 Thanks for coming and thanks again for a great day yesterday from Sailor and another good day today. I wanted to say a few remarks about our introductory speaker, our lead speaker, Kenneth Green, who actually goes by Casey. Casey is the founding director of the Campus Computing Project. It's the largest and actually longest standing for the last 23 years, as a matter of fact, of the role of computing and learning and information and technology in higher education here in the U.S. The Campus Computing Project is used by folks like myself in the private sector running businesses and people like yourselves in the education market really as really the de facto barometer by both campus leadership and the private sector, and it's really become the definitive source of data over the last 23 years for information and insight about information technology, planning and policy issues affecting U.S. colleges. Casey also serves as the senior research consultant at Inside Higher Education and directs the Inside Higher Education's national surveys of presidents, provosts, and other senior campus administration. Casey's also co-authored and has been an editor for over 20 books published for search and reports of 100 articles and commentaries in academic journals and publications nationwide. Casey's also been featured in selected higher education articles on information technology issues in major consumer trade press organizations like New York Times, Washington Coast, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, The Chronicle of Education, Inside Higher Education, and a lot of other print and broadcast media. Casey also has the very popular digital tweed blog. I hope you'll all subscribe to that. It's been marked as one of the top 50 must read by a tech magazine blogs in the country. It's published by Inside Higher Education. Prior to Casey's current life, former life as an academician, he was a senior research associate and later director of James Irvine Foundation Center for Scholarly Technology at the University of Southern California. Prior to his affiliation with USC, Casey held concurrent appointments from an associate director of USC UCLA's Higher Education Research Institute and the associate director of American Council for Education, UCLA Cooperative Institutional Research Program. It's the nation's largest and oldest empirical study of higher education. Casey graduated from New College in Florida and completed his PhD in higher education public policy at UCLA. I also like to always, you know, have a fun fact about a speaker and so Casey's fun fact among many which I won't get into is that he actually occupied Paul Newman's locker in his high school. So you can talk about that later. I'll have Casey talk about it. So please join me in welcoming Casey Green. Good morning. This is probably the most comfortable room I've ever worked. It's not the largest room, but I think for the folks in the chairs, that's got to be one of the most comfortable. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to join you yesterday, so I missed some of the opening comments and the opening introductions. But my background is survey research. So real quickly, a quick poll of the groups. How many of you are in the lexicon of the political stuff that occurs in Washington innovators and job creators or hope to be job creators just very quickly. I can see the hands against the lights and how many of you are funding or hope to fund the folks will be innovators and job creators and do well and do good with that. Okay, that's very helpful. So as I read the mission statement for the conference as I talked with Rachel at the Sailor Foundation, my friend, who's very generous as an introduction. It seemed to me that the conversation that I could have with you. It's not about products was not about applications was was really about the macro issues of doing business in the education market. My background is higher ed, but I think much of what I'm about to say, as we go forward also applies to those of you who are looking at K 12 and some other areas, and to have a conversation about the relationship between infrastructure and innovation. Too often, I'm in conversations with both mature and new firms about great technology. And often what's missing from that conversation is how do you move cup to live. How will that happen. Many of you saw the stuff with the New York Times and Tesla in January. That was an interesting conversation. Could you make the road trip from Washington to Cambridge. Was that a conversation about technology was that a conversation about infrastructure back and forth he said she said they said we said they've got data. I'd view that as a conversation about infrastructure, a conversation about outcomes. How do you get there. And what's the process of getting there and I want to talk about some of the process issues of getting there. Let's begin by talking about the innovators dilemma. Now I realized for some of you, saying that there is wisdom in the software industry will be an oxymoron. That's supposed to be a joke. Thank you. It's early in the morning. It's early for you. I live in Los Angeles. So it's six o'clock where I live. And I would like to remind you that the story in the software industry is that God could create the world in seven days, because there were no legacy systems, and there were no legacy users. Think