Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Evaluation:
Criteria Description Max. Points
points
Output Quality Results are well presented, discussed - substantiated, relevant and original
(i.e. novelty produced by the author). They are of high practical/theoretical
relevance. 20 16
Content 70%
Methodology: Methods are adequate and used correctly in relation to pre-set goals.
20 18
3 3
Presentation Is the presentation itself structured in a clear way? Is it appealing and easy to
document: follow? Does it convey the message efficiently? 5
Delivery 15 %
Presentation Are you conveying the message efficiently and timely? Do you use
skills: appropriate words, speed, tone of voice, gestures, movement etc. to express
your thoughts in a clear manner? 5
Argumentation: Are you able to readily and briskly react to questions or comments? Are you
able to explain unclear parts and connect comments to relevant places in
your presentation or parts of particular analyses? How well are you able to 5
defend to your ideas and recommendations?
100 0
Other comments:
The author has studied factors predicting the success of start-ups funded by the venture capitalists (VCs). The thesis
is based on a solid review of academic literature. Data on start-ups were mined from the international Crunchbase
database, and the author has worked with more than 900 ths. observations covering years 1970-2013. Using
several statistical approaches (logistic regression, random forest, extreme gradient boosting, support vector
machine) the author estimates the probability of start-up being acquired or brought to IPO within the 7-year
window. The implications from the conducted analysis recommend using random forest model to predict success
or failure of the start-up and document the importance of several predictors. In overall, this is a well-written thesis
and correctly conducted empirical analysis. At the same time, I also see several sources of improvement. First, the
authors should be more careful when reproducing content (i.e. figures and graphs) from already published works.
Posting screenshots without publisher´s approval is not allowed. Second, the focus of the thesis is rather on
technological start-ups, thus I would welcome more information in this regard. Third, some variables are
questionable, given the period of analysis. How could be internet presence important for firms founded in 1970
(i.e. before the 90s)? How about total amount of aquired VC funding? Discussion of the results in light of the
previously published studies is missing. The implications for the VCs are not discussed deeply. I recommend the
thesis for defence
2. What kind of variables can really help VCs in making evidence-informed-decision about the funding of a
particular start-up? Can such knowledge be provided by random forest approach?
Date 18.9.2020