit frequency,
when compared to the quantitative study. He is well informed and uses a
combination of phone, website and visits, depending on the task at hand.
Sometimes he needs a person to speak to him by phone, or has to go down the
street and solve his problem.
He is rather reluctant to share his thoughts about the commune due to time
limits, but he would give more time if rarely asked to fill a questionnaire to help
the commune improve their service. He observes a lack of knowledge in some of
the headquarters employees (just like Mogens Petersen did in his answers), which
obliges for extra phone calls. He is willing to post his experience on Facebook.
Participants
Mogens - interviewee
International sales manager
Bachelors of science in high voltage electric
Ruderdsal commune
Basis of interview
Senior citizen with long term, normal commune interaction
Based in the Rudersdal kommune, located in Holte
Understands computers, owner of more 1980s units
Overwhelmed by nowadays software, which got out of control and is unusable
Wishes things go back to normal, when you could really get help from a person
Category of laggard user
The blue text is the response of the interviewee. No blue text for one question
means that the interviewee declined to provide an answer.
Samsung Galaxy S3.
Camera
QR codes
I have one, but I wont pay for any internet connection.
not using few times
a month
few times
a week
few times
a day
few times
an hour
Comments
Facebook o
Google+ o
LinkedIn o
Twitter o
not using few times
a month
few times
a week
few times
a day
few times
an hour
Comments
Foursquare o
TripAdvisor o
Yelp o
Trustpilot o
Krak o
DMI.
never 1-3 times
a year
4-10 times
a year
11+ times a
year
Comments
I enter the place
o
for good places
o
I know what
department to go
o
(such as Google)
o
websites
o
on my smart device
o
I have another way o see below
I can go there personally a few times a year to the office borger in the central
commune house. Normally one entrance boger.dk. Last time to renew my drivers
license.
Not at present.
Never
1-3 times a year
4-10 times a year
11+ times a year
Driver license.
Just Borger. Once a month. But it didnt work (he laughs).

Never
1-3 times a year
4-10 times a year
11+ times a year

Yes, I managed, by going through the options (66%)
(33%)
Two thirds of the time I use it, I do it myself. One third I do a phone call.
Sometimes I cant see the information on the website for more technical
problems.
1 - very bad
2 - bad
3 - moderate
4 - good
5 - very good
Never
1-3 times a year
4-10 times a year
11+ times a year

Yes, I managed, by selecting the numeric options (50%)
Yes, I managed, but I finally got to a commune person to speak (50%)
50% I could manage. The rest I had to wait for a human voice.
1 - very bad
2 - bad
3 - moderate
4 - good
5 - very good
There are things they cant do because they dont know, and they are polite
people. I was not satisfied that the problem was not solved. But I was satisfied
with the person helping me, but he or she couldnt do it.
Never
1-3 times a year
4-10 times a year
11+ times a year
Yes
No
I have to say hey, I have to go to court. But the people themselves werent bad. It
was the system giving me a bad service, and I had to say I didnt tolerate it. Then
it was solved the next day, but not unless I said I will not accept that decision,
you have to make a new one. It is difficult to say in numbers.
Yes
No
1 - very bad
2 - bad
3 - moderate (50%)
4 - good (50%)
5 - very good
Yes
No
anywhere)?
Yes
No
My wife suddenly had to go back to Thailand, and we have difficulty with visa
and told guy in the ministry and he said OK in two hours. But it was a little bit
special. It was a very good service! That was not the commune, but the foreign
service. And I told my friends about it.
Cant tell for sure, but I think most.
smile to the person
not do anything
Tell friends, good or bad: now these stupid fools are (he smiles). They did a
good job yesterday though (referring to an interaction with the commune the
other day).
very hard
hard
moderate
easy
very easy
I dont use it. What is the value I am giving? Is it press this, press that? Or is it a
person I talk to? That is not specified. It could be an awful experience to get in,
and when you finally get to be helped, it then gets excellent. Sometimes, however,
the first part could ruin the last part. Maybe if they offered a way to ask for a
word or two about how it was
When I complained about the bank guarantee they took care about it somehow.
In that specific case, they took care of that criticism. But that was one of the little
times where I did something important at the commune.
I could guess, but I really dont know. I cant threat people by anything
whatsoever, because they are office employment protected. Really dont know
what to answer.
1-2 minutes
3-5 minutes
5-10 minutes
10 minutes
I would stay 20 minutes in the phone, because thats the only option I have. And
hopefully I get a good answer. Which didnt happen yesterday with this browser
problem (he smiles).
write on my blog
tweet on Twitter
post on Facebook
post on Google+
Particular service, that does exactly this, and I can say Yes sir, it was OK!
review on Yelp
endorse on LinkedIn
What age are you?
11-13 years old
14-17 years old
18-24 years old
25-34 years old
35-44 years old
45-54 years old
55-64 years old
65-74 years old
75 years or older
High school diploma
Are you currently?

