Here is the link. (Controls open on a new page.)

On the Internet, it seems that folks are giving away almost everything.

How do Open Source advocates compete in the “Wide World of Giveaways?”

Answer: we use the most effective marketing techniques!

And, on the Internet, one of these techniques is called Viral Marketing.

The Rebrandable eBook Strategy

With a Rebrandable report or Rebrandable eBook Strategy, you put in links to your favorite pages or Websites. Then you embed (or integrate) an incentive (the motivation) for folks that receive your eBook to pass it on to others. (This is what makes the process “Viral.”

For example, if we wrote a report on how to use Mind Mapping Software to teach history, we could insert links to:

• Free Mind
• The Brain - Free Edition
• Wikipedia List of Mind Mapping Software

This strategy would make it easy for teachers who were interested in Mind Mapping to find Open Source Solutions that would help them in their search for viable teaching strategies.

But, this provides only the Brandable part of a Rebrandable Viral Strategy. (The pass along process stops here.)

To turn the report into a viral Open Source promotion effort, we need to upgrade the process; i.e., taking the Brandable report and making it Rebrandable.

The rebrandable component of this strategy is to allow the people that distribute the report or eBook to change some of the links. For example, a How-To report to parents that described how that same Open Source Mind Mapping software could help students study at home could be “Rebranded” with the teacher’s name and the campus name. Other links could point to district’s Five Year Technology Plan that is being reviewed by the School Board.

Now, instead of one teacher passing the eBook (with its links) to several colleagues, all the teachers on the campus could be…

• Sending the eBook home with their students
• Posting the eBook on their classroom Web pages, Blogs, and Wikis
• Providing cost-free study tools for their students
• Addressing Teacher-Parent / Home School communication goals

Now, there are dozens, maybe hundreds of parents…

• Downloading the Mind Mapping software
• Connecting to the campus (or classroom) Website for more helpful teach-at-home tools
• Talking to their School Board members about why the distict’s IT Department isn’t providing access to the Open Source Mind Mapping for their children at school

The only catch to this rebranding effort is that doing this rebranding by hand is time consuming and tedious. The Rebranding process needs to be automated. 

PDF Rebrander software programs are available to change the links within
an eBook. The problem is that someone on campus would have to Rebrand the eBook for dozens or scores of teachers. “saddling” someone with this job would stop the motivation to pass the eBook on in its tracks.

However, there is a Rebrandable eBook strategy that Internet Marketers use to automate the process and Rebrand eBooks. This system is called My Viral Spiral™.

He claims that with just 2 days, he can set you up with your own Internet Business set to earn over $66,000 in eight months - and over $100,000 in a year.

The theory is based around the phenomenon of exponential growth, and there are numerous examples of people who have experienced it using effective viral marketing on The Internet.

Viral marketing, it seems, is key to the success of any Internet business. none of the big names online currently would be anything like as successful but for it.

So now, it seems, the whole world is trying to create  viral effects to grow their businesses with. Some are succeeding, but many more fail.

So what is it about The Freedom Class, and Tim Brocklehurst, that makes me think there could be something in learning about it this way?

Well, for one thing, the method of learning is intriguing. Tim is using something called “Action Learning” to conduct these classes. Action Learning is a way of learning something by ‘doing’ it.

On these classes, the participants will bring their own laptops and go through the process of uploading products for sale and giving them an affiliate back-end so that others can sell them too.

Then, they will be giving them a viral boost on the front-end using Tim’s own tried and tested viral software, MVS.

His users have had spectacular results with this membership site software. It brings together a wide array of tried and tested viral seeds, triggers and motivators to reach further and get more sign-ups than a normal site could on its own.

Another factor which is sure to help the success of participants, is the mastermind group formation.

Tim is issuing questionnaires to all participants from which a chart of their natural strengths and weaknesses can be drawn. He has identified 5 key skills which everyone possesses with varying degrees, but which are important for Internet Marketing success.

By partnering up with others on the course who have complementary skills, it seems reasonable to expect that useful teams will be made, which can work effectively and achieve more individually than they could on their own.

Overall, I like the sound of this course. For one thing, its good to see a recognised marketer getting out and showing us, rather than hiding behind the Internet. On the other hand, if you prefer to learn at home, then look out for The Freedom Class Home Action Pack once you have registered at the site.

For full details of dates and venues of The Freedom Classes go to this link:

Find out more about the Freedom Class

With commercial software, developers produce updates and upgrades because there is profit in it.

With Open Source software the motivations of the developers is unclear.

There is also the problem of marketing the Open Source software once is it produced. Software programmers are not marketers, and solid Open Source software often withers for lack of adequate marketing.

Note: This lack of marketing is understandable because:

• Software developers and programmers don’t understand marketing
• People who understand marketing make a lot of money, and don’t work for free
• Software that is given away without cost (i.e., free) does not product enough revenue to pay the marketers
• Competitors, i.e., the commercial software companies, have money for marketers and product development) and often produce a superior product

However, Open Source software projects can be successful, if Open Source advocates will pay attention to Open Source developers who were successful, and just follow the path that these other developers have taken.

This is easier said than done because many Open Source advocates carry grudges against the market leader, Microsoft™, and grudges and a negative attitude are “marketing results killers.”

Three profitable Open Source companies are Novel™, MySQL™ and SugarCRM™.

If Open Source advocates, examine these companies, they will see the positive side of effective marketing and communications. They will also see brand awareness, an ever increasing user base and paying customers.

MySQL owns the lion’s share of the Open Source database market and SugarCRM™ dominates the Open Source CRM space.

These products are also effective in capturing “e;Mindshare,” although these products are far from the best products for the job. (The commercial products from Microsoft™ and Oracle™ are superior.)

Are these the best products for the job? Maybe.

Do these Open Source software companies make money? Absolutely! Look at MySQL’s 65 percent sales growth from 2004 to 2005! Or consider the success of Firefox, which has reached more that 70 million downloads, primarily through campaigns like “GetFirefox” and “SpreadFirefox.” Both of these Open Source success stories demonstrate that Open Source viral marketing can be superbly successful.

It’s not Easy

Of course, Open Source software development and Open Source software marketing difficult. Developing viable Open Source software products is extremely difficult.

In the end, it’s the vision and the quality of the Open Source thinking that will drive the success of an Open Source software project.

But, the Open Source community can thrive if competent marketing, rather than “anger against the market leader, Microsoft™” drives the development project.

Vision and satisfying user “wants,” not advocates’s needs or Open Source zealot’s pet beliefs is key to launching a marketing effort that will help catapult Open Source software project to success.

Of course, this argument is shortsighted and wrong, but it holds sway with school district decision makers who don’t know any better.

What the Open Source advocates of “free” forget is that schools are complex enterprises with complex network infrastructure and compatibility needs.

