Pitching with confidence

MAKING A BETTER PITCH

NEED. What do your users or customers need? APPROACH. What’s your novel approach for filling that need? NABC model

BENEFIT. How will the stakeholders benefit? COMPETITION. How are your benefits superior to the alternative?

He hated oral presentations, until he learned how to throw strikes

By Alan Chen ’20

Growing up, I’ve always struggled with oral presentations. I despised giving pitches. I found it both daunting and challenging. This all changed the spring semester of my third year at the Case School of Engineering. That’s when I was introduced to NABC method of the Stanford Research Institute by Professor Gary Wnek of the Department of Macromolecular Science and Engineering.

Two years later, having obtained my undergraduate degree, I enjoy and look forward to developing pitches and am way more comfortable delivering them. In fact, this NABC framework has been so drilled into my head that it has transformed into a subconscious template that I use in almost every presentation. Let me explain how it works.

NABC stands for Needs, Approach, Benefits and Competition. I applied it as part of my senior design class (EMAC 378), where my teammates and I were challenged to find a way to help the elderly live independently.

We started our search for a solution with an in-depth needs analysis, using online literature, observations and interviews with residents of Ohio Living Breckenridge Village (OLBV) and conversations with experts at the Western Reserve Area Agency on Aging.

The analysis process is long, but can reveal dead ends and fruitful avenues. If you have an innovative idea, but no one is going to use it, what’s the point? My team’s initial idea was to design pots and pans with handles that made them easier to lift and pour. However, this idea was not well received by the seniors we talked with and we struggled to refine our design. Finally, we spied a more obvious need. Many of the seniors wore compression gloves to mitigate the effects of arthritis. We realized the materials used in the gloves were not breathable nor supportive, making them uncomfortable. So we set about designing a better glove.

Designing the glove (the approach in NABC) was the fastest and easiest step in the NABC methodology. In fact, my team spent almost three times as much time and effort on the need and competition analysis than we did on developing the next-generation arthritic glove. For our approach, we consolidated our knowledge of polymer properties (CES Edupack) and modeling applications (SolidWorks) to render a computer-aided design of a breathable glove. We then supported our design by performing multiple simulations using arbitrary thermal and pressure gradients to represent different real-world conditions.

We further strengthened our glove design through a benefits per cost analysis (the B in NABC), where we asked our users at OLBV and Western Reserve to compare our design with current compression gloves against a set of specific benefit and cost criteria. I would argue the benefits per cost element is the most critical of the four NABC steps. It’s the difference between an exciting design vs. a design that may be technically interesting but lacking impact. The word “benefits” is deliberate. Users determine the benefits of a product, whereas engineers design and deliver product features.

Through the NABC methodology, I was able to find an easy and straightforward method to outline a compelling pitch with a meaningful, thought-out and impactful theme. This step-by-step process has only strengthened my confidence to deliver future pitches and presentations. Now, I look forward to pitching my ideas. Giving presentations has become fun and exciting for me, and I hope that can happen for you, too.

Chen is a PhD student in the Department of Biomedical Engineering at the Case School of Engineering. Learn more about the NABC method at https://c84.io/nabc.