Category — Module Discussions

Hi everyone,

I have been teaching for about 6 years including a recent posting at the Vancouver School Board’s online high school where I taught science and math. I live in Vancouver, but have also experienced living and working in Japan.

This is my third ETEC course and I am sure this course will be just as good as the first two. Unfortunately, I was engaged by my life outside of MET and was not able to start earlier. I look forward to not only immersing myself in the course material, but also meeting everyone here.

When I am not online, I love the outdoors and basketball as well as learning languages.

Best regards,

Adam

Hi everyone,

ETEC 522 is my 10th and final course and it feels good to be almost done.  This is officially the last introduction that I will write within the MET program.  Feels like a sad day.   

I am really excited to take this course because I find exploring the business side of education very interesting.  I currently teach Information Communication Technology at Princess Margaret Secondary School in Surrey BC.  Part of my role at the school is that of Technology Facilitator.  One part of my role as technology facilitator is to evaluate which technology enhancements are best for our school.  Knowing how to financially evaluate which technology is best is a key part of this.   

I’m look forward to getting to know all of you through next few months.   

Speak with you soon,

Trip to Italy 2008

Here are a few things I found while surfing:

The Entrepreneurial Foundation of Saskatchewan has some information on what is necessary to be investment-ready:

http://www.efsk.ca/services/investment-ready.html

This column has some good tips on pitches, including the 10/20/30 rule: 10 slides, 20 minutes including questions, 30 point font.

http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/oct2007/sb20071019_563293.htm

Recombo 2005

CEO Credibility:

I think that Brad McPhee’s ability articulate how he and his company have morphed with market forces  shows that he and his team are paying attention to the market and are knowledgeable of the field within which they work.  McPhee is also able to clearly articulate how his product and services work and  how those functions help his clients and make his company solid.

Management Team –

I would be somewhat concerned with the management team.  The need to expand the company from 12 to 22 is a serious concern.  I think McPhee is aware of these challenges and alludes to them as he emphasizes the need to maintain the company culture.  McPhee identifies the challenges, but simply identifying them does not necessarily mean that they can be easily overcome.

Business Model –

A key component is that the company is adaptable. Recombo has a focus on their product and they have a clear goal of a 100 million dollar business.  They have lighthouse customer a publishing firm Mindreader and plan to use them as an avenue through which they can access Mindreaders clients. Mindreader has agreed to provide access as Recombo provides financial incentives to Mindreader when business is created through this channel. Recombo is primarily trying to prove their product and services in order to demonstrate success.  I think building a solid reputation while working through known avenues will be a great way to move the company to the next step.

Competitive Products –

I wish that McPhee had expanded upon the field in which he operates.  From the discussion I was not able to discern what competition Recombo faces.

Market Readiness –

They are ready for the market and are now taking time to build a company name and reputation.  By using a proven technology and spreading the word the company will be able to expand and enter a larger market with a proven technology and company.

Technical Innovation –

The recombo connector connects multiple interfaces and systems and eliminates the difficulties of having multiple platforms within a system.  The innovation itself is a great product, but as I am not aware of the market place in which it operates I do not know if they have the ability to maintain an edge over competitors.

Exit Strategy –

I think that the exit strategy is not clear.  Although they are looking the acquisition by a major player such as IBM, the target range and the price point is not yet decided.  I think that a set target needs to be established. Perhaps it is the 100 million dollar price.

Overall Investment Status –

I would invest money with Recombo.  But, I would first need to research the market place a little more before entering the arena.  McPhee could have elaborated a little more on the competition to build a well rounded view of the company in context.   I would also want an exit strategy to be specified.

Is Recombo still in business? It seems that the latest news is from 2008.

Recombo

Just a few thoughts.

Noah

Here’s my 2nd go at a pitch analysis…hope it makes sense…my eyes are starting to close!

• CEO Credibility – Does this person exude capability and convey confidence that they will achieve success against all obstacles?
  • Ted Dodds appears confident and well-spoken.  He exudes a very professional, experienced demeanour.
  • He speaks of UBC’s mission, considers the students and the community

• Management Team – Have they assembled a stellar team along with the other human and material resources required for success
  • Dodds suggests that UBC is a very decentralized university.  Each faculty has its own e-learning component.  He stresses the importance of formal and informal meetings and strategies, including the use of E-strategy Townhall meetings, which include invited leaders of other institutions (peers and competitors), boards members, deans, vice presidents etc.  He stresses the importance of collaboration between these e-learning stakeholders.

