Upload
edward-irby
View
531
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
By Edward Irby
12/17/2010
Purpose of Presentation
In this presentation you will find my
reworked provider market entry
selection chart. Its purpose is to help us
view the potential of different institutional
provider categories. I've modified it a bit
from last time.
Highest score possible is 50
Scores under 30 don’t meet my senate
style majority requirements.
Differences between First Chart
In my first chart I identified 10
institutional categories. I’ve since added
2.
I understand there is a difference
between the image of the institution or
organization that has computer power to
spare and finding institutions with spare
computer power.
There are Five Indicators INSTITUTIONS WITH SPARE
COMPUTER POWER Weighted 3 as this is what we are
looking for initially. Judging from the executive summary 100 computers is the ideal number for the example jobs listed. Meaning a single individual/institution that has 50 or more is significant. Thus the point scoring below.
(1 pt < 10 pc’s) (2 pt < 20 pc’s) (3 pt < 3 pc’s0) (4 pt < 40 pc’s) (5 pt < 50 pc’s)
YOUTH PATRONAGE Weighted 2
○ 93% of this age group are online
○ Every year millions enter the adult age group we should seed this market sector
○ We want to identify Cpusage as being the company to go to for rewards for doing nothing other than owning a pc and having a internet connections,
18-35 PATRONAGE Weighted 1 because this is our core
online user adult base
SETI @ home the precursor to BOINC was released in 1999 assuming that the majority of initial adopters were grad school age and younger then setting the upper limit at 35 seems to encompass the majority of those technologically aware enough to consider adopting CPUsage.
HOUSEHOLD INCOME 30K+ OF PATRONAGE Weighted 1 because 84% of this
portion of the adult population are internet using computer owners.
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT NEEDS Weighted 3 because when I think of
an institution and the probability of it partnering with us I feel this is one of the strongest indicators.
Indicator 1
In the initial chart with regards to indicator 1, I assigned those places with no real computer power to spare or a willingness to spare their computer power a 1, such as hospitals.
I agree with Shiv with regards to hospitals and other institutions such as government offices. It’s not that they don’t have computers to spare I just think there is no willingness.
However, that does not mean that they can’t provide access to private individuals who in turn have computer power to spare.
I was under the impression from the executive summary and conversations that CPUsage wanted to use consumer owned computers not solely clusters of pc’s found in institutions.
This time I have assigned those institutions without relative computer power (PC’s<7) to spare or no willingness to spare computer power a 0.
Indicators 2-4
The next three indicators relate to
patronage. These groups are the
portions of the provider market that
these institutions have direct contact
with.
I rated them based on how I perceived
the exposure, interactions and influence
over each group a given institutions had.
Indicator 5
The final indicator Resource
Development is the real need we are
solving for institutions. It is this need that
will be the primary factor determining
whether institutions partner with us as
solely providers of spare computing
power, channels of awareness for
provider acquisition, or a combination of
the both.
Ind
ica
tor 1
Weig
ht
Po
ints
Ind
ica
tor 2
Weig
ht
Po
ints
Ind
ica
tor 3
Weig
ht
Po
ints
Ind
ica
tor 4
Weig
ht
Po
ints
Ind
ica
tor 5
Weig
ht
Po
ints
To
tals
College 2 yr or 4 yr 5 3 15 1 2 2 5 1 5 1 1 1 4 3 12 35
Public schools 5 3 15 5 2 10 1 1 1 3 1 3 5 3 15 44
Private schools k-12 4 3 12 5 2 10 1 1 1 5 1 5 3 3 9 37
Youth Org. 1 3 3 5 2 10 2 1 2 4 1 4 5 3 15 34
Religious Org. 1 3 3 5 2 10 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 9 28
Library 5 3 15 5 2 10 3 1 3 2 1 2 5 3 15 45
Public Broadcasting 1 3 3 2 2 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 5 3 15 30
NP Hum/social 2 3 6 1 2 2 4 1 4 3 1 3 5 3 15 30
NP Art-Cult 1 3 3 3 2 6 3 1 3 3 1 3 5 3 15 30
Community Centers 3 3 9 4 2 8 2 1 2 2 1 2 5 3 15 36
Museum 1 3 3 3 2 6 3 1 3 5 1 5 3 3 9 26
State-Comm Parks 0 3 0 3 2 6 4 1 4 3 1 3 4 3 12 25
Youth Rec-Sports 0 3 0 5 2 10 1 1 1 4 1 4 2 3 6 21
Wifi Providers 5 3 15 2 2 4 4 1 4 5 1 5 0 3 0 28
Prison 4 3 12 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 5 3 15 27
Comm Clinic 0 3 0 3 2 6 1 1 1 3 1 3 4 3 12 22
Hospital 0 3 0 3 2 6 2 1 2 3 1 3 2 3 6 17
Non-Profit Medical 0 3 0 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 4 3 12 18
Indicators 1:
Computer Power to
Spare
Indicator 2: Youth
Patronage
Indicator 3: 18-15
Patronage
Indicator 4: House
hold income 30K+
Patronage
Indicator 5:
Resource
Development Needs
First Labour
When I last met with Shiv I was asked to come up with 10 or so intuitional categories and from them you guys would pick 5 or so. I have identified 12 categories of Institutions.
