learning portal business plan------final report - · PDF filelearning portal business...

learning portal business plan------final report

PREPARED BY SANATHAN KASSIEDASS,

OVERLAP ASSOCIATES

FOR THE SOUTHERN ONTARIO LIBRARY SERVICE,

ONTARIO LIBRARY SERVICE NORTH AND PARTNERS

JULY 2013

2 THE SOUTHERN ONTARIO LIBRARY SERVICE TRAINING PORTAL FINAL REPORT

contents

summary ......................................................................................................................... 4

the process ..................................................................................................................... 6

The Survey .............................................................................................................. 6

User focus group sessions .......................................................................................... 7

Partners’ input ............................................................................................................ 8

Reporting .................................................................................................................... 9

Vendor survey ......................................................................................................... 9

requirements documentation — for use in RFP ........................................................... 10

Feature Table ............................................................................................................ 10

Requirements Document .......................................................................................... 11

vendor summary ........................................................................................................... 13

Vendor survey ........................................................................................................... 13

Vendor comparison .................................................................................................. 14

Table 1: LMS Vendor Comparison ............................................................................ 15

vendors ......................................................................................................................... 16

business model ............................................................................................................. 17

Business Model Canvas............................................................................................. 18

Value Proposition ..................................................................................................... 19

Key Partners .............................................................................................................. 22

New partners: ....................................................................................................... 22

Key Activities ............................................................................................................. 23


Cost analysis.......................................................................................................... 23

Develop a fee structure ........................................................................................ 23

MOU between partners ........................................................................................ 23

Project management ............................................................................................ 24

Create tools, submit training, and create policies ................................................ 24

Communication plan ............................................................................................. 25

Constant feedback ................................................................................................ 25

Key resources ............................................................................................................ 26

Customer Segments, Customer Relationships, and Channels .................................. 27

Customer segments .............................................................................................. 27

Customer relationships ......................................................................................... 27

Channels ............................................................................................................... 28

How do we raise awareness? ............................................................................... 29

How do customers (users) purchase from us? ..................................................... 29

How do we provide support? ............................................................................... 30

Cost Structure ........................................................................................................... 32

External costs ........................................................................................................ 32

Internal costs ........................................................................................................ 33

Revenue Streams ...................................................................................................... 34

Budget Table ......................................................................................................... 36

recommendations ......................................................................................................... 37

Appendices ................................................................................................................... 39


summary

Relevant skills.

If two words could sum up what library staff across the province want out of a library

training portal, those would be it. It has become apparent through outreach efforts with

users that a learning portal is highly desired and viewed as a tool which can enable

transformational change. Beyond the vital task of training and keeping the skill set of our

library staff up-to-date, this portal can further enable the sharing of information, bridge

geographical gaps, and unite staff through collaborative tools.

Through this project, the partnership formed by the Southern Ontario Library Service,

Ontario Library Service North, and their partners has gained a very thorough

understanding of what their users (and themselves as service providers) need out of a

learning portal. Not only do we now have a very clear articulation of what those needs

are, but we also have unique ideas for solving problems – generated out of the user base

themselves. This input will enable the partnership to source the vendor who is best

positioned to meet the needs, within a set budget.

The partnership has enlisted the services of Overlap Associates to create this business

plan, and has followed processes used in other sectors such as high tech to understand

and document their requirements. This started with an end-user survey, which yielded

788 responses out of a poll of about 2,500 users. Initial insights gained here included the


need for centralization, a desire for continued notifications, and the need for interaction.

As a quantitative study, it also provided the estimate that 79% of your 5,100 users are

likely to be active users on the new system. Next, seven focus group sessions were

conducted (three in southern Ontario, and four in northern Ontario) to gain a greater

depth of understanding for users’ needs. Examples of insights gained through these

sessions include: a desire to find relevant training offerings that help users to perform

their jobs better, the need for collaboration and flexibility, and career growth as a driving

motivator. Lastly, the partners themselves were consulted during two focus group

sessions (and adjunct interviews) to determine their needs as service providers and to

build the business model.

The vendor landscape includes a range of offerings – some of whom come very close to

meeting most of your needs, and some of whom are very far off. This partnership is

expected to spend anywhere from $12,000 to $40,000 on vendor fees to implement the

solution, and a range between $27,000 to $133,000 annually to maintain the system (plus

taxes). In addition, several internal costs will need to be considered, such as extra staffing

to support the system (at least during the implementation phase). A survey of vendors

has provided the solution details and budgetary information needed for this partnership

to make a decision on the next steps, as well as a view of the likely features that can be

supported within your chosen budget range.