On example of why schools must adopt Open Source with all the professionalism of any business is the Client Relationship Management (CRM) arena.

The top choice for an Open Source CRM product is SugarCRM™.

This is commercial Open Source.

SugarCRM™ is a leading provider of commercial open source customer relationship management (CRM) software for companies and schools of all sizes.

SugarCRM™ adapts to these business and educational environments by offering a flexible, cost-effective alternative to proprietary applications, such as the ones sold by industry leaders, Oracle™ and Microsoft™.

SugarCRM™’s Open Source architecture allows easy customization and integration of client and customer business processes. This builds and maintains profitable relationships.

SugarCRM™ products are available products including: on-demand, on-premise and appliance-based solutions. The product line needs to be broad to suit security, integration and configuration needs for a wide range of industry and educational needs.

Link to the SugarCRM™ product description page

SugarCRM™ describes their development process as a better way to develop software. Here is what they say…

“SugarCRM is changing the game by finding a better way to develop software.

We author and release Sugar Open Source to a community of 2,400 CRM experts and developers who use the software, provide feedback and develop extensions to the Sugar. We then use revenues from our corporate customers to fund the development and release of new functionality for our development community. That is why Sugar was translated into 24 languages in the last 18 months. This distributed development cycle produces a product that is more innovative and of better quality than closed vendors could ever produce. Put another way, who understands the CRM market better: 8 engineers or 2,400 CRM experts?

What SugarCRM™ is actually doing is using the Open Source process to develop its commercial software.

Smart strategy!

So, why would a school district of business opt for the commercial version instead of the Open Source version?

Quality, stability, reliability, dependability…confidence in the tested product.

And real-time support.

Check out the “Try it and See if it Works” Developers Edition of SugarCRM. Get your copy at…

SugarCRM Open Source Download…

Check out SugarCRM™ to see just why the “free and no-license fee” Open Source advocates deserve to “get the bums’ rush” in venues such as school districts.

“Free and Cheap” have no place when it comes to “mission critical software applications, and school districts should not blame budget shortfalls for the decision to run inadequate programs just because they were able to acquire the software without cost. Software that is inadequate for the job is no bargain at any price, even free.

And, what has the Open Source Community done to increase that confidence in Open Source products?

For example, I failed to notice much difference between MS Office 2000 or MS Office 2003 and either Open Office or Star Office.

But, I might not notice much difference in driving a car with an automatic transmission and a stick shift, having drive multiple 100,000s of miles with each type of transmission.

As far as I know most of the functions of each program work in a similar fashion.

But, why should users have to care about these differences at all?

It is up to the Open Source developers to ensure that the user experience is seamless and positive. It is not Microsoft’s responsibility to adjust to the chaotic and “wild west” Open Source environment, but it is the Open Source community’s responsibility to set standards and bring development under control.

Of course, learning to use multiple products is beneficial.

Our students need to learn principles for technology use, so that they can adjust to changes in the technology.

For example, Microsoft Office for Vista™ is different, better in many ways; but there is a learning curve. Eventually, Open Source clone software will try to introduce the new features and they will take a stab at compatibility. But, they will be playing “catch up.”

In order for Open Source products to take the lion’s share of the software market, Open Source developers will have to “out inn ovate” Microsoft™.

But, how can this happen with the “free wheeling, uncontrolled, un centralized Open Source development community? Who will set standards? Who will bring disparate factions in line? Who will spend the Research and Development (R&D) dollars that are needed? Who can match Microsoft™’s R&D budget?

Several companies tried to beat Microsoft™. None did.

If multi-million dollar corporations can’t compete successfully, how can we expect that a legion of volunteers, doing their own thing, will somehow produce software innovation?

But, back to user confidence?

All it takes is one important document to have its formatting “trashed” (by either a Microsoft™ product or by the Open Source product, it doesn’t make any difference), and the Open Source product will be blamed.

Knowing this, it is up to the Open Source developers to ensure compatibility and absolute safety of user’s work. Anything less (the current state) puts Open Source at a “no-win” competitive disadvantage.

And, Open Source advocates must avoid the “use our products because we’re the good guys and Microsoft™ is evil” arguments.

This is as shortsighted and foolish as saying to the people of the world, “you must join our religion because we are the good guys.”

Another issue with the adoption of Open Source software is the lack of “Third Party Support” for the Open Source products.

For example, will the high-end mind mapping program automatically create presentations in the Open Source product, or, project plans in Open Source project software?

A third issue is that some software (such as Adobe Photoshop™, Adobe Dreamweaver™, Techsmith’s Camtasia™ Studio, Mindjet’s MindManager™ and Inspiration Software’s Inspiration™ do not have Linux versions.

How are users to develop confidence in Open Source solutions when Third Party add-in tools are unavailable? How are users to gain confidence in Open Source products when companies that clearly have the best products on the market in their category do not support an Open Source version of their product?

Open Source advocates seem to believe that price is the strongest motivator, and price (free) is mentioned as the sole marketing advantage. But, users actually want the best products that they can afford, because the best tools are less expensive and more cost effective in the long run.

No mechanic will place confidence in discount-store tools. Mechanics have enough sense to purchase the best tools that they can afford. Confidence, rather than price rules when people who depend on tools for their livelihood make choices.

Open Source folks need to focus upon the stellar quality, the compatibility and the reliability of the products that they advocate.

Anything less saps the Open Source Movement of the vitality that it needs in order to compete in the real-world marketplace.

But this “Open” kind of thinking involves stretching our perceptions and expanding our concepts of what Open Source is. (For sure, Open Source Thinking is “not what we think.” Open Source Thinking is what “We’all (we all) think.”

(Note: this is the first-person-plural version of the noted, Texan second-person-plural, “Y’ all.”)

Open Source thinking is possibility thinking, collaborative sharing, group wisdom, vision and success consciousness…”breakthrough” thinking at its best.

Mistaking a Product , or Byproduct for the Process

Some Open Source advocates mistake the product (software), or the byproduct (implementation project) as the target outcome. It is a mistake to think that the software that is developed by the community, is the product, or that the implementation of an Open Source Solution is a hardware/ software installation. In fact, the power of Open Source Solutions depends little on the product; but depends upon (and is powerfully driven by) the Open Source thinking process. Even the creation, development, testing and bug-fixing of the software development process relies on collaboration and “best practices” for a process that is never finished.

Open Source software projects are “works in progress” rather than a wrapped and finished, final packages.

Open Source Solutions for education must take this Open Thinking process one step further, and establish a collaborative dialog among equals (our end users, clients and stakeholders are equal participants with developers, technicians and other techies).

Open Source thinking recognizes that the educational stakeholder community has more wisdom, knowledge and insight than a single, talented individual…and Open Source thinking recognizes that communities of school district stakeholders raise this wisdom, knowledge and insight to a level of magnitude higher than the insight held by some isolated groups (for example techies, server operators, or software programmers).