1. Educational Institutions
2. Youth organizations
3. Religious Organizations
4. Library
5. Public Broadcasting
6. Non-Profits
7. Community Centers
8. Museums
9. Parks and Recreations
10. Wi-Fi Providers
11. Correctional Facilities i.e. Prisons
12. Medical Institutions
Sub-categories
Four of these categories I have divided
into sub-categories and this is reflected
in the chart by the highlighted blocks.
This in turn gave me a total of 18
institutional types
Parks and Recreation
State and Community Parks
Youth Recreational Sports
Medical Institutions
Community Medical Center
Hospital
Non-Profit Medical
Educational Institutions
2 year colleges and non research 4 year
institutions
Clark College in Vancouver
Public School k-12
Beaverton School District
Private Schools k-12
Central Catholic High School whose 2010
phonathon reached nearly 6,000 parents,
alumni, and friends of Central Catholic asking
for contributions in support of their students.
Non-Profits (Not on Oregon’s 20 Worst Charities – 2010 list)
Humanitarian, Environmental and Social Work focused nonprofits Americorps and the Nature conservancy (146,232
Facebook Likes)
Mercycorps (20,264 Facebook Likes)
Project Wilderness (1,424 Facebook Likes), Ecotrust(Facebook Likes 884) Freshwater Trust, (615 Facebook Likes)
Art and Culture The Portland Japanese Garden (3,616 Facebook
Likes)
Portland Opera (2,133 Facebook Likes), Oregon Historical Society (1,934 Facebook Likes), Oregon Cultural Trust (1,455 Facebook Likes)
Indicators 1:
Computer Power to
Spare
Indicator 2: Youth
Patronage
Indicator 3: 18-15
Patronage
Indicator 4: House
hold income 30K+
Patronage
Indicator 5:
Resource
Development Needs
Ind
ica
tor 1
Weig
ht
Po
ints
Ind
ica
tor 2
Weig
ht
Po
ints
Ind
ica
tor 3
Weig
ht
Po
ints
Ind
ica
tor 4
Weig
ht
Po
ints
Ind
ica
tor 5
Weig
ht
Po
ints
To
tals
College 2 yr or 4 yr 5 3 15 1 2 2 5 1 5 1 1 1 4 3 12 35
Public schools 5 3 15 5 2 10 1 1 1 3 1 3 5 3 15 44
Private schools k-12 4 3 12 5 2 10 1 1 1 5 1 5 3 3 9 37
Youth Org. 1 3 3 5 2 10 2 1 2 4 1 4 5 3 15 34
Religious Org. 1 3 3 5 2 10 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 9 28
Library 5 3 15 5 2 10 3 1 3 2 1 2 5 3 15 45
Public Broadcasting 1 3 3 2 2 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 5 3 15 30
NP Hum/social 2 3 6 1 2 2 4 1 4 3 1 3 5 3 15 30
NP Art-Cult 1 3 3 3 2 6 3 1 3 3 1 3 5 3 15 30
Community Centers 3 3 9 4 2 8 2 1 2 2 1 2 5 3 15 36
Museum 1 3 3 3 2 6 3 1 3 5 1 5 3 3 9 26
State-Comm Parks 0 3 0 3 2 6 4 1 4 3 1 3 4 3 12 25
Youth Rec-Sports 0 3 0 5 2 10 1 1 1 4 1 4 2 3 6 21
Wifi Providers 5 3 15 2 2 4 4 1 4 5 1 5 0 3 0 28
Prison 4 3 12 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 5 3 15 27
Comm Clinic 0 3 0 3 2 6 1 1 1 3 1 3 4 3 12 22
Hospital 0 3 0 3 2 6 2 1 2 3 1 3 2 3 6 17
Non-Profit Medical 0 3 0 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 4 3 12 18
Now of the 12 Institutional categories listed
the highest possible score any could receive
was 50. Those categories with subcategories
I averaged to get an overall score:
Educational Insitutions-38.67, NonProfits-30,
Parks and Recreation-23, Medical
Institutions-19
I decide not to even bother considering
anything under 30. So the new chart of
prospective institutions looks like the one
presented on the next slide.
