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

Categories
Uncategorized

Internet Resources M2

Just a few links to resources that you may find useful.

Canadian Business Online Get advice, tips and strategies on starting and running a small business in Canada. A decent resource if you can handle the large number of ads.

Instigator Blog Entrepreneurship, Business, Social Media, and Marketing. Down to earth blog articles.

Dragon’s Den TV and Online Business hopefuls pitch their ideas to millionaire investors.

TED TALK: David S. Rose on Pitching to VCs

and I can’t leave this one out:

Richard St. John’s 8 Secrets of Success

Categories
Uncategorized

Ernie’s Royal Roads University Pitch Analysis

Ok, here’s my first pitch analysis.  Next one to come later.

Royal Roads University Pitch

  • CEO Credibility – Does this person exude capability and convey confidence that they will achieve success against all obstacles?
    • Based on the pitch presentation, Burgess does seem to have done her research and has a good working knowledge of the university.  She provides a confident, enthusiastic pitch, but to me, this appears to be due to her charisma rather than track record.  She does not present anything at all about her credentials or personal background that would help further sell her pitch.
  • Management Team – Have they assembled a stellar team along with the other human and material resources required for success
    • There is no mention of a management team or who may be involved in instituting such a program.  I’m assuming there would be some faculty members or key people at RRU on board already.  This can’t be a solo effort, can it???  If so, forget it!  Establishing the management team clearly is needed in this pitch.
  • Business Model – Is this feasible? – have they done their homework? – are their arguments and information accurate and compelling?
    • Burgess seems to provide good information on opencourseware, including some history, current opencourseware consortium, and how RRU fits in the market (benefiting and altruistic relations).  She has done her research based on a model of opencourseware from MIT, a much larger school.
    • Importantly, Burgess seems to suggest having opencourseware available to prospective students would help attract more tuition paying students to the school.  However, is there a guarantee that this would happen?  What is the cost of marketing this free, opencourseware?  Is there a guarantee that the university will be able to recover its marketing costs over time?
  • 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?
    • In following the footsteps of the much larger school, MIT, RRU would be in competition with MIT’s reputation, established program, and larger financial budget.  Burgess mentioned that there were over 200+ institutions involved in an opencourseware consortium so there must be many other universities that would be in competition with RRU.
  • Market Readiness – How long and difficult is their critical path to success?
    • There does not appear to be any timeline provided for this venture.  How long will it take before the university sees a profit from attracting paying students to RRU by marketing their opencourseware?
    • There does not appear to be a market analysis performed to show the demand for opencourseware among prospective students.
  • Technical Innovation – Do they have an edge, and can they keep it?
    • To me, what Burgess is pitching appears to be something that other universities are already doing.  There isn’t anything that sticks out that is different than what is already being done by RRU’s potential competitors.  This plan is obviously taking after MIT’s model.
  • Exit Strategy – Do they really know what success looks like – is their destination clear
    • It appears that success would be measured based on attracting paying students to RRU as well as more experienced faculty.
  • Overall Investment Status – Am I going to risk my investment capital on this proposition?
    • Though the presentation was well-prepared, it seemed somewhat ‘amateurish’ to me.  The video was filled cheesy text messages inserted on top of still-framed pictures of the university.  Between still-frames was low-quality, handy-cam video clips of Burgess providing some commentary.  Though the information presented was fairly good, I thought the low-quality, amateur-style video detracted from a ‘professional’ pitch.  As an EVA, I’m not sure I would entrust my money into what may seem like an amateur venturist.
    • Furthermore, I think more market analysis needs to be done and presented to demonstrate that there is demand for opencourseware.  Burgess needs to provide more persuasive evidence showing how the university stands to gain financially, not just in reputation, and how long it will take to recoup marketing costs.  After all, if this venture is a money losing one, then there is no way the university should go for it.