about that as you do the overlay for education, in terms of legacy systems and legacy users. And you begin to get a sense of the challenge with those of you who are innovators in terms of changing organizations, changing systems, changing classrooms, changing content, changing the world. Or those of you who have to fund those folks and help them do well and do good confront the education market. The issues that we confront right now, K-12 and higher ed, is that there was a time particularly in higher education, technology was ahead of the curve in higher ed. That's no longer the case. It's the consumer market that drives expectations about resources and services. I can do this off campus and out of school. Why can't I do something similar to that on campus or in school? And we have had rising pressure to say, we have given you billions of dollars for technology and education in both K-12 and higher education. And our boards and the public and state legislatures and in Congress, the jacuz question is, why aren't test scores up? Why can't students do these things or have certain skills? And we don't have good answers for that. Part of the problem is we in education have not done a good job of explaining to folks off campus and even at times to ourselves that technology is not a capital cost. This is not like doing road construction. Technology is an operating cost. Nobody has to recover financial aid. That's going on right now. Perhaps some of you are directly involved with that because you're waiting for something about a graduate school. You've got a kid or a nephew or a family member or a friend applying to undergraduate. Nobody says, what's the capital investment? We only do this one time with financial aid for undergraduates. We understand that's an operating cost. Technology is an operating cost. Technology is an infrastructure cost. The other, oops, wrong button, the other issue we can, key questions we confront are, why don't teachers and faculty make better use of IT? We've confronted this going back to 1985 and 86 with the arrival of microcomputers. Again, with the arrival of the internet 10 years later and today about all the digital stuff. And why don't we make effective use of IT in operations and management? We see all kinds of models off campus, supermarket scanners that aggregate your data and bring that back for both management and benefits to you as you check out in real time. Other kinds of things. We say, all that stuff's going on off campus. Why isn't it going on campus or in our schools? Why are we so far behind in leveraging, harnessing, utilizing these resources and technologies? The reality is we have had great aspirations for technology in education for years. So if you read with me the uses of information technology are undergoing an unprecedented technological revolution. Depending on how long you have been in this business or on the periphery of this business, that would stand as the topic statement for a campus strategic plan, a business plan, a conference statement going forward. Now the next sentence is a little clueless. We can use this. Machines are able to manipulate information at high speed and massive quantities. That sounds a little bit like a conehead skit from Saturday Night Live some years ago. Massive quantities of information, machines. And nowhere is this truer than in the field of education. Predict in a few more years we will have an online Aristotle. Speaks to a set of incredibly high aspirations about the power and potential of technology. The problem is this is 1966. Patrick Suppes was a Stanford professor. Probably taught the first online course in American colleges and universities using punch cards. And there was more memory in your first digital watch than on the IBM 1303 mainframe precursor to the IBM 360 mainframes mid part of the decade. For that effort when he wrote this and provided the statement of aspirations than your first digital watch in 1970 or 1980. We also have seen even greater aspirations on the problem with the clicker. During the dot com dot edu era education is going to be the killer out of the internet. And a name also known to many of you perhaps Michael Moe doing investment counseling then and again now. The new economy moves at a pace never seen before. Global universities, millions of students. May 2000 we're having that conversation a version of that conversation today with MOOCs and other initiatives once again. And I think yet at the same time many of us have a sense of deja vu. We have been here before. So if you will use the visual word processor with me substitute technology for television. Better or worse technology technology now technology dominates much of American life and manners for all of us who teach the fact that our students are spending so much time. Looking down at screens as opposed to looking up at us as part of the current landscape. Part of the current landscape. Merciless economies of the medium to create really good stuff. Pedagogic distrust teachers and faculty are uncertain about this stuff. The content is great that you get to libraries in the New York Times online in real time. Library of Congress data from various sources rich engaging graphic files and simulations. But the tools to change the teaching. Still not trusted in many cases on many campuses at many schools. Fancy equipment lies fallow. Academic