Dumbed down

My copy of last week’s Macleans arrived today, and it has an interesting article with a lot of relevance to the MET program and this course. The article “Dumbed Down: The troubling science of how technology is rewiring kids’ brains” can be found online at:

http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/11/07/dumbed-down/

In essence it discusses the pros and cons of overexposure to technology – in and out of the classroom – on childrens’ brains.

November 14, 2008   5 Comments

EVAs ‘R Us.com

Due to my late registration in this course, I’ll focus on two Pitch Pools:

·         Recombo

·         Ingenia

The title of this article suggests we/I are/am Educational Venture Analysts (EVAs). I certainly did not feel like an EVA. My M.O. throughout these pitches was to start/stop them frequently (to decipher what was said and see how it fits with the criteria). Here are the results of my efforts.

Recombo 2004/2005

Over the years I’ve learned (the hard way) to listen to my “gut instincts.” As an EVA, my gut says “pass.” Here’s why:

  • Within one year they’ve transitioned from a products company to a services company. This “flip” in focus implies the organization did not have a strong understanding of their proposed market. They didn’t do their research. They’re basically functioning on a trial-and-error basis. That’s an unattractive concept for investors. Do you want to invest money in a company an experiment? Sure, a company must adjust to customer needs and so on, but this appears to be a complete overhaul.
  • It seems that Brad’s business motivation is to sell off the company once it gets big enough (i.e. 100 million). A bit of a “cart before the horse” scenario.
  • The business model relies heavily on customer’s opening up their client lists to Recombo. For example, Lighthouse would allow Recombo access to their learning clients. Since Recombo has already changed focus once, what’s to stop them from gathering large client lists from other companies, change focus to service them…basically steal customers from Lighthouse.
  • Having various computer systems share data streams is the panacea of most technology companies….i.e. everyone’s working to that end. I would invest my money in a proven company..e.g Sun.
  • No real discussion about the management team, their credentials etc.

I could go on but think you get the point.

Ingenia

The pitch started off wonderfully and she almost had me sold on investing, but here’s a few reasons why I decided not to investment:

  • It’s primarily a consulting firm. Consultants are a dime a dozen! I’m interested in investing in companies that “do” instead of companies that “tell you how to do it” All the “do” stuff is sub-contracted so I’d anticipate Ingenia’s margin for profit would be low.
  • They’re going after foreign markets when they really haven’t established themselves locally…besides a few government contracts which we don’t really learn about. Asian markets are culturally sensitive so wondering if they have an Asian within their management team.
  • 40% of my investment would go to pay for their travel! I’m  not investing money in a company so they can travel.
  • Ramona claims to be a guru in her field.  I don’t see any evidence in the pitch.

For both pitches, I’ve included some of the pitch criteria within the given points. Again, I looked at it as an EVA looking to invest my hard earned money. Hopefully, this synopsis doesn’t come across as being too gnarly…I don’t like to foolishly part with my money J

September 15, 2008   4 Comments