• Business Model – Is this feasible? – have they done their homework? – are their arguments and information accurate and compelling?
  • Yes, I believe this model is feasible.  By working collaboratively with e-learning stakeholders, university leaders, and competing educational institutions, UBC’s reputation stands to gain.  In turn, registration may increase.
  • Dodds suggests that the E-strategy is a framework, not plan or mandate, thus giving more freedom to members of the community.

• 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?
  • There is a demand for e-learning and UBC IT’s vision is to be a active an collaborative partner in the e-learning community.  They are working together with other universities and educational leaders to create products that can promote e-learning.  Unfortunately, Dodds does not provided any statistics on market size, student enrolment, demand etc.

• Market Readiness – How long and difficult is their critical path to success?
  • No time length is given but UBC is working with other educational institutions in the e-learning community.  It is leader in e-learning innovation.  Path to success is ongoing.

• Technical Innovation – Do they have an edge, and can they keep it?
  • Dodds mentions that UBC is well known for “commercialization of individual research within the campus”.  E-learning innovation at UBC has brought about commercial products such as WebCT.  He mentions that UBC is taking a leadership role in opensource software and community source software which help to get campus level innovations to a broader audience.  Working with other campuses to create a community source system

• Exit Strategy – Do they really know what success looks like – is their destination clear
  • Participation and altruistic relationship in the e-learning community helps to promote UBC reputation.  By taking a leadership role in opensource software and creating E-strategy townhall meetings for community stakeholders contributes to UBC IT’s success.

• Overall Investment Status – Am I going to risk my investment capital on this proposition?
  • Yes, as an EVA, I would invest in UBC IT’s vision for e-learning.  Furthermore, I would encourage and recommend potential students to take a serious look at e-learning programs through UBC.

Ray and Bev and Machu Picchu

HI:  Please forgive my lateness.  I have just returned from Peru where I was hoping to be able to get more work done.  Unfortunately I had many technical difficulties- but now I am home and can dig in. I am currently on leave from my job as a junior/senior high math teach in a small rural school in Southern Alberta in order to  take my 5th, 6th and 7th MET courses this term.  I have thoroughly enjoyed the journey thus far, and expect it to continue to be an amazing year.

Since graduating from UBC with a B.Ed I have taught English and Science in Nigeria, ESL at Okanagan College, Adult Upgrading at Lethbridge College, established both and adult literacy program and family literacy program in my community, and now have been teaching Math and Language Arts in the public system for 11 years.

I have been married to the same wonderful guy for 31 years ( I was just a baby when I married!)  We have three great kids.  Our last child has just graduated from high school so now we are officially empty nesters, which is bitter sweet.  We love to travel, hike, ski, kayak and camp.

Now that our children are finished school we would like to work overseas.  I am hoping that having my MET will give options.  I am excited about this course and look forward to what ever comes my way!

By now, everyone has had a chance to introduce her/himself to the ETEC 522 class. You may also have made a few posts or comments based upon the module materials for week 2.

So, we thought this would be a good time to insert a reminder about our expectations for overall participation in the course through your thoughtful posts and constructive commentary.

The rubric for course participation outlines the criteria we use for evaluating online participation.

Our expectation is that you will post at least once per week as well as offer comments on posts made by other students or the course instructors.

We believe the evaluation rubric for participation is clear. Please let us know if it needs further clarification or refinement.

d.

The two pitches have been reviewed together because to me, they are very different–one intrapreneurial, the other enterpreneurial. The RRU one is in her own institution, while the other,  Ingenia, is in a Far Eastern country where language and cultural and other barriers may impact the venture. I thought that would be a good challenge.

I have approached this like a so-called dragon in the TV show den, though I only saw it for the first time in the other student’s link to the outside pitch today. Having dealt with VC meetings, I think the dragon analogy is very good and so will proceed wearing that hat!.

re: CEO Credibility

The RRU spokesperson is a confident speaker and appears heavily invested in the open learning concept. Her track record is not discussed, nor does their pitch elucidate how they will achieve success against all odds. The specific challenges and details of how the concept would be implemented are not presented. One would look for some mention of a system going into play to assess the efficacy of the initiative.