Ernie’s Royal Roads University Pitch Analysis

  • CEO Credibility – Does this person exude capability and convey confidence that they will achieve success against all obstacles?
    • Based on the pitch presentation, Burgess does seem to have done her research and has a good working knowledge of the university. She provides a confident, enthusiastic pitch, but to me, this appears to be due to her charisma rather than track record. She does not present anything at all about her credentials or personal background that would help further sell her pitch.
  • Management Team – Have they assembled a stellar team along with the other human and material resources required for success
    • There is no mention of a management team or who may be involved in instituting such a program. I’m assuming there would be some faculty members or key people at RRU on board already. This can’t be a solo effort, can it??? If so, forget it! Establishing the management team clearly is needed in this pitch.
  • Business Model – Is this feasible? – have they done their homework? – are their arguments and information accurate and compelling?
    • Burgess seems to provide good information on opencourseware, including some history, current opencourseware consortium, and how RRU fits in the market (benefiting and altruistic relations). She has done her research based on a model of opencourseware from MIT, a much larger school.
    • Importantly, Burgess seems to suggest having opencourseware available to prospective students would help attract more tuition paying students to the school. However, is there a guarantee that this would happen? What is the cost of marketing this free, opencourseware? Is there a guarantee that the university will be able to recover its marketing costs over time?
  • 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?
    • In following the footsteps of the much larger school, MIT, RRU would be in competition with MIT’s reputation, established program, and larger financial budget. Burgess mentioned that there were over 200+ institutions involved in an opencourseware consortium so there must be many other universities that would be in competition with RRU.
  • Market Readiness – How long and difficult is their critical path to success?
    • There does not appear to be any timeline provided for this venture. How long will it take before the university sees a profit from attracting paying students to RRU by marketing their opencourseware?
    • There does not appear to be a market analysis performed to show the demand for opencourseware among prospective students.
  • Technical Innovation – Do they have an edge, and can they keep it?
    • To me, what Burgess is pitching appears to be something that other universities are already doing. There isn’t anything that sticks out that is different than what is already being done by RRU’s potential competitors. This plan is obviously taking after MIT’s model.
  • Exit Strategy – Do they really know what success looks like – is their destination clear
    • It appears that success would be measured based on attracting paying students to RRU as well as more experienced faculty.
  • Overall Investment Status – Am I going to risk my investment capital on this proposition?
    • Though the presentation was well-prepared, it seemed somewhat ‘amateurish’ to me. The video was filled cheesy text messages inserted on top of still-framed pictures of the university. Between still-frames was low-quality, handy-cam video clips of Burgess providing some commentary. Though the information presented was fairly good, I thought the low-quality, amateur-style video detracted from a ‘professional’ pitch. As an EVA, I’m not sure I would entrust my money into what may seem like an amateur venturist.
    • Furthermore, I think more market analysis needs to be done and presented to demonstrate that there is demand for opencourseware. Burgess needs to provide more persuasive evidence showing how the university stands to gain financially, not just in reputation, and how long it will take to recoup marketing costs. After all, if this venture is a money losing one, then there is no way the university should go for it.

Fusion Forum in Vancouver – November 2009

I found a great, very timely article on this website:

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/marketwire/article.jsp?content=20090916_093504_0_ccn_ccn

Here are some excerpts that summarize this event:

Google Ventures  is seeking to identify the next generation of founders and innovators from British Columbia.

20 digital media companies will be pitching their concepts to venture capitalists and angel investors in Vancouver on November 12.

See the website link below for specific information on the Fusion Forum:

www.thefusionforum.com

Fusion ‘09 Entrepreneur Boot Camp
November 5 and 10, 2009

The Fusion 2009 Entreprenuer Boot Camp is being Held November 5th at the 2010 Commerce Centre / BC Showcase Media Centre in Robson Square.  The speakers will help you lay a strong foundation for growth and help you to attract potential investors.

see also:   New Media BC

“New Media BC is a federally incorporated not-for-profit full service association. New Media BC’s membership is comprised of businesses, educational organizations, government agencies, and individuals whose core products and services include interactive design and marketing, digital entertainment, animation, visual effects, digital learning initiatives and social media applications.”


EVA of Ingenia and Recombo by Barbara Mair

A lot has been said in the blog about these two companies.

I would add that the CEO of Ingenia comes across as a very credible person in the education field although since the venture is taking place in Vietnam she is not focusing enough on her credibility in this market. In the case of Recombo, the CEO is highly knowledgeable about his product that has now become a service and i believe he would profit from being a little less technical in his pitch and a little more market driven.

As several of you have expressed neither one of the CEOs goes into the management team enough to judge if they are the right team for what they are trying to do, again Ingenia would benefit by explaining the partnership with the company who knows Vietnam well and telling us if anyone on her team has in depth knowledge about doing business in Vietnam. In the case of Recombo going from 12 to 24 people in a short time without outlining what these bring to the table could be dangerous and a source of cash burning.