Overlap Associates has thoroughly enjoyed working with your team and your user groups

during this project. We recommend that the partnership decide upon a budget range

which is feasible today, and sustainable in the long term (considering cost-recovery

options as well), then use the documentation included with this report to solicit bids to an

RFP for a system which will deliver the transformational change that your users desire.

Note:

This external version of the report has been created for public consumption. Confidential

vendor data has been removed.


the process

The Survey

The project started with a survey as a quantitative study to gain a broad view of the

user base. The top issue that was identified in the survey was the requirement of

centralization. Users want to go to one site to find all training options – they find it

burdensome to visit the multiple sites offered by partners to gain a view of all training

Survey (Mar -

April)

•788 responses

•Insights – users’ need:

•Centralization

•Notifications

•Interaction

•92% female

•79% took training w/in last year

User Input (April – May)

•3 southern sessions

•4 northernsessions

•Insights – users’ need:

•Relevant skills

•Collaboration

•Flexibility

•Career Growth

•Value

Partners’ Input (May)

•Session focussed on partners' needs

•Session focussed on the business model

•Led to list of questions for vendors (and partners)

Reporting

•Interim reports after each phase

•Vendor survey (June)

•This report


options available to them. The survey therefore confirmed that there is a strong need

for the system.

The survey was designed by Overlap, and reviewed by the partnership.

Approximately 2,500 users were sent an online survey in March, and 788 responses

were received in March and April. Both quantitative and qualitative questions were

used. The quantitative questions gave us a broad-stroke view of the audience (for

example, an understanding that 92% of users are female and that 79% of users have

taken a course in the last year). The qualitative questions provided greater depth to

the uses. Some examples of insights that were gained include: the fact that users

appreciate their in-box notifications (and don’t want to see those disappear with the

new system), users are looking for features to help them compare training options,

connect with instructors and peers, and they are looking for flexible scheduling.

For a summary of the survey results, please see Appendix A.

To review the survey data, please see Appendix B

USER FOCUS GROUP SESSIONS

The next step in our process to discover users’ needs was a series of seven focus

group sessions, developed using design thinking methodology. These processes have

been known not only to be effective in facilitating discussion, but also to drive

innovation out of a collaborative. The participants did indeed leave the sessions

feeling engaged and excited about the potential of this new system – after all, they

had contributed several creative ideas to solving their own problems!

These sessions in April and May began with an “empathy map” exercise, which

provided an in-depth view of challenges, concerns, and the general environment a

user is in when they are searching for training. Next, users identified their goals,

barriers to those goals, and brainstormed methods to overcome those barriers.

Through the collaborative discussion, various new features were described – several


of which were very specific to the needs of a library staff learner. Lastly, users

worked with us to list out and prioritize the complete list of features against their

needs, including some very mundane required features.

Some examples of key insights include:

• Relevant skills – finding courses that help to perform job better, relevant to

size of library, experience level, etc

• Collaboration and interaction – ability for the user community to share

content and interact with each other

• Flexibility – in times to attend courses, types of courses, length of courses,

and methods of delivery

• Career growth – courses that are aligned with a career path

• Value – justifiable courses, both time and money’s worth

To see a summary of the southern sessions, please refer to Appendix C.

To see a summary of the northern sessions, please refer to Appendix D.

PARTNERS’ INPUT

Overlap consulted with the partnership on two separate occasions in May. The first

session was to gain an understanding of needs at the service provider level (SOLS,

OLS-N, and partner organizations). The second was focussed on the design of the

business model required to launch and sustain this project.

Although it is clear that a more in-depth response is required from potential vendors

prior to concluding on a number of business model items (such as user support), the

sessions have identified the core business model areas for future planning once the

RFP responses have been received and a vendor selected.


Some activities which will need to be explored further at that time include: defining a

support plan, defining a method for allocating funds received for course payments,

and the division of expenses to keep the system running.

For a summary of the business model, please refer to the Business Model section in

this report.

REPORTING

The partnership has been updated on this process through interim reports which have

been circulated after each milestone, and included in the appendix of this final report.

Vendor survey

The last element which requires reporting is the vendor survey. Overlap has sent a

survey out to thirty six vendors (selected from online searches, and two vendor

listings), to gain an understanding of the vendor landscape. Eight vendors responded,

providing an overview of their system, and information to gauge how well they could

meet the requirements of this project..