The Ingenia training CEO has a good level of enthusiasm for the initiative she is pitching; the extension of their company services into Taiwan. She does mention a few things that I found distracting. One was her assertion somewhere in the middle of the talk that because of contracts, “you can take them to court” which is a comment that really does not belong in a business pitch. The CEO first asserts the market is open, and later asserts this is indeed a difficult market so consistency of message was lost. Due to the risk of the venture, the proposed investor return of 20-25% does not seem worth the risk. Research dealing with how the company has adjusted its forecast activities, based on the current recession would need to be done before an EVA study would be considered complete.

Management Team

The RRU pitch does not detail her management team at all, nor do we hear about specific resources. This is a deficiency in the presentation.Is there a group of people in the institution in key positions that are on the team? Mentioning such a workgroup and providing access to their early meetings would help the institution know this is  not a lone ranger agenda.

The Ingenia pitch makes mention of specific academic qualifications, but there was no mention of the familiarity of her key staff with the language and culture of the area. It sounds like they will use the VC capital to invest in the appropriate software to use in the venture, but no mention is made of the current level of available hardware and software upon which the expansion phase is going to build upon.

Business Model

The RRU segment makes it sound feasible, but no specific numbers are given. Data from a number of institutions that have already taken the plunge, showing open course access indeed boosted student registration numbers would be desirable. Tracking systems to confirm any registration increase was due to this factor and not any number of other factors which can affect registration numbers would also be really important to hear about but are not presented. Complexity will be inevitable around copyright, so information about the road blocks that might arise here need elucidation. Has she talked to faculty? How many are “on board” for the concept? Note aside: The merits of the initiative itself (open courseware) are not being judged in the EVA review, rather the pitch is what we are to focus comments on.

The Ingenia CEO’s assertion that there is good opportunity in the region would be bolstered by some testimonials from her initial contact with those she has already spoken with about opportunities. Availability of a letter of intent to form a consortium with the software company for example, would be most reassuring.

Competitive Products

RRU of course does not have a selling price per se in an open sharing of the courseware. The question remains: would people looking for open courseware go to the MIT site for content before RRU ? (asked, and answered).

So, marketing of the RRU course availability outside of the consortium would be necessary. The institution would need to develop engaging materials to show interested students what makes them special, so they tune into RRU courses specifically. Our pitch person refers to showcasing media use to attract students and faculty, but no details were given about this aspect, which might be a good differentiator. The MIT sessions I have looked at are just .ppt and overhead/slides with the talking professor in the limelight but the content is good.

The Ingenia CEO does mention the population of the country but does not provide details about market size for in-progress work, or proposed work. There is no detail provided about any pricing for the services, just that they will be paid in USD not CAD dollars. If the pitch was done today, that probably would be left out with the dollars being so close this year. Mentioning some specific competitors in more detail, such as the Japanese group would let an EVA know she has done homework and is not afraid to share the good or bad news.

Market Readiness 

RRU is not providing any timelines.

Ingenia is also not giving set timelines. We do not know how long those marketing trips will take to complete, and how international, legal, import issues and language issues may delay their plans or not. Some track record on things would help here—she might share that it took 12 months for example, to go from contact to contract.

Technical Innovation 

RRU is not technically innovative and does not pretend to be.

Ingenia does project their expertise as being very narrow and specialized and such. The question in my EVA mind is whether their innovation exceeds the competitors from Japan already in the market in any way. No proposal is offered for differentiation in the pitch. It appears their strength has been in institutional and government rather than in industry, and now in the far east their first proposed work is with international banking and a software company. This does not mean they are not a stand-out, but the pitch is not strong in this area.

Exit Strategy 

RRU is not planning to exit, as this proposal does not lend itself to this point.

Ingenia does not talk much about when they achieve their goals. We do not hear about proposed company earnings, nor do we hear about their plans of merging or acquisitions or selling out if they do not end up meeting target. Investors would want more detail in this.

Overall Investment Status 

In the case of RRU, the proposal has merit but is not fleshed out in enough detail to allow the pitch target audience (investment assumed to be by the institution management) to know enough about the investment in time or dollars, nor enough detail about the benefits to the institution.

The Ingenia proposal also has merit, but again, unless this is an elevator pitch, more hard data would be needed to provide a VC the sense of solidity in their business acumen.

best wishes, Kathleen

Not being a “business person” per se, this has been pretty interesting – lots of new terms.  Since I really like watching “Dragon’s Den” and “Shark Tank” this has been kind of fun/cool.  I have emulated Ed’s idea and included a table with my thoughts on two companies, Recombo 2005 and Ingenia.