indifference doubly incomprehensible because today's college students of the first television generation. The speaker here is George Bonham. George Bonham was a very influential high tweed. If you will an American higher education during the late 1960s early 1970s. He's talking about people like me. Who were the first college generation to have grown up with television. And are now the middle aged and aging professoriate on campuses across the country. Television was described as having great potential didn't quite work out that way. Again use the visual word processor all that Bonham says about television in 1972 applies as much today about technology. Understand the technology is a metaphor for change. And your personal life and your organization in schools. If we use some increment of technology something has to change. And our assumption is something is going to improve. Whether you sat or slept through introductory economics. If you ever taught introductory economics. We all have a consensual understanding that technology is linked to productivity. Some increment of technology will result in productivity. The cost of doing a product or service will go down. The product or service will improve the best of all cut worlds. Not only will the cost go down but the service of the quality will go up. But technology is also a metaphor for risk. Because you have to change your individual behavior your cultural behavior. The way you've done things in the past and there's no certainty that will work. There's degrees of uncertainty. Depending on when you make that change. But if you are among the earliest it may not work. Some of you have bought stuff or know of stuff. That looked like it had great potential but didn't work. Apple's Newton is an example that has come back. Other kinds of technologies. Many of us with the new generations of cell phones that come from various providers. And have a shelf life of two and a half weeks. Before the market decides it works or it doesn't work. All these things represent risk in different ways. Let alone when we start doing this in organizations and say change your behavior. Here is a new technology whatever it might be. Technology is a means of uncertainty reduction. Made possible by a cause-effect relationship. There are some data to document how the technology works and can you reduce the risk and document the benefits. Technological innovation creates a kind of uncertainty because it's an unknown. To various degrees it's a journey of Columbus. You are going off in a world that's flat. Again the degrees of uncertainty depending on the technology can be very high or very low. But there's still some uncertainty about that. And it represents the opportunity to reduce uncertainty. How do you reduce the risk? That's what the venture capitalists want to know. Tell me how we reduce the risk of our investment. Even though they understand it's an investment. And that maybe only one in ten will work. If you are on the receiving end of that investment. Of course you will be the one in ten that absolutely works won't you. But they are leveraging and they are hedging. Innovation process is essentially an information seeking, information processing activity motivated to reduce uncertainty. This is Ev Rogers, the fusion of innovation. Some of you may know that work by name. Some of you may know that work by some of the things associated with it. In terms like early adopters, innovators, laggards. This is the second most cited book in the social science research in the United States. Across all areas and all things. Whether it's cell phones in India or grain and agricultural innovation in Southeast Asia. Or looking at innovations in school districts. Rogers covered it all. And offered explanations to help us understand it all. This of course is the standard T distribution. Most of you know that. Most of you sat or slept through statistics in some way. What's important for our conversation today is that first standard deviation. Because cognitive psychology tells us that we can typically deal at best with one standard deviation of dissonance in the conversation of change. Individually and organizationally. Push us too far, push us too fast, push us beyond one standard deviation. And whatever resistance might be embedded anyhow gets aggravated, gets elevated, gets strengthened. There are boundaries to how far we can go and how fast we can go. But the T distribution also plays out in Ebb's work. Many of you have seen this. This is the innovation curve. Early innovators 2.5% of the population. Whether it's cell phone or agricultural innovation or clothing. Or lots of different things. There are that two and a half percent that will reach and grab who are risk takers who enjoy the risk and want to be first. Early adopters 13% early in late majority. That's one standard deviation each side of the mean. Laggards. Another two standard deviations going out. And the descriptions. So the innovators can live with risk, the early adopters, they are the most respected. Ultimately it's the early adopters, not the innovators who are the most influential in dealing with change. Early majority who are deliberate, late majority who may innovate out of risk in the laggards. Good luck in God's speed to them in this process. Often in my conversations with technology providers and particularly startups, they target the