Brainstorming: Thinking on Steroids

Brainstorming in a tool that makes Open Source Solutions powerful and relevant.

So, Open Source advocates need to approach Open Source projects by examining various slants and vantage points of our clients and end users. We need to keep the process in view (and avoid the seduction of advocating a product), no matter if that product is superior to the competition.

Just because a product is superior today does not mean that the product will be superior tomorrow, or even an hour from now. “Leapfrogging” is a label that is used by competitors to mean that one product surpasses the others, not in a step-by-step race, but with a leap forward.

What it takes for a Successful Educational Project

For Open Source projects to be successful in the education arena, our solutions and options must appeal to many constituencies besides the highly trained technical folks. So, our first goal is to increase the relevancy of Open Source Solutions to as wide a range of school district stakeholders as possible, especially teachers and students.

When our thinking is stretched to include the view and vantage points of our clients and end users; we come to understand that Open Source Solutions are teaching and learning projects. Our Open Source projects apply Open Source thinking and Open Source tools to the instruction process. Our teaching and learning projects are not software projects or hardware and infrastructure initiatives. The use of software always takes a back seat to instructional goals in the teaching and learning process.

Successful Open Source advocates come to see that Open Source thinking promotes and targets processes for change and reform, solutions based upon the dynamic interaction among clients and end users, the dynamic interplay among trainers and trainees, the dynamic interchange among curriculum specialists and professional development providers, and the dynamic interrelationship among technical support specialists and the rest of our clients.

Collaboration and a Real-World View: the Real Driving Force for Open Source Projects

The goal of any Open Source Solution in education is the improvement of instruction in areas where Open Source Solutions excel.

By considering, weighing and interacting with thoughts and ideas of our project stakeholders (our clients); we stretch our vision, we encounter a greater depth of feedback. We widen, deepen, broaden and strengthen our insight. Open Source advocates use this dynamic community-based feedback and this dynamic open discussion to problem-solve and to make decisions…crafting solutions and decisions that work in the real world…not just fantasy plans that seem to work on our project management statements of work, seem to work on scope of work documents, and seem to work on critical path project tracking tools.

Relevancy of Interests: Success of the Community

Most school district stakeholders don’t know that an Open Source Developers’ Community exists to serve them. And, most school distinct stakeholders hold vested interests in lots of things, but don’t have a need to become vested in a software development community.

So, it becomes the software development community’s responsibility, or the Open Source Solution after-market community’s responsibility to listen well and adapt.

The shortcomings and unmet promises of the technology integration movement should have proven, beyond debate, that “meeting teachers’ needs first” not “demands of what we can extract from teachers” is the path to educational project success.

This listening, paying attention and believing what stakeholders at all levels tell us is where Open Source advocates “make or break” an Open Source Solution project in our schools.

Open Source advocates either draw these stakeholders into the project, honor and prize their contributions and points of view, understand that these stakeholders have greater wisdom about teaching and learning (than server operators, software developers and hardware technicians). When it comes to the real-world of teaching and learning, when it comes to the real-world of delivering instruction and when it comes to the real-world of driving student outcome improvements… an Open Source project either reaches a substantial portion of its potential; or, fails outright. Open Source thinking and active listening make the difference.

Open Source advocates either target and solve our stakeholders’ greatest issues, concerns and pains; or fail to meet the promises of improved teaching and learning that is expected from the project.

The Open Source projects that get this right, that consider teachers, principals, curriculum specialists, and students as “indispensable project consultants;” are the projects that are successful.

The projects that ram Open Source Solutions through to adoption (by sales pitches, subterfuge and chain of command power plays) always fail to achieve their potential. Guaranteed!

Relevancy or Else: No Relevancy equals “Missing in Action” Project Success

Open Source Solutions must be relevant for our clients and end users.

But, software developers, computer technicians, and server operators cannot, should not, (and should be tickled with a cattle prod if they try) think that they know what teachers and students need unless, until and after they ask, listen, and ask again.

These technical professionals should have more sense than to believe that “operating systems and software equate to test-smart, project-based, engaged-learning, outcomes-focused lesson delivery, or meanful learning assignments.” The Open Source thinking process blares, flags, screams for a focus upon professional development, Service Level Agreement (SLA) support and measureable curriculum-based objectives for every project.

So, the first steps of an Open Source project are “asking teachers and students what the learning objectives are” and “brainstorming with teachers, students and other stakeholders.”

During the brainstorming and sharing process, all ideas are accepted and one idea may invoke a “piggy back’ response, or provoke an opposite idea, an antithetical response. One idea, both, or yet another idea may prove to be beneficial. It is difficult to judge which ideas will bear fruit; so, open discussion is encouraged and promoted.

Another component of brainstorming is allowing participants and learners to make mistakes. This is another Open Source strength…where the community steps up and shares the task of fixing what needs to be fixed. This strategy, when accompanied by a wide, deep and broad inquiry into ideas and possible solutions results in what some folks label as “breakthrough thinking.”

The best implementation of the Open Source philosophy means an open-minded approach to problem-solving and decision-making, a willingness to dialog with stakeholders of all backgrounds and a willingness to communicate with people with all levels of expertise. If only those in the highest echelons of expertise are encouraged to participate, how will Newbies (who by definition, make mistakes) acquire the skills to progress in their own knowledge?

Note: This is another of the myths surrounding the lackluster performance of the technology integration movement. The myth has it that teachers were afraid to venture from their “expert status role” and be seen to be making mistakes by students. While this myth is plausible, the reality is that students know that technology involves mistakes. That is why video game players get a “fist full of lives” when they play video games.

If there is only one “right answer” then the person or group that holds that card is king. That is “closed source” at its finest, but darkest hour. Open Source thinking understands that all together we are smarter than the brightest and best single one of us. This makes Open Source Solutions powerful.

And, weaving the discussion with the threads of many viewpoints (from many stakeholders) is Open Source thinking.

Vision and Success Consciousness

But, brainstorming is not the only component of Open Source thinking. Vision and Success Consciousness are even more important.

Vision is related to the clarity with which an Open Source project’s goals are sculpted and held to. And, success consciousness is the attitude and values of the of key players who develop the project.

The vision that the project’s originators and sponsors hold affects the outcome of a project. Unfortunately, you cannot know what is in the hearts and minds of any other principle member of the project, and this aspect of the project remains hidden.

The vision that key project originators and sponsors hold is difficult to know, and the level of success consciousness of these players is difficult to know. However, these are key crucial and key components for any project, especially Open Source projects.

The Open communication and the honoring of all stakeholders is an important aspect that reveals a sliver of success consciousness, but, it is still possible that manipulators, sales people, and power-focused chain of command people agree to the Open communication model because they know that the model propels success, rather than because they hold all stakeholders in esteem.

