Yesterday I gave feedback on a panel with Andreas Pinkwart, Minister for Economic Affairs of the state of NRW, and others, from my experience as a juror of the Gründerstipendium.NRW scholarship, the state-driven program aiming to help more people starting new innovative businesses in the German state of North-Rhine Westphalia, awarding a monthly EUR 1.000,- for 12 months to new innovative companies and founders.

My main feedback so far was:

1. A better, more transparent labelling or identification of the respective jurys’ (there are several spread across the state, each with their own set of main competencies) main competencies and domain experience to make it easier for a startup or founder to select which jury to pitch in front of that can best judge their degree of innovation and viability instead of having to travel criss-cross the whole state to finally find a jury that understands their domain by luck.

And by that I don’t imply that some juries are better than others. What I am saying is that most of them have different expertises and experiences. Judging a new retail store concept is not the same as judging a new nanoparticle coating material, judging the viability of a new social network for tweens a whole different ball game altogether.

It could be better for the applicants to be able to identify which respective jury would be best suited to evaluate their respective innovations, where they should best apply, in advance.

2. A stronger network between alumni, coaches and supporters to facilitate swift help and avoiding that new founders do the same most basic beginner mistakes over and over again. A “private” social network a la #slack MS Teams or Facebook for Work springs to mind als facilitating this. To avoid getting caught up in ministerial red tape, I’d suggest the participating networks set this up by and among themselves.

3. A regulation like an official cool-down period to limit how many times a founder or startup can apply within a set amount of time could be helpful. E.g. x amount of rejections in y time = z cool-down time before a new application will be accepted from you and you’ll have the time to work on their metrics or presentation to improve. Maybe this will improve by itself if the first point is addressed (see above).

4. On a personal note, I shared that I have some personal ethical ambivalence when recommending a founder or startup for the scholarship that has already received funding. (Side note: More of a libertarian than a liberal, I have an ethical reservation with government handouts for private enterprises. Full stop. Incentives – M’kay. Handouts – Nyah). In my view, the market has already voted for a funded company, they shouldn’t be needing this on-top, thus I find it questionable to be giving it government handouts out of my tax money (because let’s face it – this scholarship is the German tax payers’ money at play) or put in another way, supporting leeches gaming the (public) system.

I understand and accept the counter-argument that those cases could count as “collateral damage”, and if they are successful they will return the tax money invested with multiple in returns.

What I do not understand and do not readily accept is the counter-argument that limiting the eligible applicants to founders and companies who have not already taken on investment, not previously raised a round, would complicate the application process. You just need to have a look at the plethora of other criteria already imposed on the applicant to see that that argument is more rhetoric than logic. A simple checkbox yes/no on the application form and relying on scout’s honours would suffice.

Now that wouldn’t be very complicating, would it?