Student
Employee
Self-employed
Out of work
Retired
Discussion with the interviewee
The commune is nowadays more difficult to get in touch. Internet is bad because
you are stupid to use, or because what you need is hard to find, maybe not
there at all. You really dont know. In many cases, calling whatever sector, they
could not say it, and it happened many times! They could not find it. Normally i
could get some help, but it is not easy to use the internet, not only for me, but also
for the people in the commune office.
In some cases, it would be nice to contact some people to discuss something. But I
feel it is very difficult to do that. My feeling is that it is very difficult to get to the
management of the commune. They were in holiday or I could not reach them
sometimes. If you go to the community, in some part of the public sector it is
extremely difficult to talk with some people who might be able to understand. If
you directly find a fault, they can see it immediately and then correct it. But this
was the public sector, not the community.
My wife has a permanent residence in Denmark, but I had to do a bank guarantee
and I asked then that the guarantee to be stopped. They couldnt do that, so they
asked me to pay for the rest my life. I REFUSED to do this. They asked for their
seniors, and they have done the letter to remove the payment. It was 800 DKK per
year, but for what? This issue is hard to do statistics on. If I didnt fight against
them, I still would have paid for something absolutely not necessary to the bank.
Unless a bad job resulted in a huge bill, then I would do something, and I have
tried once. Result? Zero, nothing whatsoever. 3 lawyers, letters from community
to government, nothing. Not many may have experienced these kind of things,
but I have.
I had one experience some years back, 3-4, it was not the ministry, but the office
just below the ministry. And somebody helped me with making some paperwork
in combination with a tender we were doing, and for this paper, I felt the need to
call him and say thank you because we won that tender and got the order. He
never experienced a phone of thank you before. never. call me anytime you need
any help. dont they ever hear when it goes good or bad? it could be
There is another thing there, I think. If you go there, because that is the only place
you can get an answer, then I expect to have that answer. So I dont feel necessary
to say they did a good job. I have done it once. But normally I would not do that, it
is their job! But this guy was really helpful!
Discussion interpretation
Generally, the interviewee claims that currently information is hard to find, and
sometimes the commune does not know where to find it either. He compares it
with the public sector, where the perspective looks slightly better. In some cases,
he had to go through many steps (letters and 3 lawyers) when the community
makes mistakes. But this is merely because he is stubborn enough to pursue his
rights. The second to last paragraph was a good sign that he would use a review
service, should this be extremely easy to grasp.
People should be able to interact with our system without having an internet
connection. This means that it might be required for the product to be installed on
its location. The interviewee is not using social networks. This indicates that our
product may have to be highly specialized in order for people to actually trust it
and use it. The interviewee is not using specialized social networks. This indicates
that our product must not only be specialized, but also that its purpose is clearly
stated for the users to understand. They have to feel in control of their interaction
with the system. He does not trust user interfaces that lead nowhere. We have all
seen them, didnt we? He would prefer some place where he can be gently asked
for opinion, and he would be willing to give one.
The interviewee uses the internet and commune websites to find information
monthly. He goes to the commune less often, which indicates a moderate number
of presumed interactions with the system. In his opinion, the commune website is
adequate, but human customer interaction is still important - especially for more
special problems. On a more general note, this proves, at least for the moment,
that people cannot be replaced by service providing processes for all tasks. The
commune phone is also adequate, but human customer interaction is important
here as well. On a more general note, this proves, at least for the moment, that
people cannot be replaced by service providing processes for all tasks. It also
provides the basis that the phone ranks lower than the internet (50% solved vs
66% solved) in efficiency, until a person gets to the wire.
The interviewee observes a distinction between the quality of interaction and
done criteria for the commune. As a result, a product which assesses the quality
of services must address different dimensions, among which friendliness,
efficiency and competency. The service has multiple dimensions: in this case,
time, which can be mapped to concrete action results (e.g., when you enter and
nobody knows and you are frustrated, vs. somebody finally knows and your
problem is solved). This means that our product must carefully address the timing
of giving feedback. Give feedback too soon, and the citizen will be frustrated and
give a disproportionately bad rating!
While sometimes the problem gets solved, he had to push things happen in a
drastic way. He concludes it is hard to measure, but the problem is there. In the
response, he mentions the system rather than the person, which indicate a
general problem. He saw a positive behaviour outside of the commune, and acted
(even moderately verbose) on it. He is however not into performing a wilful
action as a result of good service, except perhaps word of mouth. 1-2 minutes
would perhaps be a perfect time for a quick rating, and a number of carefully
chosen questions for quality of service reviews.
He has a generally good opinion about how citizens are treated at the commune.
His word somehow tells that the situation could be better. This is consistent with
the option for the rating question, which is 3-4 stars out of 5 for the quality of
service. However, he does not have a concrete view onto how much the citizen
can enforce his rights. It might be the reason for not having a 5 star rating for the
quality of service. Being employment protected here means that if a problem
arises, it is the system who has to solve it, and not a particular clerk. This
indicates a general problem at the community level.
This person is within the median and average of participation frequency within
the municipality. The average and mean have been drawn from the quantitative
survey.
Participants
Alexandru - interviewee
Software development engineer
Engineering degree in computer science
Copenhagen commune
Basis of interview
Young and educated person, using smartphone technology
Several interactions with the commune, resident in Denmark
Willing to locate permanently to Denmark, learning Danish language
Category of early adopter user
The interviewee is allowed to discuss around the questions.
The total interview time is 30 minutes.
Samsung Galaxy S3
Camera
QR codes
not using few times
a month
few times
a week
few times
a day
few times
an hour
Comments
Facebook o
Google+ o
LinkedIn o
Twitter o
not using few times
a month
few times
a week
few times
a day
few times
an hour
Comments
Foursquare o
TripAdvisor o
Yelp o
Trustpilot o
Krak o
Rejseplanen
never 1-3 times
a year
4-10 times
a year
11+ times a
year
Comments
I enter the place
o
for good places
o
I know what
department to go
o
(such as Google)
o
websites
o
on my smart device
o
I have another way
Never
1-3 times a year
4-10 times a year
11+ times a year
To ask about my marriage, and then to announce it
To ask about taxes, I had a problem with tax deduction
The tax website

