What CVC teams need before the first meeting

Describe a problem with an internal owner

A theme such as industrial AI describes an area of interest. A reviewable mandate describes a situation the corporation wants to change: who experiences the problem, what happens today and why the current approach is inadequate. State the relevant environment and the boundary of the work. An opportunity covering every business unit can leave each unit assuming that another one will take responsibility.

The internal owner should confirm that the problem matters enough to spend time evaluating responses. That confirmation need not mean that a purchase or investment has been approved. It means that someone accepts responsibility for reviewing the evidence and explaining the next decision.

Separate exploratory scouting from a request connected to a potential project. Both can be legitimate, but they ask different things of respondents. If the corporation is still learning what solutions exist, say so. Avoid presenting an unbudgeted research question as an imminent commercial opportunity.

Identify the sponsor and the limits of their authority

Nesta's 2016 Scaling Together study, based on research, interviews and startup surveys, distinguished internal barriers involving strategy, structure, culture and processes. Its findings are a historical research reference, rather than a measure of current conditions at any member organisation.[1]

For mandate preparation, we recommend naming three internal responsibilities: the person accountable for the business problem, the person able to assess technical suitability and the person responsible for the route to a spending or investment decision. One individual may hold several roles, but the responsibilities should remain distinguishable.

Ask the sponsor what they can actually commit. Can they allocate engineering time, authorise access to a site or secure a review from procurement? A senior title alone does not answer these questions. Where authority is limited, identify the additional approval required and who will seek it.

This work may reveal that external meetings are premature. Resolving that gap internally protects the quality of the eventual request.

Make budget and operational capacity legible

A mandate should indicate the status of resources without overstating certainty. Useful descriptions include funded evaluation, budget request pending or exploratory discussion with no committed project funding. If a budget range cannot be published, explain when and through whom commercial scope will be discussed.

Money is only one constraint. Review whether the business can supply sample data, technical staff, equipment access and an evaluation environment. An approved budget is of limited practical value if nobody can support integration. Conversely, a capable engineering team cannot substitute for authority to buy external services.

For a potential commercial engagement, ask procurement to identify the likely contracting route, basic supplier requirements and any known conditions that materially affect participation. The published mandate need not reproduce internal policies. It should disclose constraints that could make an otherwise strong response unworkable.

BMW Startup Garage's FAQ describes a supplier number, purchase order and payment for integration and validation. That programme illustrates one commercial route; it does not establish a commitment attached to CVC interest.[2]

Separate entry requirements from later requirements

Set the minimum capability needed for the proposed next step. A company joining an exploratory technical discussion should not automatically face every requirement associated with production deployment. Equally, a mandate for operational use should not imply that an untested concept is sufficient.

BMW's published requirements include a functional prototype, full-time team and legal entity. Mandate authors should likewise publish relevant thresholds, selecting criteria for their own operating context.[2]

Our recommended structure separates conditions that determine eligibility from evidence that helps prioritisation. State why an essential condition exists and identify where an alternative could be considered. This creates a deliberate tradeoff between comparability and openness to unfamiliar approaches.

Illustrative example: revising a maintenance mandate

Imagine a hypothetical industrial group drafting a request for predictive maintenance technology. Its first version asks for an innovative AI platform suitable for global deployment. The CVC has interest from an engineering manager, but the request does not identify the equipment, available data or resources for evaluation.

An internal review changes the mandate. The first scope becomes fault detection for a specified class of pumps at one site. The maintenance manager owns the business question. An engineer confirms that historical sensor records can be prepared for an initial review, subject to the company's information-sharing process. The operations director can allocate staff time, while approval for paid external work remains pending.

The revised request invites companies with a working approach for comparable sensor data. It describes the current data limitations and asks respondents to explain what additional inputs their method needs. Global deployment experience becomes a preference rather than an entry condition.

In this illustrative scenario, one candidate needs data the site cannot provide; another can assess feasibility using the available records. The mandate has enabled a meaningful comparison before extensive founder preparation. It has not established performance, approved procurement or selected a supplier.

Publish the uncertainty and maintain the request

The final preparation step is to decide which unresolved questions respondents need to see. Some uncertainty is the reason to engage externally. Other uncertainty concerns the corporation's ability to act and should be resolved internally or disclosed. Asking founders to compensate for an absent sponsor through increasingly elaborate proposals is unlikely to improve the mandate.

Before publication, assign someone to review whether the scope, timing and internal support remain accurate. Revise or withdraw a request when the underlying conditions change. An outdated requirement can consume preparation time long after the opportunity has changed.

CVCVC allows approved CVCs to publish mandates and RFPs free of charge. VC firms pay membership fees and nominate portfolio companies with consent. Each participant retains its own decision-making responsibility. That arrangement works best when the published request accurately describes what the corporate is ready to evaluate.

• The problem has an accountable owner and a defined operating scope.
• Resource availability and budget status are accurately described.
• Procurement or investment approval responsibilities are understood internally.
• Essential capabilities are separated from preferences and later conditions.
• Known constraints, the response requested and the review timing are clear.