innovators. The assumption is let's get the folks who are the risk takers who get them to find them and like our stuff. Because they will virally infect others. We saw this in the 1980s in schools and colleges. Let's go find the teachers who are doing the computers on their own anyhow. They are the innovators. We will support them with grants and release time and turn them into trainers in our schools and colleges. And by their role model and by their activity, they will provide, they will essentially virally influence, virally infect the rest of the population. What we knew ultimately is that the early adopters, the innovators rather, aren't really good role models. They intimidate as opposed to infect. Because I'm not like Sue. I'm not like Steve. We may be departmental colleagues. We may do much of the same stuff in the same school or the same college or the same department. But Sue or Steve, they like this stuff. They get this stuff. They want to spend time on this stuff. I don't have the time. I don't have the interest. Ultimately, we have to target the early adopters because they're the folks that are influential. They are the folks who have status. They are the folks who have credibility in this process when you bring forward an innovation, particularly in education. The innovators are the outliers in the true sense of the word. Their experience is not relevant to mine. The early adopters are the people that ultimately become the role models that make it acceptable for the rest of us to go there. Technology is disruptive. You know that personally. You know that if you've worked in organizations. And it's disruptive at the organizational level. It's disruptive at the individual level. And it's about visualization. Can I see myself doing this? And there are five stages of disruption. And the response to technology, the response to change is first denial. We don't have to do this. Or you do that. I don't have to do this. Do that in your department or your program or upgrade. Thinking about new waves of software that involves some change, whatever it is. We don't have to do this. Then we get really angry. You can't make me do this. Inner two-year-olds come out all over the place. No. I'm not going to do this. And particularly if you're a college professor, less so than if you're a teacher. There's almost no way you can make me do this. I'm tenured. I'm entitled. I'm protected. You can't make me do this. And I will get angry and I will do everything I can to argue against you in public forums why you shouldn't do this. Then we begin to bargain. Okay. I realize it's important that we do this. That's okay. But I personally can't do this right now for a lot of reasons. Or my group can't personally do this right now for a lot of reasons. So you go ahead. I know the start date is September 15th or October 30th. You guys get started. We'll play catch up. We'll play catch up around Thanksgiving. Again, the academic calendar or over the Christmas holiday break or maybe by Valentine's Day. But we keep bargaining the terms of engagement or response that we have to do. Then we get depressed because we finally realize, oh, I actually have to do it. I have no choice. There is no way out of this. And finally, we come to acceptance begrudging or otherwise. And sometimes acceptance also comes with an epiphany. Actually, this is actually much better once I've actually done it. If this sounds familiar to many of you, it should be. It's Dick Kubler Ross. That process of death and dying for the individual also applies to the issue of change for individuals and organizations. Some of you are familiar with the Gartner hype cycle. There's a technology trigger. Something happens. Microcomputers in the 80s. The Internet. Mid part of the next decade. Wireless in the mid part of the last decade. Digital content, open educational resources, something. And the process is we get this peak of inflated expectations. Everything runs up. Expectations, media coverage. All we need to do this. Others are going to do it before we do it. We better do this. And then the next phase becomes disillusionment. Doing this is not all that's been promised. It's harder than we thought. It involves more cost than we thought. The technology is not ready or mature. The innovation is not ready or mature. Followed by a slope of integration. Well, let's pick off the parts that work well. It's not the whole package, but maybe 50% or 70%. Let's use what we can use now and we will play catch up with the rest of it. And finally, the plateau of productivity. Coming to a point of equilibrium between the promise of the technology at the technology trigger and finding added value for it at some point downstream. This is what we can use. This is what makes sense. This is what we can incorporate and integrate at this time. And the best example of that right now are the MOOCs. Massive open online courses. New York Times has been the cheerleader. If you are a college president or a provost or senior academic official at campuses across the country right now, your trustees are banging on your door and saying, when are you going to MOOC? Tom Friedman at the Times has been the cheerleader. Less so David Brooks. The reporting on the MOOCs has been generally favorable. Although interestingly, the editorials from the Times about MOOCs and by extension online ed have been less favorable. But