Never
1-3 times a year
4-10 times a year
11+ times a year

1 - very bad
2 - bad
3 - moderate
4 - good
5 - very good
Never
1-3 times a year
4-10 times a year
11+ times a year

1 - very bad
2 - bad
3 - moderate
4 - good
5 - very good
Never
1-3 times a year
4-10 times a year
11+ times a year
Yes
No
Yes
No
1 - very bad
2 - bad
3 - moderate
4 - good
5 - very good
Yes
No
anywhere)?
Yes
No

smile to the person
not do anything
very hard
hard
moderate
easy
very easy
I didnt find where, didnt find a service to offer this and that I know of.
I would like something to be fast, I dont want to lose my time.
Yes
1-2 minutes
3-5 minutes
5-10 minutes
10 minutes
write on my blog
tweet on Twitter
post on Facebook
post on Google+
Particular service, that does exactly this, and I can say Yes sir, it was OK!
review on Yelp
endorse on LinkedIn
What age are you?
11-13 years old
14-17 years old
18-24 years old
25-34 years old
35-44 years old
45-54 years old
55-64 years old
65-74 years old
75 years or older
High school diploma
Are you currently?

Student
Employee
Self-employed
Out of work
Retired
Interpretation
The interviewee uses a smartphone which has new technologies. He appears to be
a Facebook superuser and a normally frequent commune visitor, as compared
with the mean and average from the quantitative study.
He knows where the commune is, but he does not use its website and does not
know the specific departments where he has to go. He prefers friends to help him
through, and does not use the phone service. This perhaps qualifies him as a web
surfer or community visitor - tertium non datur. His activities within the
commune are also normal: he has married recently and is fighting with the tax
system - who isn't? :) but he is overall happy with the service.
He would like to return a smile and a bit more for a good service, yet he does not
know exactly how. As opposed to posting on social networks, he would he happy
to rate the service on a trustworthy and specialized platform, as long as it does
not take him more than one minute of his precious developer & student time.
Annex C1. Venture Cup Feedback 1
Venture Cup Feedback 1
The idea that business can benefit from a direct line with end-users is good.
However, I do find the wsome concept flawed. I might have misunderstood the
concept, but isn't wsome an app similar to Facebook's like button?
I don't understand how the end-user can grade the various products and service
providers. They can give a kudos and that's it? What's in it for the end-user? If
wsome should be a tool of reference there should be a grading system from good
to bad, otherwise how should the user assess the quality? Are 5 kudos good? Or
should it be 100 kudos? What if the company delivers a good product but has 0
kudos, because this particular company hasnt implemented your system? What
if the company does use your system and make all their employees give a kudos?
How do you ensure your data isn't corrupted? How are they supposed to use the
data your provide them with in a credible way? This month we had 10 kudos they
could say. How can they use that data in a constructive way?
I might have misunderstood the concept of wsome, but from an investor point of
view I would refrain from allocating funds toward this project. In case I have
misunderstood, you have a task of communicating the value your concept
delivers in a better way.
This feedback revolves around a number of issues in the initial design. The tone is
strong against, but it is great that we got it sooner than later. :)
The advantages for the user are not clearly stated
This is a problem that guestbooks in restaurants, and established services such as
yelp and foursquare had as well. Why give ratings? In order to do this, we are
currently thinking of a number of options, which are to be compared with help
from actual users, drawn from the population once the minimum viable product
is tested and confirmed.
For the short term, we aim for getting help from the commune to use our app and
invite the citizens to provide ratings. Their benefits, especially of seeing the real
problems of citizens and prioritize activities, courses and trainings for employees
to learn more, at a low cost, incentivize them to make use of the product.
For the long term, and especially for company reviews later in time, having a
higher number of reviews makes the entity more influential in the network. This
model has been successfully deployed on the individual person in different forms
by Quora (invitation-only, which creates user crave to join) and Yelp (premium