Unfortunately, even a clear vision can weaken as the project progresses, and other folks can be brought into the project before they develop a clear knowledge of the vision for the project.

Success consciousness is related to the belief systems held by key project originators and sponsors.

This is also difficult to know because our vision into the hearts and minds or others is obscured by the mist and fog in our own heart and mind. We must perceive what is in our own consciousness before we begin to sense what is in the hearts and minds of others.

Unfortunately, Open Source advocates tend to be technically oriented, rather than people oriented, and long years spent locked away in server rooms, long time-and-a-half days spent debugging computer code, and the hours of stresses from troubleshooting systems, and the perpetual “midnight oil burning” spent scrambling to keep up with the latest changes in technology shunt these folks away from communication and interaction with people. The upshot?

Make sure that a “people person” rather than a “techie” is in charge of the project.

Unfortunately, some school district leaders are politicians, people who say what they think that other people want to hear. Look for these folks because they are found in every stakeholder group.

But, these folks have no vision of their own except one built on the shifting sands of taking advantage of situations by reflecting what they believe are other people’s opinions. The upshot: we seldom find clarity of vision in any of these folks, so never place a politician in charge of a project. In fact, avoid placing a politician in any position of authority, responsibility or importance. These folks wreak havoc in any endeavor that they touch.

Note: Evidence of this dearth of vision in politicians abounds in the circus arena of government where clowns, ringmasters, jugglers, tight-rope artists, animal tamers and slight-of-hand performers entertain us with their antics.

So, what is the Open Source advocate to do to motivate a project towards success when such inportant factors as the vision and success consciousness of stakeholders remain hidden?

Here are some steps to consider:

• Make sure that an honest and ethical person is in charge of the project
• Make sure that the vision for the project is communicated to everyone that is involved

• Note: The Open Source thinking and the Open communication process serves to share the vision and serves to discover how the vision (and associate goals) will play out during its implementation
• The “buy-in” of project stakeholders and participants is really a “buy-in” for the vision for the project.

• It is amazing how negative, project-albatross type folks respond to positive, success-oriented communication by self-rejection
• But do not be surprised if these folks become hostile, disgruntled, backbiting and insidious. Just hold gently to the positive vision for the project
• Avoid any “in kind” response to the negative people that orbit around the project
• Continue to respect these folks, continue to wish them well, and continue trusting the Open communication process and the Open Source thinking process

• Also feel, believe and sense this success in a multi-modal, multi-sensory way
• Listen to self-talk and listen to the success-talk of others in your mind as though they are commenting on the success of the project
• Project your thoughts into the future and perceive how that success continues
• If any thoughts or images seem to be in discord, redo the vision of the project until all images and all steps of the creative imagination process come into harmony
• You will be amazed at how the right people, the right resources and the right information are attracted to the project

• Silently and honestly thank these people in your heart and mind because they benefit your project in ways that you may discover later, or in ways that you may never know
• Consider your project to be like a chick that hatches from an egg. The chick needs to struggle to exit the eggshell, and the chick even grows an attachment to its beak to assist in the exit process
• But, if we break the shell to assist the chick, we create a weak and sickly bird that never becomes healthy
• Somehow, the chick (like our projects) needs the struggle to become strong

Vision and success consciousness can “fall through the cracks” an take a back seat during the excitement and stress of an Open Source project. Be sure that this does occur during the implementation of your projects.

Note: Some Open Source proponents profess to be “Microsoft™ haters.” Do not trust these folks at any level of an Open Source project because it is not possible to hold a positive vision, to hold love and respect for teachers and children, and to hold a focused success consciousness in the same heart and mind that harbors hatred. The person who cannot embrace the polarity of opposites, who cannot find value and benefit because of preconceived disgust for other’s successes, and who cannot honestly enbrace alternatives that might be best practices for the project because of bias is one who stagnates Open Source thinking and is one who mires (and fogs) any project that they become involved with.

Collaborative Sharing

Collaborative sharing also is a creative process that is bigger, higher, wider, deeper than brainstorming. Brainstorming is a “wild ride” a stretching and a creating, a weaving of associations, and a kick off towards tangents and parallels. Brainstorming is like a skyrocket that launches fragments into colorful star bursts…delighting many but their glow is quickly extinguished.

But, collaborative sharing is the slow and steady, meticulous, often painful, building out of a vision.

Collaborative sharing is hammering out of dents, a smelting of ore and a purifying to rid the project of slag, an oiling of squeaky wheels, of giving all (read every) stakeholder groups their due.

Collaborative sharing is the process that a Dali Lama, a Mahatma Gandhi, a Mother Theresa would take to ensure that all people (stakeholders) receive respectful and caring treatment. No group is ignored, stomped on, ramrodded or forced to acquiesce to the “solution de jour.” Everyone is respected and consensus, rather than “who comes out on top” is the prize.

But, why would anyone want to give up winning, give up taking personal credit; and let group-think prevail?

Answer: They hold the best interests and wellbeing of our students and teachers in mind. Their vision is the “greater good of all students, teachers and stakeholders.”

Group Wisdom

Even if the Open Source advocate is brighter, smarter, more talented…more talented than all the rest of the stakeholders; pushing through a personal agenda is “short-sighted.”

The reason is that these projects depend on other people to carry them out, and that it takes other people to see the project through to completion.

The project depends upon the talents, skills, and knowledge of others; but the project also depends upon the attitudes, feelings, beliefs, values, insights, motivation and good will of others.

And in implementing an Open Source Solution in a school district, the attitudes, feelings, beliefs, values, insights, motivation and good will of stakeholders positioned along all levels of the chain of command are crucial.

But, teachers in particular hold the key to instruction because teachers are the stakeholders that deliver direct instruction. Other stakeholders may just need to be happy that their issues and concerns are addressed, but teachers must have the support, professional development (and anything else that it takes) to ensure the Open Source project’s success.

Paying attention when teachers talk is more than just being polite. Taking to heart what teachers are saying, and acting upon what they tell us is more than good sense. Listening, and listening between the lines. Understanding what teachers (and other stakeholders) said, understanding what teachers and other stakeholders meant to say, and understanding what teachers and other stakeholders would have said if they could, even what they wish that they had said…are part of the conversation that exists when Open Source advocates prize the wisdom of the group.

Giving and Receiving

Open Source advocates pride themselves in sharing, but, giving is the another side of the complex set of interactions that comprise giving.

Giving means more than sharing. If the begging bum panhandles a quarter, and you begrudge the quarter that you drop with disdain into his alcohol-perfumed hand, you have given next to nothing.

In the same way, if Open Source advocates hold attitudes of self-superiority, disdain, distrust, deception or a focus upon a project (without regard for the people involved in making that project a success); the project cannot reach its potential.