the problem is that's what the trustees read. And this is like being in a sausage factory and understanding how this works. How this works. The big numbers seem daunting. If you have 50,000 students and they're each paying $10, that looks like a lot of money if you're a trustee for a campus that's cash-strapped. But what if only 7.5% of those students complete the course? And 20% never show up after registration. Or you have no instructional infrastructure. Two weeks ago, a much-beloved Harvard professor announced that he, classics, a classic Harvard professor, teaching classics. Some of you, I don't, I forget his name. Some of you may have been fortunate to go to Harvard, perhaps take that course. Put out a call for assistance. You can teach a MOOC, classic Greek and Roman literature. And asked online, would 10 of his students volunteer to be teaching assistants at no pay to provide that high-touch infrastructure for the online MOOC? And the reward for doing so? The development at office at Harvard would leave you alone for the year and not try to put their hand in your wallet or grab your credit card. The MOOCs at this point are struggling to do an instructional infrastructure. It's a broadcast model. The MOOC's more like PBS or Oprah's Book Club, an investment of human capital with no skin in the game. There's no hand in your pocket. There's no hand at your back. There is no requirement. Half of the enrollments at this point, based on the data from the various MOOCs, offshore students who already have college degrees, and based on a recent survey from the Chronicle Higher Education of 108 individuals who ran MOOCs, the completion rate was 7.5%. Those are not great numbers under any circumstances. Yet, because of the media attention, the technology trigger, lots of stuff going on with trustees this season as they have board meetings about what are we doing about MOOCs. And for many of us, this looks like the going online conversation a decade ago. Columbia, Fathom, Princeton, All Learn, University of Phoenix going online, train leaving the station, boat leaving the harbor, what are we going to do? British Open University incorporating in Delaware. What are we going to do? Are they going to cannibalize us and for the most part, it fizzle. For the most part, it fizzle. We are on a journey of discovery with these folks. Let's talk about textbooks, because many of you are thinking about textbooks. Looks like a big, juicy target for disruption, doesn't it? This is Steve Jobs, and this is the quote out of the Isaacson book. Jobs thought that this was the next market for disruption. He was going to hire a bunch of textbook writers and push this stuff out of iTunes. And in fact, a little over a year ago, a year and a half ago, Apple announced under the headline, Apple Disrupts the Textbook Industry, new tools to create textbooks and publish them. It hasn't been a roaring success, as best I can tell. They provided the tools, but what Mr. Jobs missed and what we have begun to learn through the various cycles of the dot-com and beyond, one, two, and three, is that the underlying premise that drove so much of the activity during the dot-com era and some of it now is the assumption that content is king. We've learned content is not king in the absence of infrastructure. Infrastructure adds value to content. Build it and they will come is not a viable business model in education because you have too many intermediaries, too much uncertainty, too much risk, too much competition for time, and too many incumbents, even as everybody hates textbooks. College faculty don't necessarily like them even though they are beneficiaries because they get a whole lot of ancillaries, websites and teaching examples and case studies, instructional aids, test questions that they don't pay for, students pay for them with that, heavy cost of the first purchase of a textbook. Infrastructure is essential to make content king and the educational innovators infrastructure is really an ecosystem. So let's use compelling innovations as a way of talking about technology broadly defined. That's what many of you hope to be, what you want to do. You want to bring forward a compelling innovation that will change, disrupt education. The ecosystem, first of all, it's the back-end infrastructure. The design, the quality of whatever that innovation is and that supports it at the back-end that the users never see behind the curtain, behind the shade. The front-end is the user support. Think of that in education. That's the sales reps. Those are the instructional supplements. That's the stuff as I as the user, whether I'm a student or a faculty member, K-12 or higher ed. That's the stuff that I see. Some other parts of this are the alliances that add value. Who are your friends? Who are your logo buddies? Who are you working with? How do those alliances, particularly if you're a startup, make me feel more comfortable because you've got other people that I recognize and I maybe trust that are part of your network that you're trying to build. And finally, the supplement-supplant requirements. If there are requirements, if there's an incumbent, what have you done to map that environment and that landscape to help you say, address each of the objections, each of the questions, each of the levels of uncertainty as you say, I've got a compelling innovation. I've built