membership and access to a group of influencers). The model was applied on the
company level in different forms on LinkedIn (endorsements, all-star profile).
The kudos authenticity is a major issue
This issue is present in all systems to date. Possible approaches revolve around
authenticating the user prior to the share and limiting the number of kudos a
person can give for a particular place in a period of time. Nowadays
authentication does not have to be performed by using a boring form. Smart
devices, such as the iPhone, have fingerprint authentication, and most Android
devices have their users authenticated in the system already. It is highly unlikely
that a citizen provides more than 7 kudos a day for the same service provider.
While the small business could raise their number of reviews artificially, the
relevance of 5 kudos vs 10K kudos is also stated along with the rating.
The review action is too simple to draw data from.
As a result of this survey, but independently through discussions at the
Knowledgebased Entrepreneurship KU course (with, e.g., students Alexander
Gentea and Zsolt Soma Karpati, whom we wish to thank), we have taken into
account a different model based on colors. People are invited to provide stars as
in most known systems (the 5 star model coming from hotels is the easiest). A
rating of 1 star results in a color of red for the company. A rating of 5 stars results
in a color of green.
. .
This color-based star system allows us to draw both a numeric rating, and an easy
to grasp a unique color as the weighted average of rating colors.
The disadvantage of spending maybe 5 seconds more than just clicking a button
saying yes is surpassed by the advantage to obtain relevant numerical data
from the rating. This system is also suitable for multiple rating criteria which are
perceived as independent from the customers (e.g., how nice the clerk is vs to
what amount was the job done).
Venture Cup Feedback 2
It's a crazy idea and I like it. You are focusing on people and you're making an
enjoyable experience out of it.
I am not sure your engagement drivers are sufficiently analyzed. When and why
am I going to download your app? What makes me actually do this in a shopping
situation?
In a way I am thinking about your idea as something that creates value for the
individual - be it clerk, bus driver, waitress or whatever customer-centric role in
question - rather than the business that happens to employ that individual, a bit
like linkedin recommendations but from strangers. I can see some value in that,
and you might even think about linkedin as your exit once you get to 200.000
users. Anyway if you want to address SME's your business case stands with the
figures you list, and you have a very small commercial case to show for.
So I would take your great idea and think about how it could become really big -
think much bigger than what you already have. The cost of acquiring a customer
(a retailer) is probably higher than the couple of dozen euros you can expect
back.
This feedback is more balanced, it confirms some issues observed in the other
feedback and also provides some food for thought.
The advantages for the user are not clearly stated - again
The interpretation for this can be found in the first Venture Cup feedback.
Adding value for the individual is a good incentive for LinkedIn exit
Probably this is why this reviewer thinks the idea is crazy and he or she likes it.
We have got the same tip about LinkedIn when we were at the Knowledgebased
Entrepreneurship KU course from Toke Binzer.
Business case makes sense, try to multiply
While this is a sign of not thinking bold enough, we plan to start in the commune
sector to provide public help for the communes and create user awareness. An
international expansion of our model would depend on each countrys culture,
and is to be addressed separately for each. Corporations, however, tend to agree
on solutions, so closing a deal with a commune is a good start for a corporate to
trust us, and then to go down to SMEs.
Annex D. Budget
README + logfile
Currency unit: kilo DKK
Blue figures are entry data
Opening, 1. Quarter 2014
1. Profit & Loss
2. Assets and Liabilities
Development costs are activated as 80% of staff expenditures
IPR and equipment is depreciated by 25% of the initial asset per year over 4 years
Version 091022
All currency units are now the same. Enter your choice in cell E2.
A reference error in calculating depreciations corrected
Tax payments, two last years moved 1 qt foreward.
Thanks to Nichlas Bornstein