Attitude and value make all the difference because people are not boxes and wires, and even boxes and wires respond in a positive manner when we care for them.

Of course boxes can turn from speedy track stars to brain-dead malingerers in the space of three years; but people remain precious throughout the life cycle of the project.

And Open Source advocates must become aware of other negative thinking.

Take for example, that professed “hatred” for Microsoft™.

Of course, this attitude is unwise because holding hatred and a vision of success in awareness at the same time is incongruous. And, holding any attitude of bias, stilts and convolutes thinking.

Holding an attitude of hatred for Microsoft™ costs Open Source advocates the flexibility that they need, binds their thinking to a type of tunnel vision that excludes opportunities and increases the burden that they place on themselves and their end user clients by eliminating elegant solutions in favor of a kludge that takes the long way around to avoid the “Microsoft™ bully.”

Of course, what really happens is that bias leads the project through a struggle that could have been avoided if only a spirit of giving and receiving were present.

Praising our competitors and wishing our competitors only good is the attitude that leads to success. Begrudging success to any other, even a corporate entity, blocks that good from pouring itself upon our project.

Since hatred is “alien” to an accepting-of-all Universe, the obvious conclusion is that those who hate, hate a part of themselves; and they are just projecting that hatred of themselves outward toward (real or imagined) others.

Breakthrough Thinking

Breakthrough thinking is any change in thought, attitude, perception, planning or insight that leads us from “locked in our comfortable rut kind of results” to success.

What do we have to breakthrough, break out of, escape from?

We have to break out or escape from our belief that we know…

• What is best for our self
• What is best for others
• How things really are
• How things should really be
• The best way to do or perform anything
• What experience is like for others and what will help them do or perform better

One characteristic of breakthrough thinking is that the components are simple, not complex. Others often say, “Now why didn’t I think of that. It was right in front of us all along.”

Whether the breakthrough is creative associative, i.e., putting common things together in novel ways; or, creative dissociated, i.e., separating things that have always “gone together; the breakthrough idea just stands out as better.

We break through barriers, mostly barriers of thought and assumptions; but often barriers of habit, feeling, attitudes and conditioning.

But breakthrough thinking at its best in Open Source projects is thinking that accounts for the wants, needs, desires, fears and pains of multiple groups of stakeholders; and satisfies many or most of these issues with an elegant solution.

Everyone in each stakeholder group may not receive everything that they wanted or needed, but at least they are satisfied that their concerns were heard and every effort was made to accommodate their needs.

Participants, clients and end users who feel that their needs and issues were cared for in this way have real, vested buy-in; not the “lip-service, appear to be cooperative” buy-in that reveals its true characteristics at the most crucial, critical, “no turning back now, no escaping catastrophe” embarrassing, “egg-on-your-face” time.

Efficient Solutions

The collaborative solution may seem inefficient to the software coders who pride themselves on elegant, small footprint, efficient code.

But, the Open Source advocate has to be sure that the footprint that they leave is not one of their stomping on clients and end users by forcing (kicking and whining) compliance to the project.

There are all manner of “monkey wrenches” that disgruntled, unappreciated clients can toss into an Open Source project if they are forced, beguiled, or cajoled to participate in a project that they don’t like (or forced to comply with an authority that they don’t like).

Even worse than a project that failed to build buy-in, is a project that increases the pain that teachers and students feel and experience.

For example,…

• a technology integration project that requires teachers to stay after school (without compensation) to learn to operate software
• a technology integration project that increases the amount of work that teachers must perform (without increasing measurable student achievement), or
• a “Catch-22″ project that “everyone just knows will produce spectacular results”, but doesn’t, therefore the problem must be the teacher

all fail because teachers and students were not considered first.

The Technically Superior Solution

Open Source thinking skirts the problem of the “technically superior solution” because the technically superior solution is impractical in the real world. For example, stunning technology rollouts, without professional development, an educational (or business case) and stakeholder buy-in are “real-world impractical.” Prescribing technical solutions without exploring the feelings, fears, stresses, conflicting commitments, bureaucratic system inconsistencies and management incongruities is “real-world impractical.”

But, Open dialog is practical. Brainstorming is practical. Open sharing is practical. Success consciousness is practical. Breakthrough thinking is practical.

For example, teacher members of Open Source collaborative efforts would not want to be bothered with the intricacies about setting up Web servers, and minor distinctions between updates for various Linux distros would hold limited appeal to a campus principal or curriculum specialist. But members of each of these groups would be interested in the professional development issues, educational case justification for Open Source projects, and the logistics of managing student software take home components of an Open Source Solution package

The technically superior solution starts with teachers, students, principals, curriculum specialists; then matches the appropriate professional development, technical support, hardware, software and infrastructure to get the measurable increases in instructional delivery and measurable increases in student performance done.

And, sometimes the technically superior solution requires that the implementation process build on existing infrastructure and materials, use commercial resources with Open Source resources, or just not use Open Source Solutions because none measure up to the teaching and learning requirements that the project needs.

The technically superior solution focuses upon the process of arriving at superior results, and then brings only the highest quality processes and resources to bear on the solution.

Sometimes the “best solution package is Open Source, sometimes the best solution package is commercial, sometimes the best solution package is a combination, and sometimes no package will serve.

But, Open Source advocates need the integrity to explain which of these conditions apply to the project, and Open Source advocates need the professional and ethical integrity to steer clients and end users away from Open Source project if the Open Source components stand little chance of delivering on the project’s goals.

This is what technology integration advocates should have done before recommending so many initiatives that lacked measurable teaching and learning goals, and that lacked a direct relationship to measurable content area and subject matter achievement.

The program is popular, expensive, and it increases student reading levels!

The SFA Program relies on structured teaching and no-child-dropped-through-the-cracks tutoring. The focus is on teaching students to read on their instructional level, rather than their frustration level. (Note: the “instructional level” is the level where the students can read at least 80% of the words without struggling or making mistakes. The “frustration level” is reading material that is more difficult than this.)

The SFA Program is pretty much non-technological, or at least it was when I saw it in action. So, how does the SFA Program relate to advocating Open Source Solutions?

1. The goals of both Open Source advocates and SFA are to enhance, promote and support quality and effective instruction…and to drive successful teaching and learning reforms
2. Both Open Source advocates’ and SFA focus upon basic, no frills, cost-effective approaches
3. Both Open Source advocates’ recommendations and SFA’s recommendations are “expensive” to implement
   • In the case of SFA’s recommendations, hiring the extra tutoring staff is “expensive”
   • In the case of Open Source advocates’s recommendations, providing the requisite professional development, professional development follow-up support, training, and technical support is “expensive”
4. Both Open Source advocates’ packages and SFA offer a viable solution. Neither offers an exclusive solution, and neither offers a solution that precludes the integration of competitor’s products.
5. Both Open Source advocates’ packages and SFA require teacher and campus administrator buy-in before the program will be effective
6. Both Open Source advocates’ Technology Integration initiatives and SFA encounter school district executive balking at the cost of their programs (done right). But, in both cases, the real question is whether the district can afford to continue on their current path. Can the district afford not to establish quality teaching and improved instructional outcomes by maintaining the status quo?

