Open Source Resource

Open Source Solutions offer advantages to school district stakeholders?

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?