Version 091022 - basic
All entries zeroed
A broken link, line 4 in Profi-Loss yearly has been repaired - to calculate turn-over per employee correctly.
Minor errors (links to currency) corrected. Turn-over per employee verified. OK
No changes but a few more comments for 42435 - 2010
Version 112110 BASIC A: errors: funding capital not included + prd. tools repeated twice ammended
VERSION 110304: small error in loan 3 ammended
SUMMARY SHEET
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total
Profit & Loss 219 135 133 1,511 11,236 38,882
Cash, end year 219 135 133 1,511 11,236 38,882
EBITDA -154 -223 385 2,929 16,202 42,118
Investments 390 200 0 0 0 0 590
Loans 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Exit value with P/E = 7 : 334 mio. DKK
Investors OR 40% 133 mio. DKK
ROI: 253
-5,000
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
EBITDA
Cash, end Year
Investments
Budget on Profit and Loss
kilo DKK 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
REVENUE 1 71 815 4,410 18,900 47,193
Rev./employee, 1000*unit/yr 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 1.7 4.3
COST
Organisation 150 250 350 1,100 1,100 1,100
Rent 0 0 0 0 0 0
Production 0 6 68 370 1,588 3,964
Travels 5 38 11 11 11 11
COSTS 156 294 430 1,481 2,698 5,075
EBITDA -154 -223 385 2,929 16,202 42,118
Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tax 0 0 0 719 3,997 10,396
Depreciations 2 5 14 52 214 535
Amortisation 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sum ITDA 2 5 14 771 4,211 10,931
NET PROFIT-LOSS -156 -228 371 2,158 11,991 31,187
CASH-IN-HAND end yr 219 135 133 1,511 11,236 38,882
Accum investments 390 590 590 590 590 590
EXIT OPPORTUNITY
Price/Earnings ratio (P/E) at exit: 7
Share value n/a n/a 2,696 20,501 113,411 294,823
Company value n/a n/a 2,829 22,013 124,647 333,704
INVESTORS RETURN ON INVESTMENT (ROI) with OR = 40% : (OR = Ownership Ratio)
Yield n/a n/a 1,131 8,805 49,859 133,482
ROI n/a n/a 2 15 85 226
Venture Case? n/a n/a No Yes Yes Yes
Budget on Assets & Liabilities
kilo DKK
ASSETS 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
IPR 0 0 0 0 1 2
Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0
Deptors 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cash 219 135 133 1,511 11,236 38,882
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0
ASSETS 219 135 133 1,511 11,237 38,884
LIABILITIES 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Loan 0 0 0 0 0 0
Creditors 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0
Equity 219 135 133 1,511 11,237 38,884
LIABILITIES 219 135 133 1,511 11,237 38,884
Cash flow
kilo DKK 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Item Quarter no 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
CASH IN
From sales 0 0 0 0 1 8 14 15 35 80 150 220 365 635 905 1,175 1,695 2,765 4,063 5,375 6,698 8,000 10,525 13,050
Personal savings 210 60 60 60 30 30 30 30 0 0 0 0
Limited company registration 80
Loans 0
CASH IN 0.0 210 60 60 60 111 38 44 45 35 80 150 220 365 635 905 1,175 1,695 2,765 4,063 5,375 6,698 8,000 10,525 13,050
CASH OUT
Salaries 0 50 50 50 50 50 75 75 75 75 100 100 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275
Rent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Production 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 7 13 18 31 53 76 99 142 232 341 452 563 672 884 1,096 1,312
Travels 0 0 3 3 3 3 3 30 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Production tools 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002
Initial investments 0 0
IPR (R&D, patents) 0 0 8 0 0 0 5 10 10 10 10 10 15 25 50 75 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Repayment incl interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
Tax n/a 0 0 0 719 3,997
CASH OUT 0 53 63 55 56 56 88 122 98 104 136 148 360 392 440 509 624 783 943 1,823 1,263 1,526 1,788 6,050
Net cash flow 210 7 -3 5 55 -19 -44 -77 -63 -24 14 72 5 243 465 666 1,071 1,982 3,120 3,552 5,434 6,474 8,737 7,000
Cash in Hand, end qrt 210 217 214 219 274 256 212 135 71 47 61 133 138 380 845 1,511 2,583 4,565 7,684 11,236 16,670 23,145 31,882 38,882
Cash in Hand ex. Investments 0 -53 -116 -171 -226 -274 -348 -455 -519 -543 -529 -457 -452 -210 255 921 1,993 3,975 7,094 10,646 16,080 22,555 31,292 38,292
Total invested 590
IPR = applying for design http://www.ipo.gov.uk/applyingcomdes.pdf + trademark application + limited company registration
Production tools = web hosting http://www.godaddy.com/hosting/web-hosting.aspx
(5,000)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
K
i
l
o