A summary of the four vendors who can meet the requirements is included in the

internal version of this report. (In addition, four other vendors are mentioned,

although they would be disqualified based on some of their responses). This

summary, along with an extended vendor listing should provide the basis of a vendor

list for the partnership to issue a formal RFP and obtain legally-binding responses

from the vendors.


requirements documentation ------ for use in RFP

Two key documents are included as part of the output of this plan: a feature table,

and a requirements document. Both of these are formatted for use in an RFP to

select a solution provider. Together, they respond to the first two required project

deliverables sought by the RFP which resulted in this project to document the

business plan. The deliverable of standard language / metadata tags is covered by a

section on metadata within the Requirements Document.

FEATURE TABLE

The feature table summarizes all requirements that have been defined for the ideal

solution. It includes the feature priority, as well as a brief description. It can be used

in a vendor response form. For example, SOLS can add two additional columns to the

table: “compliancy”, and “comments.” Vendors can respond using the table to self-

rate whether their solution “fully complies”, “partially complies,” or “does not” meet

the required system functionality being requested by the partnership. The vendor

can then add additional comments, and elaborate further in a blown-out proposal.

For questions about any feature, vendors are expected to review the appropriate

sections of the Requirements Document.


REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT

The Requirements Document is a detailed document providing all information a

vendor would need to understand the solution that this partnership requires to be

built. Key sections of this document include:

User Descriptions

Library staff are unique users. They can be very different from the university

and college student market which many LMS vendors treat as their primary

market. Providing these user descriptions enables vendors to understand

your user base and articulate how well their solution can meet the needs of

these users.

User personas were used to provide this summary. Personas are a common

method used in product development to assist developers in understanding

their users in terms that they can relate to. Nine personas were created to

showcase the breadth of different users for this system. These were fed by

qualitative research conducted during the focus group sessions.

Use Cases

This section summarizes the major tasks that users wish to accomplish with

the new system. It provides context for the following feature listing.

Features

This is the most important section of the document. It details out all features

which are required, and their associated priority level. Features are organized

by related topics, such as user profiles, and search and registration.

The priority ranking system classifies each feature as either critical, important

or useful. A legend is included on the first requirements page. Critical

features are those features which are needed on the first day of release –

otherwise the solution does not meet the needs of users. Important features


are those features which are highly desired by users, but not mandatory in

order for the system to be a functioning solution to their needs. Useful

features are those nice-to-have features that would enhance some aspect of

the system, but are not mandatory. This ranking should assist with vendor

reviews – a low-cost important feature can be added or removed at whim,

however all critical features must be met by any vendor who is selected.

Both of these documents are available in conjunction with this report.


vendor summary

This section responds to requirements 3 and 4 of the original RFP for this project –

providing options, analysis and recommendations for building and maintaining the

portal, including cost estimates. Given the wide range of vendors specializing

specifically in this space, it has quickly become apparent that a custom software

solution would be unnecessary to solve for the needs of your users.

VENDOR SURVEY

In order to obtain an understanding of vendor offerings (including estimated costs), a

survey was conducted by Overlap (representing an RFI). Vendors were selected

through a series of web searches, and reviewing two industry reports. A pre-screen

of the vendors’ websites were conducted to narrow the search. Thirty six vendors

were sent a copy of the survey, however only eight responded. Some additional

vendors did reply to the request but advised that they do not respond to RFI’s – those

vendors would be interested in responding to a formal RFP issued by SOLS.

To review the survey which was sent to vendors, please refer to Appendix E.


VENDOR COMPARISON

This section will provide an overview of the vendors who have responded to our

survey. We begin with a summary table (Table 1) which provides an overview of each

vendor’s capability to provide the most critical features of the system.

A letter grading system was used, and the legend is included in the table. The

methodology used was a subjective review of each vendor’s response by Overlap,

with judgement made based on our understanding of your users’ needs. The most

straight-forward grades were “B” if a vendor met everything that was being asked of a

feature, and “F” if they did not have the capability. We marked an “A+” for vendors

where they demonstrated something unique or innovative within a feature set – we

recommend that the partnership pay closer attention to this area, for potential added

benefits. Lastly, we marked a “C” for vendors if we felt they did not fully meet the

feature set requested, or if further information would be needed to determine that.

We recommend that the partnership also pay close attention to these areas when

vendors respond to your RFP, these are areas where more questions should be asked

to vendors for clarity.

Vendors are sorted in descending order based on cost.