Both business models could be successful given the right conditions, although i am not convinced by either of them as they stand in these pitches, they both will evolve although Recombo could be close if this lighthouse customer is as successful as they anticipate.

In the case of Recombo they have evolved from being a product driven company to a service company recognizing the pain and solving a business need for their partner. They are staying focused on developping this “distribution channel” for their products and services and i believe this will help them evolve further in understanding the end customer’s needs and adapting to them, they do sell the uniqueness of their products for the market they are addressing. Ingenia on the other hand has not found the uniqueness of their products, we do not know what the competition looks like in the market they are going after, Vietmam and they have had no success in their own local market. So it is to be seen whether they do have the right products.

I believe that Ingenia could be successful but i would not invest in it until i saw more proof of their ability to do business oversees in Asia.  Recombo i believe has got the product/service right although they are not clear on the exit strategy whether they are building up a company to sell or to expand to other customers or partners…. Looking at these as an EVA, of the two companies ithink Recombo is a surer bet.

Categories
Mod01: Introductions

Introducing Bev

Ray and Bev and Macchu Pichu
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!

Ingenia Pitch

As an EVA I was impressed by the qualifications of the core team. The venture also had a clear focus. I was concerned that Ingenia’s experience in the past has mainly been with governments and that their proposed projects will be mainly with multinationals. I would want to find out more about how significant this switch would be. Ramona is aware of, and honest about, the stiff competition Ingenia faces in the North American market and proposes an overseas venture partly to avoid this competition.

As I watched the pitch I was reminded of a recent report by the Educational Policy Institute on the effects of the recession on post-secondary education. At the end of this report (pages 28-29) the authors claimed that in Asia and Africa there is a high demand for education branded by large Western universities, and that Canada has been slow to respond to this demand. I noted that Ramona mentioned the success of an Australian university in Vietnam. Of course, Ingenia is not a large Western university and it is not offering post-secondary education. However, Ramona mentions that there is a strong presence of multinational companies in Vietnam, which is Ingenia’s focus, and this would suggest that there is a demand for the kinds of services Ingenia provides.

I would like to know more about Ingenia’s partner team and their experience. I could see this partnership as helping to overcome some of the problems that might exist with the venture. There is a question about what products they plan to use, as I assume that they will have to support Vietnamese. I understand that most of the connections in Vietnam are dial-up and that this is why Ingenia is proposing to buy a low-bandwidth portal in BC, but the slow connections may have ramifications for how attractive elearning will be and again what products should be used. I would like to know more about what solutions they implemented in their previous experience in Vietnam. When she discusses the need for insurance, Ramona admits that it is a difficult market and I would want to know more about potential risks.

I noticed that the Canadian government offers some resources for Canadians considering doing business in Vietnam. http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/vietnam/commerce_international/index.aspx?lang=eng

Article on Personal Ventures

This article has some practical views on starting a venture.  It’s focus is more on personal entrepreneurship.

http://www.ehow.com/how_5308103_choose-concept-high-growth-venture.html

Sharon

Categories
Announcements Module Discussions

Participation expectations

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.

Brian’s review of pitches

This is my analysis of three of the pitches. I’ll posit these before commenting on others’ even though it is late in the week. Recombo 2005 seemed easier to analyze as an entrepreneurship and as a business then the other two which could be considered intrapreneurships within UBC. For the latter I kept thinking that the interview approach did not bring out the most of the interviewee’s knowledge in the form of a pitch for an investment.

More on Ingenia later but I will say I had the least confidence in that pitch, perhaps because from EVA perspective it seemed a risky bridge too far.

Recombo

CEO Credibility

Brad appears to have a good grasp of his company’s status, strategies, and challenges as generalities, and seems to go into the necessary depth of detail compared to some of the other pitches I viewed.

Management Team

He has a very small team of experts at 12 but does not give much detail about what their expertise is in

Business Model

Sounds like Recombo as done their homework on their market, product, workflows, and optimum company culture. They have tailored a product set that they can reuse with each customer instead of building one-offs. He is balancing the risk of passing off some potential clients to focus on those more closely matched to Recombo’s packaged products.

Competitive Products

The Content Integration Platform sounds robust. I’m not familiar with the market myself. Brad mentions a similar company that got bought out but I would have liked to have heard whether he is aware of any other company that could move into this market with the three publishers he doesn’t have as clients as well as content provider companies not using his publisher client.