D
K
K
Quarter no.
Cash in Hand, end Quarter
(With and without investments)
Initial investments
kilo DKK
Location 1. Qt 2 Qt.
Deposits 0
Remodelling 0
Other 0
Total 0
Production See "Production Tools"
Machines
Tools
Other
Total 0
Business equipment
Furniture 0
Computers 0
Software 0
Telecom 0
Office machines 0
Other 0
Total 0
Production See production tools
Raw materials
Semiproducts
For the business
Other
Total 0
Marketing
Bureau 0
Materials 0
Internet 0
Other 0
Total 0
Other categories 0
TOTAL INITIAL INVESTMENT 0 0 0
Production tools kilo DKK
Item no. Description Engineering Procurement Installing Running in
1. Tool1 0 0 0 0
2. Tool2 0 0 0 0
3. Tool3 0 0 0 0
4. Tool4 0 0 0 0
5. Tool5 0 0 0 0
6. Tool6 0 0 0 0
7. Tool7 0 0 0 0
8 Tool8 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0
Total production tool costs 0
2014
1. QT 2. Qt
0 0
Product unit costs kilo DKK
Unit price Price per vehicle (Bill of Materials = BOM)
Item no. No. 1 - 10 pc 11 -50 pc 51 - 500 pc 1 - 10 pc 11 -50 pc 51 - 500 pc
1. Azure hosting costs 1 0.02 0.02 0.02 0 0 0
2. Item 2 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
3. Item 3 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
4. Item 4 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
5. Item 5 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
6. Item 6 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
7. Item 7 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
8. Item 8 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
9. Item 9 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
10. Item 10 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
11. Item 11 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
12. Item 12 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Unit price 0 0 0
Includes price for hosting in AWS and price for an nfc chip (http://rapidnfc.com/item/254/white_nfc_tags_ntag203_round_29mm)