TABLE 1: LMS VENDOR COMPARISON

Vendor 1 Vendor 2 Vendor 3 Vendor 4 Vendor 5 Vendor 6 Vendor 7

Data storage in Canada B B B B B C B

Home page view B B B B B B B

iMIS integration A+ B A+ B B B C

Easy to register for a course B B A+ B A+ B C

Scheduling A+ B A+ B B B C

Accessing archived presentations B B A+ C B B C

Session resume B F B B B B C

Audio for presenters C B C F B B C

Relevant skills: course

recommendations B B or C C or F C A+ B C

Searching for a course C B B C C B C

Career path charting A+ B A+ C B B B

Linking organizational competencies A+ B B B B B C

Creating a course A+ C C A+ B B C or F

eCommerce A+ B A+ B C B F

Trading/sharing training

(clearinghouse) C C B C C C F

Collaborartion A+ B B C B B F

Rate-my-trainer B A+ B B B B F

Pricing

Implementation / One-time fees $ 25,000 $ 85,000 $40,000 to $ 12,000 $ 52,522

Annual Fees

Unique scenarios (20-40%

discount to be

offered)

$ 25,200 $228

for 4000 users $ 116,000 $ 16,000 Plus

additional

fees

+ $5/user

per course for 4700 users $ 133,325 $ 95,000 $ 24,000

for 5100 users $ 143,225 $ 107,500 $ 91,859 $ 50,000 $ 26,580

Rating Legend:

A+ Exceeds expectations. Has something innovative to offer.

B Meets expectations. Can deliver functionality requested.

C Area for concern. Further questions / clarification needed.

F Can not deliver functionality.


vendors

This section has been removed from the public version of the report, to protect

confidential data shared by individual vendors.


business model

To help document the supporting business processes and required work to launch this

project, Overlap has adopted the Business Model Canvas. It is a strategic

management template formed out of the collaborative contribution of 470 managers,

consultants, and business practitioners from various fields. It is documented in the

book “Business Model Generation” by Alexander Osterwalder. The template is

shared under a creative commons license.

Overlap worked with the partners in one session to create the business model for this

project. The resulting visual chart is shared on the next page, and described in

greater detail in the following section.


BUSINESS MODEL CANVAS

Revenue Streams

Cost Structure

Key partners Key Activities Value Proposition Customer Segments

Key Resources

Customer

Relationships

Channels

www.businessmodelgeneration.com

SOLS OLS-N OLA OALT/ABO London and Hamilton public

libraries Key suppliers with dedicated

training staff Ontario Learns Extra provincial partners Potential partnership with

university library schools OALT/ABO working with

colleges

Cost analysis Develop fee structure MOU btwn partners Create tools Submit training (seamless) Create policies Project management Raise awareness with

audience (marketing) Constant feedback

Our training portal enables

our users to quickly discover,

register for, and participate in

the most relevant training

opportunities to meet their

goals -- regardless of their

location in Ontario.

Advisory committee Finances

and manager Vendor contacts LMS/portal system dedicated project manager Test environment Temporary staff Space requirements

Established Group experience Single contact for support Brand recognition Standard communication

Expectations Presenter approachable Self-service Human support

How do we raise awareness?

(Online, Offline) How do customers purchase

from us? (End user, content

provider requirements) How do we provide post-

purchase support?

(automated, human touch)

Librarians Library technicians Supervisors / managers Other library staff

Monthly recurring fees One time fees add admin fee to all transactions providers – listing fee Memberships Certifications

Connections (tech between systems, human between partners LMS = big cost Project manager cost Improve independent usage and user experience Marketing expenses/roadshow

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.


VALUE PROPOSITION

The value proposition for a product or project defines the value that is delivered to

customers. Once defined, all business decisions should reflect the delivery of this

value – even in a not-for-profit project. The value prop statement answers the

following questions:

• What value do we deliver to the customer?

• Which one of our customer’s problems are we helping to solve?

• What bundles of products and services are we offering to each Customer

Segment?

• Which customer needs are we satisfying?

The value prop statement serves as a centralizing theme to ground decision making.

The core value prop agreed upon for this portal is:

Our training portal enables library staff to quickly discover,

register for, and participate in the most relevant training

opportunities to meet their goals -- regardless of their

location in Ontario.

Additionally, we have identified several layers of value that build upon each other:

All in one place – the portal enables library staff to quickly find relevant

training opportunities because they are all listed on one website, removing

the need to visit multiple sites to find all current opportunities.