It is “penny wise and pound ton foolish to skimp on programs with a proven track record, in favor of the low-cost or no-additional-cost status quo, or “free or cheap” alternatives. And, SFA has the wisdom (and clout) to refuse to allow its program to be implemented in any school district that lacks the commitment to implement the program correctly.

However, there is one distinction between the two approaches that Open Source advocates might consider adopting (once our movement gains enough momentum), i.e., when Open Source becomes self-sustaining. We might want to “pre-qualify” campuses or school districts before we allow them to adopt our packages.

For example, SFA requires that all staff attend pre-adoption briefings, that a campus send leaders to another school that is successfully implementing the SFA Program, and that at least 80% of the campus staff vote on implementing the program.

The wisdom and beauty of this strategy is that the program is implemented only where the key staff (that must make the program work) want it. That way, the subtle stonewalling, subversive subterfuge, and sneaky slacking don’t intervene to sink the program’s success.

Nothing is worse for pushing a program that aggravates teacher, who then tell all their friends that a program “stinks.”

Nothing can be worse for promoting Open Source Solutions than for ill-defined projects that are stuffed up (and into) teachers’ bodily orifices (because of district budget shortfalls or executive decision-maker knowledge shortfalls).

In the long run, Open Source advocates, like SFA, will probably find that our long-term success is better served in pre-screening potential clients; and ensuring that these clients have the wherewithal and the buy-in to give the project a fair chance of success.

On the other hand, Open Source advocates might also look for failed Open Source projects around the nation, and offer our packages and expertise to turn these projects into success showcases.

Open Source advocates might also adopt a formula that communicates realistic costs for any Open Source Solution.

For example, program costs might break out (in descending level of importance) as…

30% professional development

10% technical staff training

30% technical support

30% hardware/ software/ infrastructure

___

100%

Plus: an additional

20% for contingencies and emergencies

The confusion that needs to be cleared up with school district decision-makers is that “division by zero is an undefined” error.

This error creeps in because Open Source advocates often view the project as a “software” initiative. Of course, the project is an instructional/ teaching and learning project…not a software project. (Software is chosen only after applications and outcomes are identified, and we know what work is to be completed.) So, instead of calculating the project budget based upon 30% for professional development (the most crucial piece of the project), the advocate and uninformed district executive decision-makers fixate on the “0% cost of software” myth.

Here is how the project plays out on a $100,000.00 budget…

$30,000 for professional development

$10,000 for technical staff training

$30,000 for technical support - Salaries and Overtime to support a Service Level Agreement (SLA)

$30,000 for hardware. software and infrastructure (wiring, access points, switch ports, directory services, portfolio storage, etc.)

_______

Total $100,000.00

The unwise technology strategy (often typical) is to try to buy as many computers as possible, and handle the other budget items elsewhere, i.e., professional development, such as it is, out of Title I Part D program funds, and support from the IT Department budget.

This shortsighted approach also narrows perception to the current budget year, failing to account for multiple-year professional development requirements and multi-year computer purchasing cycles and reasonable computer refresh rates.

(Note: The strategy of extending the life of three year old computer systems by installing labs of Linux computers also may also represent a long-term detriment to our Open Source movement.)

The “resuscitate and salvage old computers” strategy leads to…

• A perception that Open Source is for old computers, maybe not ready for “prime time”
• That a five year refresh cycle instead of a reasonable, industry-standard three year cycle is satisfactory
• That labs represent a viable strategy for enhancing student learning by bypassing the need for teacher professional development
• That easy of use desktops metaphors can substitute for professional development
• That old computers can be sent to elementary school where they need less “computing power”

What is needed is the understanding that changing how teachers teach and how teachers use technology for instruction is the crucial (independent) variable, and that the operating system that is installed is a minor player (dependent variable) in the technology integration game.

As long as the computer solutions are scalable, interoperable, are easy to use and are available at both home and school; professional development is the key variable (and the budget item that must be funded and calculated first.

So, Open Source advocates can learn a lot from the SFA program. Perhaps current Open Source advocates can provide other parallels and other distinctions.

It may be true that quality instructional programs are expensive, but our students (and their future wellbeing) are worth the cost. It is great the Open Source advocates and SFA have so much to offer to student programs.

But, which Open Source Solutions and which stakeholders?

In their zeal for “all things Open Source,” advocates seem to hold a belief that all school district stakeholders will grab at the chance to have this free software. This attitude neglects the wisdom of basic marketing principles, i.e., Not everyone wants something, even if it is free.

Of course, nothing is free.

Teachers and students have to devote time to learning how to operate the free software, then, they have to learn how to apply the free software to their mission critical work..teaching and learning.

And, while they are learning the software and learning to apply it to teaching and learning tasks, they are not able to do or perform other learning tasks (Opportunity cost).

Then, other school district stakeholders already have a (maybe better) commercial application and do not want (or need) an open source solution.

Then, there are school districts (the smart ones) that have locked down the computers in their district, and the district’s IT Department staff have to install the software. If school districts are smart enough to do this, they are also smart enough to test all software, including Open Source software, and the testing takes time.

Besides this, there are campus principals who want to know exactly how any activity, including the use of free software, drives improved test scores. In some venues, a teacher that proposes an activity that lacks a high-stakes test justification is immediately suspect in the campus principal’s eyes. Teachers employed at these venues learn to justify every activity in terms of that activity’s impact on test scores…or, they don’t dare do the deed.

Other teachers have economic issues, lots of (or even one) children, or bills of their own; and they do not have a computer at home. And, they cannot spend extra time at school because the free after school daycare levies a severe financial penalty if they pick their children up late by even a few minutes. Depending on family size and pay grade, some teachers qualify for food stamps. (But, that is another issue.)

If you brainstorm, you could probably develop a list of dozens of groups of school district stakeholders that don’t want or don’t need Open Source Solutions.

So, which teachers and which students do Open Source advocates market Open Source Solutions to?

Answering this questions is what marketing is all about.

Marketing requires that we focus our efforts and attention on certain audiences. If we fail to focus, we spread our message so thinly that it lacks potency and persuasiveness.

So, we must choose who we want to reach with our marketing message, we must choose what benefits we want to communicate to that audience, and we must choose the most efficient means (affordable, functional, effective) to distribute that message.

And, we must get away from the “Techie” tendency of describing features to this audience. School district stakeholders care less about software features than they care about whether the Feds list catsup as a vegetable in the school lunch (teachers don’t eat that swill unless they are desperate, or broke).