Market entry scenario
Sales price 0.25 kilo DKK
Unit sale 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
1. Qt 2. Qt 3. Qt. 4. Qt 1. Qt 2. Qt 3. Qt. 4. Qt 1. Qt 2. Qt 3. Qt. 4. Qt 1. Qt 2. Qt 3. Qt. 4. Qt 1. Qt 2. Qt 3. Qt. 4. Qt 1. Qt 2. Qt 3. Qt. 4. Qt
Denmark 0 0 0 5 30 55 60 140 220 300 380 460 540 620 700 780 1,060 1,250 1,500 1,790 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,470
USA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 300 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 6,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000
Country 3
Country 4
Country 5
Country 6
Country 7
0 0 0 5 30 55 60 140 320 600 880 1,460 2,540 3,620 4,700 6,780 11,060 16,250 21,500 26,790 32,000 42,100 52,200 62,470
Cash out, production 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 7 13 18 31 53 76 99 142 232 341 452 563 672 884 1,096 1,312
Cash in, sales 0 0 0 0 1 8 14 15 35 80 150 220 365 635 905 1,175 1,695 2,765 4,063 5,375 6,698 8,000 10,525 13,050
Registered sales 0 0 0 1 8 14 15 35 80 150 220 365 635 905 1,175 1,695 2,765 4,063 5,375 6,698 8,000 10,525 13,050 15,618
100% Paied due time 0 0 0 0 1 8 14 15 35 80 150 220 365 635 905 1,175 1,695 2,765 4,063 5,375 6,698 8,000 10,525 13,050
Deptors, paying 1 qt. late 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ingoing cash, sales 0 0 0 0 1 8 14 15 35 80 150 220 365 635 905 1,175 1,695 2,765 4,063 5,375 6,698 8,000 10,525 13,050
100% Creditors paied due 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 7 13 18 31 53 76 99 142 232 341 452 563 672 884 1,096 1,312
Creditors(late payment to subcontr.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Outgoing cash, production 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 7 13 18 31 53 76 99 142 232 341 452 563 672 884 1,096 1,312
Net cash flow fromsales & productio 0 0 0 0 1 6 12 12 28 67 132 189 312 559 806 1,033 1,463 2,424 3,611 4,812 6,026 7,116 9,429 11,738
End yr.: 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Deptors 0 0 0 0 0 0
Creditors 0 0 0 0 0 0
NET OUTSTANDING 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
0 10 20 30
Sales in numbers sold per quarter
(5,000)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
K
ilo
D
K
K
Year
Cash in Hand, end Quarter
Organisation
kilo DKK Head count
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Management 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Sales department 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Engineering Founders 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Engineering UX 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Engineering 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Headcount 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0
Salaries
Per month:
Management 25 kilo DKK per qt. per employee, incl. social expenditures 8,333 DKK/Month
Sales dept. 25 kilo DKK per qt. per employee, incl. social expenditures 8,333 DKK/Month
Engineering Founders 25 kilo DKK per qt. per employee, incl. social expenditures 8,333 DKK/Month
Engineering UX 25 kilo DKK per qt. per employee, incl. social expenditures 8,333 DKK/Month
Engineering 25 kilo DKK per qt. per employee, incl. social expenditures 8,333 DKK/Month
CASH BURN on HEADS 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
DKK per quarter 0 50 50 50 50 50 75 75 75 75 100 100 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275 275
Rent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rent per empl per qt: 0 kilo DKK per. Qt.
Depreciations
Unit: kilo DKK
2008 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Production tools
Value 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Deprc 25% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Depr. Value 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2009 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Production tools
Value 0 0 0 0 0 0
Deprc 25% 0 0 0 0 0 0
Depr. Value 0 0 0 0 0 0
2010 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Production tools
Value 0 0 0 0 0
Deprc 25% 0 0 0 0 0
Depr. Value 0 0 0 0 0
2011 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Production tools
Value 0 0 0 0
Deprc 25% 0 0 0 0
Depr. Value 0 0 0 0
2012 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Production tools
Value 0 0 0
Deprc 25% 0 0 0
Depr. Value 0 0 0
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Production tools
Value 0 0
Deprc 25% 0 0
Depr. Value 0 0
Production tools, summary
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Year's deprecialtion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Depr. value, prod. tools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial investments
Val. end yr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Deprc 25% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Depr. Value 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IPR
Val. end yr 8 21 56 207 855 2,141 1,606
Deprc 25% 2 5 14 52 214 535 401
Depr. Value 6 16 42 155 641 1,606 1,204
DEPRECIATIONS SUMMARY
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Depreciations 2 5 14 52 214 535 402
Equipment depr. val 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IPR depr. val 6 16 42 155 641 1,606 1,204
LOAN
NOTE
A loan activated in year N will draw interest from year N and repayment starts in year N+1.
The impact on cashflow is divided in four payments: one per quarter, starting year N
Last payment is paying out the rest of the loan
