Proving a market for a startup befor scaling using the hypothesis-driven entrepreneurship process

The year is 2015 and the startup and tech business ecosphere has never seen more activity. In New York City alone, the tech startup industry is on track to amass $8 billion dollars in total funding – the highest in 7 years (CB Insights, 2015). According to the Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurship (2015), this figure represents just 20% of the total funding in the United States. Thanks to platforms that link entrepreneurs with investors, there are simply more funding opportunities than ever, and funding can be initiated in a variety of ways (angel investors, venture capital firms, crowdfunding). And yet, in spite of all this, according to Forbes Magazine (2015), nine of ten startups will fail. Because of the unpredictable nature of the modern tech industry, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly why 90% of startups fail – but the general consensus amongst top tech executives is that “startups make products that no one wants” (Fortune, 2014). In 2011, author Eric Ries wrote a book called The Lean Startup in attempts to solve this all-too-familiar problem. It was in this book where he developed the framework for The Hypothesis-Driven Entrepreneurship Process, an iterative process that aims at proving a market before actually launching a product. Ries discusses concepts such as the Minimum Variable Product, the smallest set of activities necessary to disprove a hypothesis (or business model characteristic). Ries encourages acting briefly and often: if you are to fail, then fail fast. In today’s fast-moving economy, an entrepreneur cannot afford to waste his own time, nor his customer’s time. The purpose of this thesis is to conduct an in-depth of analysis of Hypothesis-Driven Entrepreneurship Process, in order to test market viability of a reallife startup idea, ShowMeAround. This analysis will follow the scientific Lean Startup approach; for the purpose of developing a functional business model and business plan. The objective is to conclude with an investment-ready startup idea, backed by rigorous entrepreneurial study.

Customer service process optimization at Sonae e MC

Sonae MC is constantly innovating and keeping up with the new market trends, being increasingly focused on E-commerce due to its growing importance. In that area, a telephone line is available to support customers with their problems. However, rare were the cases in which those problems were solved in the first contact. Therefore, the goal of this work was to reengineer these processes to improve the service performance and consequently the customer’s satisfaction. Following an evolutionary approach, improvement opportunities were suggested and if correctly implemented the cases resolution time could decrease 1 day and Sonae MC will save €7.750 per month.

The role of information systems in business process redesign : a case of Turkish electricity market

This study is specifically concerned with the effect of the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) on the Business Process Redesign (BPR). Researcher’s experience and the investigation on previous researches imply that BPR and ERP are deeply related to each other and a study to found the mentioned relation further is necessary. In order to elaborate the hypothesis, a case study, in particular Turkish electricity distribution market and the phase of privatization are investigated. Eight companies that have taken part in privatization process and executed BPR serve as cases in this study. During the research, the cases are evaluated through critical success factors on both BPR and ERP. It was seen that combining the ERP Solution features with business processes lead the companies to be successful in ERP and BPR implementation. When the companies’ success and efficiency were compared before and after the ERP implementation, a considerable change was observed in organizational structure. It was spotted that the team composition is important in the success of ERP projects. Additionally, when the ERP is in driver or enabler role, the companies can be considered successful. On the contrary, when the ERP has a neutral role of business processes, the project fails. In conclusion, it can be said that the companies, which have implemented the ERP successfully, have accomplished the goals of the BPR.

Removal of organic contaminants from wastewater using the electrodialytic process

Pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) are widely used on a daily basis. After their usage they reach the wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). These compounds have different physico-chemical characteristics, which makes them difficult to completely remove in the WWTPs, througth conventional treatments. Currently, there is no legislation regarding PPCPs thresholds in effluent discharge. But, even at vestigial concentrations, these compounds enclose environmental risks due to, e.g., endocrine disruption potential. There is a need of alternative techniques for their removal in WWTPs. The main goal of this work was to assess the use of electrodialytic (ED) process to remove PPCPs from the effluent to be discharged. A two-compartment ED cell was used testing (i) the effluent position in the cell (anode and cathode compartment); (ii) the use of anion (AEM) and cation exchange membrane (CEM); (iii) the treatment period (6, 12 and 24 hours); (iv) effluent recirculation and current steps; (v) the feasibility of sequential treatments. Phosphorus (P) removal from effluent and energetic costs associated to the process were also evaluated. Five PPCPs were studied – caffeine (CAF), bisphenol A (BPA), 17 β-estradiol (E2), ethinyl estradiol (EE2) and oxybenzone (MBPh). The ED process showed to be effective in the removal when effluent is in the anode compartment. Oxidation is suggested to be the main removal process, which was between 88 and 96%, for all the compounds, in 6 hours. Nevertheless, the presence of intermediates and/or by-products was also observed in some cases. Effluent recirculation should have a retention time in the ED cell big enough to promote removal whereas the current steps (effluent in anode compartment) slightly increased removal efficiencies (higher than 80% for all PPCPs). The sequential set of ED treatment (effluent in anode compartment) showed to be effective during both periods with a removal percentage between 80 and 95% and 73 to 88% in the case of AEM and CEM, respectively. Again, the main removal process is strongly suggested to be oxidation in the anode compartment. However, there was an increase of BOD5 and COD, which might be explained by effluent spiking, these parameters limiting the effluent discharge. From these treatments, the use of AEM, enhanced the P removal from effluent to minimize risk of eutrophication. Energetic costs of the best set-up (6 hours) are approximately 0,8€/m3 of wastewater, a value considered low, attending to the prices of other treatment processes.