business model, business model canvas, columbia, customer development, lean launchpad, lean startup, steve blank

1. Peter Muennig MD MPH
Gareth Highnam PhD
Miranda Bernstein
Kartik Vyas
Lean Launchpad Day Final Presentation
January 13, 2017

2. Ourjournal is disrupting the publishing
industry by automating the entire
process, saving our users time,
providing access to all readers, and
reducing library subscription fees by
billions

3. Ourweek
•70 interviews
•Countless canvas revisions
•Several pivots
•Endless fun!

4. Key Partners (7)
Key Activities
(5)
Value Propositions
(1)
Customer
Relationship (4)
Customer
Segmentation (2)
Research Individuals (Nobel Laureates) Reader Free, rapid dissemation of scientific
information
Press releases 1. Junior faculty (Equal male/female,
young)
Academic Institutions (libraries) Editor 1. Automated editorial process Social Media (RG, A.edu, FB) 2. Readers
Open access journals (editors w/o contract)Peer 1a. Crowdsourced peer review Email blasts 2a. Science writers/media
Data mining companies Prestige 1b. AI-based reviewer solicitation campus awareness programs 2b. Patients
Traditional publishers (Elsevier) Grant writing 2. Measurement of scientific impact Crowdfunding 3c. Aspiring kid scientists
Collaborative writing tools (e.g.
RapidScience)
Outreach/Partnership 2a. Mathematical metrics Academic channels 4. Institutional funders (interact
w/scientists)
2b. Social media (Circles than FB) Famous people (solicit for
word of mouth)
5. Highly educated
3. Improved scientific collaboration 6. Big data companies (scrape like IBM)
4. Reader (Tweet/XML/save data
locally)
5. Data sharing
Key Resources
(6)
Channel (3)
Beautiful software 1. Internet
Database 1a. Desktop
Email pool 2b. Mobile
Brilliant and beautiful people
Ivy league relationships
Famous people
Cost Structure (9) Revenue Streams (8)
Server Maintenance User recuritment Grants Data mining
Storage Software
dev/improvement
Operations Subscription (libraries) Advertisting
Advertising Research and evaluation Expertise recruitment
We’ve come so farrjournal

5. Get: Email blasts, social media,
word of mouth, google scholar,
direct outreach
Keep :
Continued free access to high
quality science
- free publishing, Brand of
Columbia University,
Collaboration and chance to get
reviewed by thought leaders in
the field.
- MOU structure for fixed
guaranteed payment
Grow: Slow shift of authors and
readers from traditional
journals with the increase in
content on the platform
So, so far
Readers -outside of 1st
tier institutions, students,
patients -who read on
devices -who want less
pain by having all info in
one universe
Authors who are not
conducting grant funded
research
All libraries, all research
institutions, some
NGOs/CBOs
All Editors
Google AdSense
Data purchasers
- Getting notable
researchers on board
- Motivating editors to
adopt the platform
- Improved reading
experience over
PDF/Print
- Superior peer review
process
- Leading prestige
(reputation) metrics
- Maintaining comment
integrity (troll control)
Readers: free access to high
quality scientific journals
Authors: free, rapid
publication of their work
with timely feedback from
scientific community
Libraries: reduces cost,
accomplishes open science
mandates
Editors: simple, free curation
of high quality research
Capture highly educated
users
Hold all scientific data
- Thought leaders
- Open access journals
- Traditional publishers
(Elsevier)
- Peer/network/compli
mentary tools
- Computer engineers
- IT
- Advertising
- Software development/improvement
- Cash incentives to pilot users
- Library investment (~$20bn + current expenditure)
- Data mining
- Advertising
Direct—Mobile + Internet
Indirect—AdSense
- Traffic
- Publishers
- Expanded database
- Readers
1
3
4 2
5
6 7
8
9
Key
Partners
Channels
Value
Propositions
Key Activities
Key
Resources
Customer
Segmentation
Customer
Relationship
Cost Structure Revenue Structure

6. Accessing science
wastes time and
money
Hypothesis
Value Proposition
Authors and Readers

7. Access free
articles via any
search engine
Solution
Accessing science
wastes time and
money
Hypothesis
Value Proposition
Authors and Readers

8. 1
Accessing science
wastes time and
money
Hypothesis
40 Interviews
Value Proposition
Authors and Readers

9. Readers want
our product
Validation ✔
Accessing science
wastes time and
money
Hypothesis
40 Interviews
Value Proposition
Authors and Readers

10. 1
Some lessons
learned
Accessing science
wastes time and
money
Hypothesis
40 Interviews
Value Proposition
Authors and Readers