Ease of registration – the portal will allow library staff to access the site with

an existing user ID, or quickly create a new one.


Participating in training – the portal will make it easier for library staff to

participate in training opportunities, primarily by addressing time and

location issues:

In-person sessions: advanced notification of dates (six months in

advance), options to allow multiple libraries to pool together to get

sessions in a more local area.

On-line webinars: will be offered at multiple times, recorded and

available for review at alternate times, and will allow users to resume

a session if it is interrupted by a technical issue (such as bandwidth)

or alternate need (patron, distractions).

Relevant skills – the portal will enable users to find training opportunities

most applicable to them, first by ensuring complete descriptions of courses

(including target roles, target size of library, knowledge level, etc), second by

enabling search of these key terms, and third by presenting recommended

courses based on user profile.

Planning for career development – the portal will allow users to track all

courses that they have taken. It will also enable them to chart a development

plan to achieve their career goals, identifying courses that match

competencies relating to their next career steps.

Creating training offerings – the portal will allow any user to create training

offerings to share with other users and libraries. It will allow users to create

both content and quizzes or other testing methods to confirm understanding

of material.

Trading or sharing training material – users or libraries who create their own

training material will be able to trade this material with others – either for

free, or on a barter system. This will limit duplication of training material

creation, and help extend limited training budgets by providing access to

more content.


Connect and collaborate – the portal will enable library staff across the

province to connect with peers, mentors, and trainers for ongoing discussion

of relevant topics.

Rating training material and trainers – the portal will enable library staff to

comment on training material and trainers, providing feedback for other

users to asses relevance for their needs.

These statements can be referred back to, to help understand the core functionality

required of this system, and the value it is delivering to your users. Indeed, these

statements were included in our vendor survey, with questions wrapped around

them.


KEY PARTNERS

This partnership is already aware of who your core partners are: SOLS, OLS-N, OLA,

OALT/ABO, London and Hamilton public libraries.

New partners:

Through our discussions with this group, you have listed the following additional parties

to consider during deployment and ongoing maintenance of this system:

• Key suppliers with dedicated training staff

• Ontario Learns

• Extra-provincial partners

• Provincial Partners

• University library schools, and

• Colleges (through OALT/ABO)

These additional partners may provide a source of funding, or other resources. When

working through the financial model to provide cost-recovery for the system, Overlap

recommends including scenarios where these groups become partners and pay a fee-for-

service. For example, key suppliers may be interested in purchasing ad space. Or, a

supplier may offer a discount to the partnership for increased attendance, the partnership

can then pass on the training material at the regular price to its member base, and

withhold the difference in funds to assist in paying for the system. Additionally, all

partners will play a key role in the communication plan to ensure the project is a success.

Lastly, please consider your selected LMS vendor as a partner in delivering value to your

end users.


KEY ACTIVITIES

The following key activities have been identified for this project:

1. Cost analysis

2. Develop a fee structure

3. MOU between partners

4. Project management

5. Create tools

6. Submit training

7. Create policies

8. Raise awareness with audience (communication plan)

9. Constant feedback

Cost analysis

An obvious first step is cost analysis – this will be covered in the Cost Structure

section.

Develop a fee structure

This will be covered in the Revenue Streams section.

MOU between partners

Creating a memorandum of understanding, project charter, and other partnership

agreements/documentation is critical to the success of the partnership.

Some items to consider for inclusion are:

• Role definitions – lead organization(s) vs. partners

• Decision making authority – categories of decisions, and who has ownership

for each


• Cost sharing responsibilities – who pays, how much?

• Surplus division – if a surplus is received from service fees charged how will it

be divided amongst the partners?

• Timelines – is the project set out as a trial, or expected to run in perpetuity?

Creating this agreement is a separate activity unto itself. Overlap advises that this

partnership create an agreement prior to signing a final contract with any vendor (and

if possible, prior to sending out an RFP to select a vendor).

Project management

This is a large project. Overlap’s assessment is that it should not be expected that the

activity of project management for the project be consumed as additional duties by

any one person who presently has regular duties. We are recommending a dedicated

project manager – at least during the implementation phase, if not ongoing.

Create tools, submit training, and create policies

There are a number of activities related to getting the system up and running for

which the selected LMS vendor would be in the best position to provide guidance.

Example questions to ask vendors, during the vendor selection process:

• What are the activities which you need a SOLS/OLSN/partner person to

administer to set the system up?

o What is the process to complete each of these (major) tasks?

o Roughly how much time does each of these tasks require?