School district stakeholders care about benefits for themselves and they care about benefits for students. School distinct stakeholders care about value, value for themselves and for their students.

Features may relate to value, or they may not.

For example, I would not touch a seal skin parka, even if someone gave a new one to me for free.

The idea of baby seals clubbed in front of their distressed, helpless mothers and skinned alive bothers me; and, there is no need for such a coat here in south Texas. However, a neighbor might take the coat and sell it on eBay™.

Benefits are situational, i.e., a seal skin parka could be used about two or three days a year in this environment.

Value is relative, i.e., owning a seal skin object violates my moral principles. But my neighbor that takes the coat and makes a nice profit on eBay™ has other values.

Neither benefits or values are universal.

What delights one gander disgusts the other goose.

But, Open Source advocates seldom mention either values or benefits to teachers and students.

This is fine if the market for Open Source Solutions is “penny-poor” school district administrators who don’t have time to learn what Technology Integration is about. This is not fine if school district stakeholders at all levels (including teachers and students) are our target market.

Once we decide who our target market is, then we examine the features that Open Source provides, and convert these features into values and benefits.

For example, the Open Source Product, Compendium™ is the only dialog mapping software available. The software does not have any competitors. So, why wouldn’t everyone want it?

One feature is the ability to create a graphic representation of the various viewpoints of divergent stakeholders (or interested parties). Teachers and students will ask, “So?”

But if we convert this to a benefit that teachers value, we can say that “This easy to use software can help teach complex interactions in history, politics, and civics, current events and government by graphically displaying the complex issues involved by the various factions, decision-makers, interest groups and power brokers.

The difference is that features are “ho-hum, who but a techie cares?” While values, i.e., teaching and communicating complex topics in a more effective way, and benefits, i.e., simplifying the communication of complicated curriculum content sell the product.

This is the reason that a marketing appeal based upon the features of “cheap or free” fails to gain traction with teachers and students.

The problem with Open Source Solutions

One problem with Open Source Solutions is that they are “tools.”

And, only some teachers are interested, have enough time, or want to use tools to create new learning aids.

For example, one Open Source product is a software program that creates Websites. Great. The program functions adequately, although the Websites that are created lack professional quality, the sites are functional.

So, what is the problem?

The problem is that only a few teachers (maybe 10 to 20%) want to bother to create Websites. And, left to their own devices, teachers won’t even use the “paste content into their own template” products that some districts lease for each campus’ use.

Why would teachers not use a free program to create a classroom Website?

Maybe there is no direct relationship to increased student performance on high-stakes test and the Website that the teacher makes. Maybe it is the time commitment, i.e., if you make a Website, then parents, students and the campus principal expect that you are going to keep it updated. Who wants to go down that road?

Maybe the teacher is not comfortable with their writing ability. Maybe they have an after-school job to make ends meet, and cannot donate the extra time. Maybe…?

Maybe the Curriculum Specialist who believes that all teacher should learn and use HTML, the Principal who sees no relationship between HTML and improving test scores, the Open Source Advocate who believes that teacher should use WYSIWYG editors to create Web pages, and the Teacher who is already too busy should have their viewpoints (and self-interests) displayed using Compendium™ so that they can work out their differences (or at least understand where the other folks are coming from).

So, where does this leave Open Source advocates?

It leaves us deciding who we are going to market to, and what we are going to market.

We must answer these questions before we can form a hypothesis and test to determine if the target groups that we want to market to actually want our Open Source Solutions.

The problem is that “Open Source” is so broad that the term is like the term, “toothpaste.”

How would we market toothpaste?

Who knows? The concept is too wide and the market audience is too deep. Yes, everyone needs toothpaste (like everyone might need Open Source Solutions), but who needs what?

There are children, teens and adults. Children might like sweet taste and cartoon figures on the tube, teens might like fresh breathe and music themes on the tube, adults might like whitening to counteract the coffee and cigarette smoke stains on their teeth, and senior citizens might like toothpaste for sensitive teeth or dentures.

Open Source is similar to this. Just promoting “Open Source” provides inadequate information for marketing.

The other problem with Open Source Solutions is that few school district stakeholders care where their tools come from, and fewer school district stakeholders believe that school district budgets are so week that products that drive instruction can’t be purchased.

This is also why the “free and cheap” argument for Open Source fails. School districts always have plenty of money to pay for products and services that actually improve teaching and learning.

This is where Open Source is “sullied with the same brush that tars “Technology Integration.”

There are little or no pieces of direct evidence that technology drives teaching and learning. So, “money is always short.” If there was a direct, proven, definitive, measurable connection between improved teaching, improved learning, improved test scores…the money would be there. In fact, lots of money would be available instantly.

How to Promote Open Source.. The Long-Term and the Short-Term Methods

The long-term method for promoting Open Source Solutions is to do our homework and find those direct connections where Open Source absolutely and “no doubt about it” improves teaching and learning. Then, we just measure the improvements, record and report the data, and let the results speak for themselves.

The short-term method is to not bother to promote Open Source Solutions because few school district stakeholders care whether the product is Open Source, anyway; but to create “must have” content that teacher and students absolutely demand once they find it. (On the Internet, “Content is King.”) But, we create this content with Open Source tools, and build some advantage into the product that require that Open Source products be used to take full advantage of the contents’ values and benefits.

For example, what if we built and entire K-12 curriculum, lesson plans, presentations, learning activities, pre and post-tests, supplemental materials using STAR Office™. The minor discrepancies in STAR Office™ would be enough that the materials wouldn’t work quite as well when run in the industry standard (Microsoft™ Office) product.

This strategy would be successful, except there are three difficulties.

1. The first difficulty is that whoever produced this content would recognize that the content was too valuable to give away for free
2. The second problem is that STAR Office™, although superior to its little brother, Open Office™ can’t do all the things that the “high-priced spread,” i.e., Microsoft™ Office can do. Teachers that already have a huge investment in time and research in their own materials and presentations would squawk that the Open Source product didn’t serve their needs
3. The third reality is that anyone that builds this extensive content would have to use the long-term method to test each and every component to determine what students benefit from the materials, under what instructional methods the materials are successful, what instructional risks are associated with the use of the materials, and which types of teachers and students are successful with the materials (and which types of teachers and students are unsuccessful with them)

So, really, there is only the long-term method.

Secondary Sources of Marketing Information

Secondary sources of information include demographic and psychograpic information, scientific studies, survey data, polls, specifications, published advertisements and public records.

But, secondary sources can be misleading.

For example, a study of the NECC 2007 catalog would seem to indicate substantial interest in Open Source Solutions. But, NECC stands for “National Educational Computing Conference.”