an ecosystem that can supplant your current practice, your current product. The problem is in the textbook industry, the ecosystem has also become a fortress. It's also become a fortress. And a fairly impenetrable one, to be honest. So you think about the back-end infrastructure. Authors, any of you textbook authors know them? Authors don't sign a contract. They sign a Thamstian deal with a publisher. An agreement in perpetuity. Acme College Publishing, Acme School Publishing must have published my widgets book. They're not looking at the first edition of the book. They're thinking the 40th edition of that book. And I am obligated with my contract not only to produce the first and the second, the fifth and the tenth, but if I decide after some period of time I'm bored or I'm done, they also have the right to add a second person to sustain the franchise if the franchise is successful. They are building a long-term business. They're not pushing a product out once. They have editors and content designers who do a lot of the stuff that I can't do other than the initial conceptualization. They've got contracts. On user support, sales reps, teachers guides, test sets, websites, a whole bunch of stuff at the front end. On the supplements of plant, they're conscious of accreditation and curricular requirements, standards and regulations that may apply in certain fields or state requirements, and they make alliances. Every LMS company that came to market during the late 1990s and the last decade and even most recently with Canvas that works in the higher-end market all went knocking on the doors of the publishers to say, we are logo buddies. We are friends. We do it with other technology companies as well. The reality is that if you're looking at textbooks, there are huge transition costs. If I've taught somebody's widgets books for a long time and you want to tell me your book is better, whether it comes from another conventional publisher or if it's an open educational research book, tell me how you will also address the ecosystem that's a fortress. What do you have not just on the value of content but all the other stuff that I'm used to getting? What's the risk? What evidence do you have other than a book review that your book is better, that your stuff is better? Yes, it's been well reviewed. I'm delighted to hear that. Can you tell me that my students will learn more or learn better? Will they understand stuff? This is the new math issue from 50 years ago. Sputnik went up. New math went down. We redesigned math to think about understanding comprehension as opposed to being able to come up with the right answers. A whole generation of us grew up confused. Two plus two equals five. We knew how to do it conceptually, but we couldn't come up with the right number. We didn't know the name Tom Lear or Google it on, rather go search for it on YouTube. There's some great videos. It's a wonderful song. Lear was a math professor talking about new math. It's a great bit of humor. And what's the sustainability and reliability? So I use your book, your something, your widget, your learning object. Will you improve it? Will it be there for me tomorrow? Or is it going to be like a broken link on a website that's going to vanish after I become dependent upon it? And how do I assess quality? Where's the yelp for these things? I can land any city, go look for restaurant reviews and zag it or yelp, and I can get some sense of quality from the crowd. We don't have that yet too much in either K-12 or higher education for either the open education resources or the individual widgets that folks design. We got a lot of content. NEA had launched an initiative for teachers last year. Scott McNeely's doing Kariki. Sailor's doing open textbooks. There's a lot of resources. There's a lot of stuff. But in the absence of an infrastructure to help us map it, I have a hard time navigating it and a hard time explaining why I should use it. One of the other issues that we have to deal with in education, particularly when we start talking about K-12 and higher ed, is visualization. Because again, some of you are targeting students, but many of you are targeting intermediaries. Teachers are one part of the legacy system in education, both K-12 and higher ed. And for teachers, the question of technology is, can I see myself doing this? What's the benefit? How do I visualize myself making this change? Most of us don't talk about visualization, but in fact, we do it all the time. I speak at some 20 to 30 events each year. When I started my career long ago, visualizing myself at a conference involved two things. Content, what was I going to say if I was part of a panel or doing a presentation? And clothing. Clothing was easy because 30 years ago, I would show up like this, as most men did. You showed up and you put on the armor. I visualized myself and that was the message. I wore the suit. That was what we were supposed to do. That's how I saw myself. The hard thing was content. Today, content is either clothing, however, is the bigger challenge, because I may send certain messages by my attire in terms of how I dress. For example, I may want to suggest that I'm an academic. I'm a former academic. So I might want to be here today in academic regalia. Tweed jacket, khaki pants, reptile, turn me around, there's the chalk stripe. And that would send some messages