Recently, a friend told me he wasn’t endorsed and shared the details with me. While going through them, I realised something that might have been an oversight.
For example, OC3 - Contribution to the growth of a business, showing impact, revenue etc. He had submitted Term sheets of the acquisition of his company + Pitchbook screenshot showing the investor and acquisition status + Dashboard of software developed showing number of registered businesses (over 500), and other marketplace meta data + another software developed dashboard reports (over 1,000 items in repository) + screenshots of facilitating partnership meetings with leaders of industry and associations to pitch the adoption the aforementioned software.
He also added architecture diagrams of the software developed. Note, this person is the CEO of the company.
In my experience, these should have been enough as Process Implemented, impact generated, revenue generated. A corporate merger or acquisition can have a profound effect on a company’s growth prospects and long-term outlook. So an acquisition is growth.
However, despite all this, he was given a No in this section. And then to cap it all;
**there was no mention of the architecture diagrams or dashboards he uploaded.
**there was a mention of him not showing a connection to growth he claimed, in a previous job (all the way from OC1). How does a comment about a role/evidence uploaded only for OC1 end up in 0C3?
There were other issues I flagged from the assessment. I know that TN guide like the back of my hand because I read it almost everyday. So I know there were a lot of oversight. Downside is, my friend has refused to apply for a review. He is really not happy about the turn of events.
Your thoughts are welcome.