This means that the data from a computer conference for educators is skewed in favor of computers, software and technology. A more accurate survey to discover the interest of teachers might be to include conference programs for English teachers, math teachers, science teachers, social studies teachers, bilingual teachers, art teachers, music teachers, etc. Teachers for the Gifted and Talented and teachers for Special Education might also tend to skew interest upwards.

Another factor to consider might be that national conferences, because of travel expenses, tend to attract presenters and participants from the region near where the conference is presented. This tends to skew catalog data in unpredictable ways.

We might also guess that the people that present at and attend conferences are a self-selected class of harder-working, self-motivated, workaholics that are compelled to keep current, e.g., if they live far away from the conference site, or, if they have to pay their own way. On the other hand, those presenters and participants that live close by, or who attend at the expense of their employer might tend to be slackers and duty shirkers out for a few days off and a free ride. People from these groups might skew the data one way or the other.

Another factor to consider is that the kinds of presenters vary from region to region. Some conferences may allow lots of industry and vendor presentation, and other conferences may exclude such presentations because the organizers believe that the content presented by vendors is biased.

So What Should we do to Promote Open Source Solutions?

How about reviewing Open Source products, and providing a rating for each one. Then, only recommending the ones that are “ready for educational prime time.” Just because a product is released as Open Source does not mean that it is of high enough quality for us to recommend to teachers or students.

We can also check with teachers and student that are using Open Source Solutions to determine their level of satisfaction. This will reveal real problems, determine if those problems are user-generated or problems inherent in the Open Source product. We have to remember that most of the Open Source products were created for broader use than just education.

If we find out what is going wrong with the use of Open Source Solutions, then we can address true concerns and mitigate real risks. We can determine if our Solution Package must contain tutorials, professional development or step-by-step checklists (if the problem is a user-generated problem); or if the Open Source product just doesn’t measure up. (In some cases, we will be forced to recommend a commercial product, because no Open Source product measures up to educational standards for ease of use, usability or fullness of fit to instructional or learning processes.

We can also create a network of service providers and volunteers that will assist in the testing, planning, deployment, training, professional development, management and maintenance of Open Source products. It is “over eager” to believe that “low cost, cheap and free” solutions require less maintenance and support than commercial products that have high research and development budgets. Potential users (especially teachers and students) need to be informed of these issues when we recommend Open Source Solutions. And we need to provide this “full disclosure” before our potential users waste their time on less than adequate solutions.

Of course, this level of service and support sounds like we are providing a commercial product. But, that is the level of service that all school district stakeholders deserve. We must provide the best that the software and content industry has to offer, and we must ensure support for all aspects of the products that we recommend.

We must ensure that we address service and support issues when we make recommendations for Open Source Solutions because, anything less is “bad advertising” for our future marketing efforts. Nothing creates marketing obstacles and advertising challenges as fast (or are more difficult to overcome) as the negative word of mouth griping and wholesale complaining of people who try our solutions, and become angry, disgusted and bitter because our promises were not fulfilled.

Our best strategy is to ensure that all our recommendations are true and accurate, that all risks are mitigated (or, at last resort, revealed beforehand); and we must be sure that all implementations have the required level of professional development that makes the use of the solution positive and rewarding.

So, when we know exactly what advantages Open Source offers to school district stakeholders, and when we identify exactly who these stakeholders are, when we determine their needs, when we communicate the benefits of the products that we recommend, and when we support those products…then we are doing the marketing job that needs to be done.

This represents a lot more work than holding a “rah rah rally” for our solution, passing out the address to a free download, and leaving the scene with a feeling of confidence that we have done a good deed.

Great marketing will show us that we have a tremendous responsibility to match the tremendous opportunity that promoting Open Source Solutions presents.

Isn’t it time that Open Source advocates step up our marketing to meet the challenge of serving all school district stakeholders by providing tools that meet our highest teaching and learning standards?

Here is an outline that you can use to develop that plan.

Executive Summary

• Purpose

• Increase Student Learning
• Drive Instruction and Reform Education
• Streamline Teacher Productivity
• Provide Tools for Engaged, Hands-On, Project-Based Instruction
• Document Learning Progress for Each Student
• Provide Tools for Data-Driven Decisions Concerning Instruction
• Document Improved Teaching Performance from Each Teacher

• Increase Student Achievement
• Increase Test Scores
• Provide Learning Activities that Mirror the World of Work

• Collaborative
• Real-World Problem-Solving
• Decision-Making
• Project Team
• Real-World Issues
• Research and Report Writing
• Presentations

• Who are our “Clients”
• What are our “Clients’” needs?
• Education Case

• Benefits for Students
• Benefits for Teachers
• Benefits for the Learning Community

• Strategy
• Tactics
• Budgets
• Support

• Technical Support
• Professional Development
• Back End Programming

• Targets
• Development
• Action Items
• Management

• Data
• Case Studies
• Anecdotal Records
• Statistical Analysis
• Pre-/ Post & Control Group Experimental Designs

• What is our Message?

• Pros and Cons
• Educational Case for Open Source
• Best Practices
• Risks

• Parameters where Open Source is Viable

Marketing Plan Narrative
Table of Contents
Needs Assessment

• Historical Analysis

• Educational Case for Technology Integration
• Educational Case for Open Source Solutions
• Professional Development
• Back End Processing
• Infrastructure

• Boxes and Wires
• Network
• Software
• Services

• SIF Compliance

Educational Software Analysis

• Inspiration™
• Inspiredata™

• Apache
• MySQL
• Postgres SQL
• PHP
• STAR Office™
• Audacity™
• Compendium™
• Plone™
• Media Wiki™

• Open Office
• FreeMind
• Joomla, Mambo
• Moodle
• PMWiki

• Microsoft™

• MS Office™
• MS Publisher™
• MS Project™
• MS SQL

• iLife Suite™

• Photoshop(TM
• DreamWeaver™
• Acrobat™

• Return on Investment
• Grants
• Foundations
• Donations
• Private-Public Partnerships

• Benefits for Students
• Benefits for Teachers
• Benefits for the Learning Community
• Instructional Best Practices

• Politics
• NCLB

Solutions

• Goals and Objectives

• Instructional Objectives
• Instructional Targets
• Professional Development Objectives
• Professional Development Targets

• Instructional
• Promotion
• Distribution
• Support
• Financial
• Other

• Educational Focus
• Best Practices
• Case Studies
• Data Collection

• Actual Costs
• Performance Analysis
• Implementation Analysis

Implementation

• Design
• Development
• Installation
• Management
• Upkeep
• Evaluation

Discussion

• Pros and Cons of Open Source Solutions
• Independent Variables
• Data Gathering and Database Tracking of Student Improvements
• Data Gathering and Database Tracking of Teacher Improvements

Summary

• Benefits of Open Source
• Areas where Open Source is not Competitive

Conclusion