Totals are linked to cashflow budget. Remaining dept is linked to the balance sheet. Interests are linked to the P&L sheet
LOAN 1
Loan: 0 kilo DKK
Year: 2016 , June 1.
Interest 5% p.a.
Repayment 50% of initial loan per year
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Repayment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Flag 1: Loan activated? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Flag 2: Fully paied back? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Interest - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Repayment - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Balance - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LOAN 2
Loan: 0 kilo DKK
Year: 2012 , January 1.
Interest 5% p.a.
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Repayment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Interest - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Repayment - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Balance - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
LOAN 3
Loan: 0 kilo DKK
Year: 2017 , January 1.
Interest 5% p.a.
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Repayment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Balance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Interest - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Repayment - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Balance - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TOTALS 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Interest - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Repayment - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Balance - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Quarterly interest + repayment:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TAX
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
EBITDA -154 -223 385 2,929 16,202 42,118
Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0
Depreciation 2 5 14 52 214 535
EBT -156 -228 371 2,877 15,988 41,582
Cummulated earnings
-156 -384 -13 2,864 18,852 60,434
Tax n/a n/a n/a 719 3,997 10,396
25% Annual taxpayment on Earnings Before Tax (EBT)
Budget on Profit and Loss
kilo DKK Quaters 2014 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Item 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
TURN OVER
Sales 1 0 0 0 1 1 8 14 15 35 71 80 150 220 365 815 635 905 1,175 1,695 4,410 2,765 4,063 5,375 6,698 18,900 8,000 10,525 13,050 15,618 47,193
Sales 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TURN OVER 0 0 0 1 1 8 14 15 35 71 80 150 220 365 815 635 905 1,175 1,695 4,410 2,765 4,063 5,375 6,698 18,900 8,000 10,525 13,050 15,618 47,193
COST
Organisation 0 50 50 50 150 50 50 75 75 250 75 75 100 100 350 275 275 275 275 1,100 275 275 275 275 1,100 275 275 275 275 1,100
Rent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Production 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 6 7 13 18 31 68 53 76 99 142 370 232 341 452 563 1,588 672 884 1,096 1,312 3,964
Travels 0 0 3 3 5 3 3 3 30 38 3 3 3 3 11 3 3 3 3 11 3 3 3 3 11 3 3 3 3 11
Expenditures 0 50 53 53 156 53 54 79 108 294 85 91 121 133 430 331 354 376 420 1,481 510 619 729 840 2,698 950 1,162 1,374 1,590 5,075
PROFT MARGIN n/a n/a n/a -4124% ###### -611% -292% -426% -208% -313% -6% 40% 45% 63% 47% 48% 61% 68% 75% 66% 82% 85% 86% 87% 86% 88% 89% 89% 90% 89%
Depreciations 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 5 3 3 3 3 14 13 13 13 13 52 53 53 53 53 214 134 134 134 134 535
Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PROFIT-LOSS -1 -51 -53 -52 -156 -47 -41 -65 -74 -228 -8 56 95 228 371 291 538 786 1,262 2,877 2,202 3,390 4,592 5,804 15,988 6,916 9,229 11,542 13,894 41,582
EBITDA -154 -223 385 2,929 16,202 42,118
Exit value with P/E = 5 -771 -1,114 1,926 14,644 81,008 210,588
Accum investments 500 700 700 1,511 1,511 1,511
Cash in Hand 219 135 133 1,511 11,236 38,882
Investors return on investment, OR = 50% -276 -490 1,029 8,078 46,122 124,735
ROI -1 -1 1 5 31 83
Budget on Assets and Liabilities
kilo DKK Opening 2014 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 2017 2017 2018 2018 2019 2019
Item Quarter 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
ASSETS
IPR 0 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 10 10 10 10 39 39 39 39 160 160 160 160 401 401 401 401
Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10% Deptors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cash 0 210 217 214 219 274 256 212 135 71 47 61 133 138 380 845 1,511 2,583 4,565 7,684 11,236 16,670 23,145 31,882 38,882
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ASSETS 0 211 219 216 220 278 259 216 139 82 58 71 143 177 419 884 1,550 2,743 4,725 7,845 11,396 17,072 23,546 32,283 39,283
LIABILITIES
Loan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Creditors 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Equity 0 211 219 216 220 278 259 216 139 82 58 71 143 177 419 884 1,550 2,743 4,725 7,845 11,396 17,072 23,546 32,283 39,283
LIABILITIES 0 211 219 216 220 278 259 216 139 82 58 71 143 177 419 884 1,550 2,743 4,725 7,845 11,396 17,072 23,546 32,283 39,283
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27
K
i
l
o

D
K
K
Year 2001 +
Equity capital

Wsome Business Plan - Florin Pogocsan Vlad Manea KU 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wsome Business Plan - Florin Pogocsan Vlad Manea KU 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

wsome

You might also like