that you would infer and I would want to support in some ways. On the other hand, for example, Lou didn't mention this in my bio. This is one of the dark secrets. In a prior life, I was once the vice president of a now dead dot com. We spent $200 million of other people's money and had a grand and glorious time doing so, as many of the dot coms did. I was the vice president for education. We did an early version of QR codes. We had a lot of money from Coca-Cola, investment firms, J. Walter Thompson, cross pens for what we thought was going to be a transforming technology. So if I wanted to signal to you about my relationship with the technology industry, I might choose to be here today in internet war, channeling Steve Jobs. And that would, you know, people in black, as all of us have been to those technology conferences, that's the armor, that's the message. We are part of the technology community. Finally, my other options, I thought about what do I want to wear for the sailor conference today. I thought, oh, I could be here today in my red dress and give me credit for the matching shoes and age appropriate opaque hose. The men won't get the hose thing. The women will smile and say, oh, he sort of gets it. But you know, if I were here in the red dress, I would feel awkward. I would feel stupid. I would feel impotent. And that's how many classroom teachers feel and professors feel with technology. They don't trust the stuff. They don't know if it's reliable. They don't know if it makes a difference. They don't know how I benefit, why I should do this. Can I visualize myself doing this? And we have to make the world safe for those folks who are on the front end in these issues in classrooms and on college campuses and online. Provide the support so they feel safe and comfortable using this stuff and make it effective. A couple of other things. Seven key challenges for those of you who are innovators and want to change the world and for those of you who want to help support those folks realize their dream and try to do well and do good in that process. The first map, the market. Education is a big market. It's touching the elephant, tail, head, horn, other parts. Some of you are interested in the higher education market. That's the area that I know best. Higher education isn't higher education. It's multiple market segments. It's a, demographically, it's a market best described as having a huge head and a long tail. 570 institutions that enroll more than 10,000 students account for 56% of the marketplace. Community colleges account for 46% of the head count. Yet there are 1,300 colleges in the United States that enroll less than 1,000 students. They represent 27% of the degree-granting institutions, but they're only 2% of the head count. How do you map your market opportunities? What should you do your costs? I was working recently with a firm that said, oh, well, let's throw out the little ones. Let's throw out some of the mid-sized ones. By the time they got done mapping the market against the cost of going to market for their service, they realized there were only 700 campuses in the country that could be potential clients. And what was the likelihood of getting half of that 700? Map the market. And by extension, then, understand the data. Don't be captive, but you better get really good data. Disaggregate the data. Flip the data. Understand the data. Talk with people who can help you navigate the data. Many of you think you understand higher education or K-12 because you're a former teacher or a former graduate student or you're helping your kid go. That's the... You have not seen the dark side of the force until you've worked with education as a marketplace. And you begin to understand how this place works, the decision cycles, the committee process, everything else that's part of it. Recognize that you are not your target client. So unless any of you are the next Mark Zuckerberg and you have an innovation that will target college students and young people and go viral and now enroll one-sixth of the global population in all likelihood, you are dependent upon intermediaries and organizations. And for most of you who are going back to school and targeting schools either with educational products or services or administrative product or services or higher ed as well, the folks that you're targeting didn't have the same experience that you had. They're in qualitatively different types of institutions. Living qualitatively different lives as college students and faculty and teachers than you had during your foreign and higher education. So recognize that whatever your personal experience and understanding is limited to be honest. Harvard is a great university. Harvard is a crappy reference account because there are only 20 universities in the country like Harvard but there are a thousand like Mass Bay Community College. Understand the market, understand what your experience fits into that. Your price is not my cost. You're involved in a contract negotiation because you want me to buy something whether it's $10,000 or $40,000 or $100,000 a system, a product, a curriculum whatever it is. Let's take a step back. Think about a job negotiation. This time of year across the country there are hundreds of thousands of college students out looking for jobs. They're first jobs, graduates and MBA students and others coming