In
dic
ato
r 1
Weig
ht
Po
ints
In
dic
ato
r 2
Weig
ht
Po
ints
In
dic
ato
r 3
Weig
ht
Po
ints
In
dic
ato
r 4
Weig
ht
Po
ints
In
dic
ato
r 5
Weig
ht
Po
ints
To
tals
College 2 yr or 4 yr 5 3 15 1 2 2 5 1 5 1 1 1 4 3 12 35
Public schools 5 3 15 5 2 10 1 1 1 3 1 3 5 3 15 44
Private schools k-12 4 3 12 5 2 10 1 1 1 5 1 5 3 3 9 37
Average Educational Institutions 38.7
Youth Org. 1 3 3 5 2 10 2 1 2 4 1 4 5 3 15 34
Library 5 3 15 5 2 10 3 1 3 2 1 2 5 3 15 45
Public Broadcasting 1 3 3 2 2 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 5 3 15 30
NP Hum/social/envio 2 3 6 1 2 2 4 1 4 3 1 3 5 3 15 30
NP Art-Cult 1 3 3 3 2 6 3 1 3 3 1 3 5 3 15 30
Average NonProfits 30
Community Centers 3 3 9 4 2 8 2 1 2 2 1 2 5 3 15 36
Indicators 1:
Computer Power to
Spare
Indicator 2: Youth
Patronage
Indicator 3: 18-15
Patronage
Indicator 4: House
hold income 30K+
Patronage
Indicator 5:
Resource
Development Needs
What the chart reveals
There are six categories 2 of which are subdivided for a total of 9 types of institutions that meet the 30 point score or higher limit.
I’m not saying these are the must have choices but they are the ones that I perceived as being the ones to consider first. We are trying to create channels here. We have to ask ourselves through which channels do we reach our provider segments?
Proposed Solution to Channel “?” Creating awareness just among private individual
providers will be difficult. Marketing is expensive, along
with modifying public perceptions of something they might
not understand especially during a time when identity theft
and a dislike of corporate America in general are serious
thoughts on the minds of the many of Americans. The
institutions are a channel to reach the public and overcome
these major hurdles.
The institutions hypothetically provide something else
dedicated pc’s whose hours of operations are relatively
within our control.
Well 5 of the 9 institution types scored 3 or higher on indicator 1 and
thus could conceivably provide this.
All of the institutional types have the potential to forward
greater expansion into the consumer owned computer
provider market.
So why did I ask about Skins?
First it occurred to me even if the app is being run with the sponsorship of an institution CPUsage is going to mean a lot less to people than say “MercyCorps”
Think of the institutions as our Shields and Champions to someone who’s not comfortable letting Corporate America into their machines. MercyCorps Disturbed Networking Donations powered by CPUsage
I know badly worded but this is a possible approach.
So is the cost of making personalized skins for each institution greater than the ROI that continual visual reminders of: Not just reward points stacking up but also good intentions/deeds
I think it would serve as a great psychological incentive if the provider is given visual reminders of who they are helping as they glance at their taskbar. They will be more inclined to leave the computer on longer and not worry so much about the business using their machine.
Consider This
You’re a private individual visiting OPB.org or some other Nonprofit/Charity and you read this. Give a gift that only costs four more dollars a month
in your power bill. When you donate your time and money, sometimes that is not enough because sometimes you can't even give that. So, in addition to giving what dollars you can this year to your favorite charity or non-profit, donate something new: your Idle Processing Time. Let (charity) harness your spare computer power. In return, you'll not only be providing needed funds to (charity), you'll also be receiving rewards as you accumulate points for every hour donated.
So what’s next?
I Look forward to you feedback
Edward Irby