Market Readiness

It sounds like Recombo has been in business for several years and has demonstrable successes. I remember using what I think was Recombo freeware for validating LOM data back in 2003, when reuseable and XML repackaging of chunks of content was emergent.

Technical Innovation

From my experience, I think it has been as innovative as IMS and standards have been nascent and emerging. Their products will only be viable until their clients move to systems that adopt interoperability standards, smoothly import and export content and data, or the number of competing systems shrink or merge in the pattern of Blackboard’s. When there is more homogeneity among content systems someone is bound to innovate a product which is more portable or standalone. The current excitement about mash ups and pipes suggests to me that there is interest and expertise transferrable to innovation by others in this area.

Exit Strategy

As an EVA it sounds like he wants to corner more of the publisher market than the one of four publisher clients he has and through them more content provider clients for non publishing needs. He either wants to increase revenues to $100 million or be bought out. I think he should focus more on innovation, integrate his product more with frontrunning performance and training systems.

David Dodds, CIO, UBC

CEO Credibility

David Dodds sounds well versed about mission, vision, strategy and workflows.

Management Team

Five vice presidents on a steering committee appear to be the management team, but it might also include the innovators and “thought leaders” he refers to. The university has experts in all aspects of its venture, and they appear to be available to him as resources.

Business Model

The eStrategy sounds to me like a very high level strategy to disseminate the vision and support large, mostly campus-wide longer term initiatives. It sounds like a wise approach to me – especially as it views the university as a community and encourages bottom up initiatives that fit with the vision.

Competitive Products

I don’t think this is a relevant question. However, leading faculty is aptly compared to herding cats. He realizes it is better to promote a simple message of the vision and meet frequently with innovators in the faculties to give them voice.

Market Readiness

Demonstrable successes with campus registration and a distributed undergraduate medicine program.

Technical Innovation

I’m not sure this is relevant either. The innovation here is is in fostering solutions for a university of this scale by treating it as a community, and fostering innovations that involve off campus community.

Exit Strategy

It sounds like success is making the university produce better graduates and help the community. The community would include other educational institutions which could benefit from the innovations as well as the graduates. He did not say it but those who benefit might just give back to the university.

Overall investment status

I interpret this to mean to invest in the university. I have to say yes, because it is producing large scale results that have value beyond UBC.

Michelle Lamberson, OLT
I had mixed feelings about addressing this pitch because of the proximity of it to my work; however, this is not the first such intrapreneurial unit I have seen of this kind, and I really would like to explore how it could succeed. As an EVA the evaluation of her answers in the interview is a little constrained by not being able to ask more questions.

CEO Credibility

Michelle is faculty and is an early adopter. This gives her the needed credibility with faculty and technologists. She also appears sociable and approachable which are assets in maintaining the necessary connections in the university

Management Team

He has a very small team of experts at 12 but does not give much detail about

Business Model

Sounds like Recombo as done their homework on their market, product, workflows, and optimum company culture. They have tailored a product set that they can reuse with each customer instead of building one-offs. He is balancing the risk of passing off

Competitive Products

She is surrounding by competitors if central IT and IT and innovative groups in faculties find it easier to work directly with each other and seek to divert funding from OLT if they perceive OLT is not focussing on initiatives relevant to their needs. For example OLT might pursue development of one wiki product while another group in a faculty might have more success developing another wiki product.

Market Readiness

In my opinion, faculty focus more on research than on teaching. There seem to be too many other groups with overlapping interests and working with so many of them to get consensus on moving some innovation forward while the majority of faculty are focussed elsewhere means that this will be a long road.

Technical Innovation

I’m not sure this is relevant either. OLT’s goal appears to be to get new technologies that enhance teaching and learning to enterprise level and ubiquity on campus. The innovation would be their positioning administratively as a central resource, and their ability to develop new technologies to enterprise level. I understand that innovation in intrapreneurial settings works better in quiet until there is something substantial to show without looking like funds have been diverted from others. She definitely has a balancing act in this respect

Exit Strategy

OLT’s goal appears to be to get new technologies that enhance teaching and learning to enterprise level and ubiquity on campus.

Overall investment status

I assume the funding I would continue to fund this discretely and give funding incentives to faculty who collaborate.

Spam prevention powered by Akismet