Author: Ed Stuerle

Categories
Mod03:The Global Learning Technologies Marketplace

Smartboard Cubed

Smartboard Cubed

Smart Technologies, the maker of the Smartboard, was founded in 1987. They create interactive whiteboards, interactive pen displays, interactive digital signage, wireless slates and software. The interactive whiteboards are becoming commonplace in today’s classroom.

Face 1: Type of Market

Smart Technologies supplies Smartboards and other interactive technologies to every level of educational or corporate training.

Face 2: Type of Offerings

Their main offering is the Smartboard interactive whiteboard. This comes bundled with Notebook 10 software. The whiteboard is connected to a pc which it controls by using touch (human hand, electronic pen etc). The company provides training for their product in the form of online tutorials, videos, manuals and webinars.

Face 3: Who is the buyer?

Smartboards are typically bought by individual schools and school districts. Some school districts are purchasing this product and putting them in every classroom in certain schools while other districts are leaving the purchase decision to the individual schools.

Face 4: Global Markets

Smart Technologies is presently concentrating their efforts on the English speaking ‘wired’ countries. Given its ties to Intel and Microsoft it is easy to imagine them expanding globally.

Face 5: Market Development

The North American and English speaking European markets would support this product. Worldwide they account for more than 53% of all such devices sold. In North America their market share is 62%.

Face 6: Learning Technology Integration

The Smartboard is becoming more and more common in today’s classroom. It is replacing blackboards, whiteboards, maps, charts and other visual teaching aids. Its interactive nature allows students to quickly and easily interact with the technology.

Unlocking Knowledge, Empowering Minds

Pitch Pool Marking Rubric:

Royal Roads Open Courseware Initiative

I’m going to try to be even more succinct with my 2nd pitch analysis:

Aspect

Not Within Expectations

Minimally Meets Expectations

Fully Meets Expectations

Exceeds Expectations
CEO Credibility – Does this person exude capability and convey confidence that they will achieve success against all obstacles? Confident

Committed
Management Team – Have they assembled a stellar team along with the other human and material resources required for success unknown
Business Model – Is this feasible? – have they done their homework? – are their arguments and information accurate and compelling? Very feasible

Allows prospective students and staff a realistic opportunity to make informed decisions
Competitive Products – What is a realistic market size, market share and selling price that these products or services can capture in a very competitive world? Since the service is free then competition is minimal.
Market Readiness – How long and difficult is their critical path to success? Assuming that they have the technical ability already
Technical Innovation – Do they have an edge, and can they keep it? Following in MIT’s footsteps
Exit Strategy – Do they really know what success looks like – is their destination clear Increased number of students and courses
Overall Investment Status – Am I going to risk my investment capital on this proposition? The negative arguments that she brings forth are dealt with.

Summary:

Mary Burgess appears confident and committed about implementing an open courseware initiative at Royal Roads University. She is effective in explaining the benefits as well as dealing with the counter-arguments. I think that the pitch would have been more effective if Mary was on camera more often. Whenever she did her ‘walk and talk’ it held my attention more because the visual was more engaging and the quality of the audio was better than the voiceover audio. I felt that the pitch was a bit repetitive at times both in content of the argument as well as the content of the visuals being presented. As a minor criticism I would not have used the last video clip with Mary holding the baby. I know it’s cute but if this is a real pitch then it would seem out of place. In her closing remarks she could have made some reference to future students in which case having a baby in her arms would have made more sense. I love the idea of open courseware and I would enthusiastically support this endeavor.

Links:

MIT Open Courseware summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbQ-FeoEvTI&feature=PlayList&p=279CA243FCDCF6C0&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1

M.I.T.’s site: http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm

Rubric for OLT at UBC

I’ve decided to take the challenge of being brief and to the point in evaluating the presentation of the OLT at UBC. I adapted a marking rubric that we use at the elementary school level in order to facilitate this (it actually looks a lot better as a Word document):

UBC’s OLT Pitch Pool Marking Rubric

Aspect

Not Within Expectations

Minimally Meets Expectations

Fully Meets Expectations

Exceeds Expectations
CEO Credibility – Does this person exude capability and convey confidence that they will achieve success against all obstacles? Michelle Lamberson seems quite comfortable in the setting. If anything the format is too casual to truly evaluate her credibility.
Management Team – Have they assembled a stellar team along with the other human and material resources required for success Unclear. Not a lot of attention given to this subject.
Business Model – Is this feasible? – have they done their homework? – are their arguments and information accurate and compelling? Unclear. It appears to be a work in progress.
Competitive Products – What is a realistic market size, market share and selling price that these products or services can capture in a very competitive world? Since this is a ‘home grown’ initiative there would not appear to be the need to be as competitive as they would if they were trying to compete in an open market.
Market Readiness – How long and difficult is their critical path to success? Unclear. A work in progress.
Technical Innovation – Do they have an edge, and can they keep it? At the time of recording Michelle Lamberson indicated that her department was unique among universities. This could be seen as giving them an edge or it could be seen as a detriment as others observe and learn from their success and mistakes.
Exit Strategy – Do they really know what success looks like – is their destination clear A work in progress but Ms. Lamberson does indicate that a successful department will be able to look after the technological needs of an institution. An ‘exit’ strategy really doesn’t seem to apply here in that if the online learning department is successful the will always need a department like this one.
Overall Investment Status – Am I going to risk my investment capital on this proposition? Yes- not based on the interview given but based on the assumption that online learning will continue to grow and as a result a unified, efficient strategy/department is vital.

Summary:

The format of the interview was not formal enough to make a reasonable judgement as an EVA. Michelle Lamberson was obviously at ease and familiar with the interviewer and this led to an overly casual environment (as far as trying to evaluate the ‘Pitch’). Ms. Lamberson seems excited about her role and is confident as she discusses it. I would have liked to see a formal presentation (an actual ‘Pitch’) so that I could understand clearly what it is that her department does and what its vision of the future is.

Categories
Questions & Answers

wrong link in Module 4???

I’ve been reading ahead in prep for our group presentation and I think I came upon an incorrect link in Mod. 4. The text that houses this link is:

“Review a “web 0.0″ article claiming there is no possible business model in web 2.0″

When you click on the link it takes you to CrowdTrust’s homepage.

Categories
Mod01: Introductions

Ed’s Intro

video at pyramids

Hi Everybody,

My name is Ed Stuerle. I am an elementary teacher in Kelowna, BC. I have been teaching here since 1983. I am currently teaching Grade 5 part time and I am doing some prep relief in the computer lab for the rest of the time. I really enjoy my time in the computer lab (that is until the computers start misbehaving). I find that it is very easy to motivate the students and that many students who might struggle in the traditional classroom often are quite comfortable using technology to present their understandings.

This summer my wife and I celebrated our 25th anniversary by going on an incredible ‘Tour of Antiquities’. It has been a bit rough getting back into the swing of things!Ed

Spam prevention powered by Akismet