into the job market this time of year. Those contract conversations are a mismatch. Typically. Because the student looking for a job says boy, I hope I get a job for $25,000 or $30,000 or $50,000 and the employer, many of you who are now on the other side of that table you know that the person who you buy or you hire, depending on the terms of engagement, for $25,000 or $50,000 or $75,000 is going to cost you at least twice that in terms of overhead health care benefits time and training. So recognize, same thing in terms of working in the education market, whatever the high or low of your price is your price is not my cost because I've got to deal with other costs to work with your product of time, people, resources, infrastructure training and the sooner you understand that the better you understand what's going on on the other side of the table in the conversation. Things are going to change. Anticipate the need for mid-course correction. Some of you may be familiar with a company called NO. It's doing digital textbooks. It's the middle of the ball at the consumer electronics show two and a half years ago. If the iPad was the Jesus tablet the NO tablet was the Ten Commandments. Oversized tablets that was hinged that was going to do electronic textbooks. Can you find a NO tablet today? They're gone. They're gone. They had high marquee venture capital support and Dresen Horwitz. They had a PR firm taking them all across CES to be the premier tablet provider particularly for the education market. They have now fallen back and realized selling students a $5,000 tablet isn't going to, as an ancillary to all the other technology they buy isn't going to work, however the power of that technology. So anticipate mid-course correction. You better listen to your potential clients because they are your best source of feedback. However painful that may be and however difficult they may be because they're the ones that you ultimately want to use and again if you are not, Mark Zuckerberg you're not Steve Jobs, with due respect. You have to listen to the client because ultimately they have to want what you're offering. And if you don't listen to that and particularly if you hear a recurring set of themes in those conversations as you show what you're doing, your innovation but your innovation isn't going to go anywhere. Be patient. The ed market is an incredibly slow market. It's a commission, it's a committee process. The good news about that is that particularly in higher education a lot of those committee decisions and the minutes are up on the website. You want to know why Blackboard lost to D2L in Georgia? The committee report is sitting on a website. You want to know why a particular campus bought Product A or went with Provider B? It's probably on a website. Lots of information that's out there. There's a high level of transparency. But the other thing about this market, higher ed it's also as if you are a blackjack dealer. And not only is everybody at the table counting cards but they're sharing their counts. A neural network unlike any other marketplace in any other market segment. In terms of the way the clients work with and work against there's a transparency. Be patient both in terms of time and behaviors if you're in this market you have to be in it for a long time. Finally, some closing suggestions. Study the failures as well as the wins? Why didn't somebody work? Why didn't something work? Who are people like me who had similar aspirations with similar venture support? Similar kinds of alliances? Why did or didn't it work? Study the failures as important as the wins? Read everything all the time from places you wouldn't necessarily go. It's not just Ed Surge, it's also the Wall Street Journal. Across the board, read stuff, find stuff, search for stuff. That's going to be an incredibly rich resource as you go forward. Seek dissonant perspectives. You want to cultivate the loyal opposition. People who want you to succeed but who will be candid with you about what you need to do better. And seek their counsel that way. Not what are you doing wrong but what can you do better? And then do triage about when you can do certain things in that process. Form alliances. This is a world of alliances in higher education particularly if you are new to this marketplace. K-12 as well. They want to see who your friends are. But be careful because we are all distrustful of logo buddy relationships. That's the big name national brand. That's the local contact who's going to do fulfillment before a meeting. We're looking for Karatsu. We want to know that you have shared medical records and deep dark secrets with your partners because we're tired of logo buddy relationships on your websites and at the presentation meeting. We want to share service. One call kills it all. One call resolves it all. You're going to bring somebody to the meeting, you better be married to that partner and that better be a trusted partner because you're presenting them to me as a trusted partner. Walk the halls of conferences, you all do that. It's incredibly useful both for what you see is done well and what you see needs to be done better or alternatively is done terribly and finally enjoy the ride. It can be an incredibly exciting experience. It can be a very invigorating experience. It's a unique opportunity to do good and do well. Thank you very much.