11. 1
Publishing science
wastes time and
money
Free, simple
submission
system without
requirements and
instant publication
SolutionHypothesis
Value Proposition
Authors and Readers

12. 1
Publishing science
wastes time and
money
Hypothesis
40 Interviews
Value Proposition
Authors and Readers

13. 1
Major lesson
learned
Publishing science
wastes time and
money
Hypothesis
40 Interviews
Value Proposition
Authors and Readers

14. 1
40 Interviews
Famous
authors should
be on board,
not on system
Publishing science
wastes time and
money
Hypothesis
Value Proposition
Authors and Readers

15. Scientific review
should be
interactive and
transparent
Preprint
Crowdsource
AI System
Reviewer-Author
Dialog
Hypothesis Solution
40 Interviews
Value Proposition
Authors and Readers

16. 1
Scientific review
should be rapid
and transparent
Hypothesis
40 Interviews
Value Proposition
Authors and Readers

17. 1
Pivot!!
Scientific review
should be rapid
and transparent
Hypothesis
40 Interviews
Value Proposition
Authors and Readers

18. 1
Scientific review
should be rapid
and transparent
40 Interviews
Depends On
Customer
Segment
Hypothesis
Value Proposition
Authors and Readers

19. 1
Scientific review
should be rapid
and transparent
40 Interviews
Junior
Scientists Do
Not Want
Transparency
Hypothesis
Value Proposition
Authors and Readers

20. 1
Scientific review
should be rapid
and transparent
40 Interviews
Junior
Scientists Do
Not Want
Transparency
Hypothesis
Value Proposition
Authors and Readers
Big
idea

21. 1
Some editors will
shift to our system
5 Interviews Pivot!
Hypothesis
Value Proposition
Editors

22. 1
5 Interviews
Many editors
might switch to
our system
Some editors will
shift to our system
Hypothesis
Value Proposition
Editors
Big
idea

23. 1
5 Interviews
Without being
paid to do so
Some editors will
shift to our system
Hypothesis
Value Proposition
Editors
Big
idea

24. 1
5 Interviews
Once their
contracts
expire
Some editors will
shift to our system
Hypothesis
Value Proposition
Editors
Big
idea

25. 1
We can sell ads
directly to
scientific
manufacturers and
pharma
Mentors
If we use
AdSense, our
market is bigger
and we can focus
Hypothesis
Channels

26. 1
Libraries will
benefit and pay us
$25 billion
7 Interviews
Hypothesis
Revenue Stream
Libraries

27. Libraries will
benefit and pay us
$25 billion
Pivot!!
Hypothesis
7 Interviews
Revenue Stream
Libraries

28. 1
Libraries will
benefit and pay us
handsomely
One can’t
simultaneously
disrupt a market
and claim its
spoils
7 Interviews
Revenue Stream
Libraries
Big
idea

29. Earnings from data
sale revenue
Investors in the project to save
ever increasing subscription fee
by journals.
Advertising profits
LIBRARIES CORPORATE
Salaries of employees, building
database, domain charges,
server maintenance
OPERATIONS EXPENDITURE
Operational
expenditure
Revenue Model

30. Value proposition + customer
segmentation (Authors)
• Time to publish
• Expensive
• Cant do open access
• Not wide distribution of
your work
• Existing software is tiring
• Losing copyright to
journals
• Feedback is slow
• For new publishers, AI
system for editing and
finding peer reviewers
• Real time publishing
• Free for all
• Open access to all
around the world
• Ergonomic software
experience
• Keep content right
• Real time feedback and
quick editing
Pains Gains
Was it
confirmed
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔

31. Value proposition + customer
segmentation (Authors)
• Access to scientific
material
• Expensive
• Poor reading experience
across devices on PDFs
• Open access journal
• Free
• Improved reading
experience
Pains Gains
Was it
confirmed
✔
✔
✔

32. Value proposition + customer
segmentation (Readers)
• Costly subscriptions
• Hire extra personnel to
take care of this vertical
• Inefficient
• Losing copyrights to
journals
• Reduces cost,
accomplishes open
science mandates
• Real time publishing and
peer review system
• Automated editing y AI
• Professors get to keep
copyrights
Pains Gains
Was it
confirmed
✔
✔
✔
✔

33. Existing platforms fail to solve these issues
Author end:
Collaborative
Writing &
Publishing
Credibility but
reader’ $$$:
Peer-reviewed
Publishing
Reader’s access
but authors $$:
Efficiency Rapid
Publishing tools
Readers access
without peer
review: Pre-print
Servers

34. Any Questions?