• What is the process to create a course record?

• What is the process to create a course (populate the system with all content)?

• What example policies can you share with us, based on standard processes or

industry best practices?


Communication plan

A formal communication plan should be developed, which will ensure the entire user

base is aware of the new system. This is expected to be handled internally, amongst

the partnership. It should incur very little additional costs, however some additional

funds may need to be set aside for travel – in instances where the communication

plan was unable to piggyback on existing events.

It is expected that the selected vendor will have a number of materials to be used in

the communication plan. Therefore, it should be an element of discussion during

vendor selection to ask what resources they have to offer to assist in the task of

generating user awareness.

Constant feedback

Feedback loops should be defined in your project plan. The process to date has been

heavy on user engagement, and users have an expectation that that will continue.

Incorporate methods to share progress with the user base, and obtain their input for

major milestones.


KEY RESOURCES

The following is a list of key resources required to make this project live:

• Advisory committee

• Finances/funding (and the management of finances)

• Vendor contacts

• The LMS/portal system itself

• A dedicated project manager, at least during the implementation stage

• Test environment

• Temporary staff, and

• Space requirements

These are the resources that are required to support the project activities defined

previously. These resources should be accounted for and documented in any project

charter, partnership agreement, or MOU signed amongst the partners.

Key questions to be asked amongst the partnership:

• What is the role of each member of the advisory committee?

• Who will manage the project finances? (Does the funding go into the bank

account of one of the partners? Is it managed by a third-party?)

• Which vendors will be included in the RFP?

• Who (which partner) will cover the cost of the project manager and

temporary staff?

• If there are physical space requirements (server room, desk for the project

manager, etc), who will cover these items?


CUSTOMER SEGMENTS, CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIPS,

AND CHANNELS

Customer segments

The partnership must decide upon a method to group their users into a number of

segments. This will allow you to create a communications plan which is targeted, and

utilize different tactics by each segment. Three options for segmenting your users

include: segmenting by role/job function, by geography, and by a combination of the

two – using the user persona’s as guidance (from the requirements document).

• By role:

o Librarians

o Other library staff

o Library technicians

o Supervisors / managers

o Volunteers

• By geography:

o Southern Ontario, northern Ontario

o Urban, rural

• By user persona

o (See requirements document)

Customer relationships

There are a number of established customer relationships between users and the

service providers in the partnership which must be maintained as the new system is

rolled out. There are also a number of expectations for relationships, where if these

are currently not met, must be established with the new system. Both are listed

below.

These should guide decisions as you implement the system. For example, if there’s a

debate regarding whether an instructor’s contact information should be listed online,


the debate may be resolved by deciding upon whether that action makes the

presenter more approachable by registrants.

Established:

• Credibility

• Single contact for support: email or 1-800

• Standard communication (website, newsletter)

• Ability to share and cooperate

• Group experience

Expectations

• Presenter approachable by registrant

• High level of interaction between participants

• Validation (pass/complete, certificate/proof)

• Self-service 24/7

• Human support – email and telephone

• Variety in payment options

• Easy refunds/cancellations/changes

• Continuous analysis of user needs – use surveys and meetings for feedback

Channels

This section identifies the key requirements that a communications and a support

plan will be required to address, once a vendor is selected for this system. These

discuss the methods (channels) in which your customers (users) purchase your

product (training) and gain support.


How do we raise awareness?

The strategy and tactics to raise awareness for the new system will need to be defined in

a communications plan. Some activities include:

Online:

• Partners’ websites

• e-mail Blasts / newsletters

• The portal itself

• Online calendars

Offline:

• “Roadshow” – travelling to various locations specifically to present the new

portal to groups of users

• Piggybacking on existing events (more likely) – adding segments to existing

conferences/sessions

• Print newsletters

• Word of mouth

Incentives to log on and use the new system:

• Pre-made membership accounts / group registration (take away the legwork of

creating an account)

• Discounts

• Multiple payment options

How do customers (users) purchase from us?

This is an un-resolved area of the business model. The partners will need to discuss a

number of questions prior to the implementation of this solution:

• What payment options will we allow? (Credit card – yes, Paypal or Amex ok?)


• Will we continue our current processes of invoicing in batches?

• How do we validate payment?

• Is payment to be made to the ‘portal’ or to the content providers directly? What

is the workflow?

• If payment is made to the ‘portal’, how do funds get transferred to or from the

partners?

How do we provide support?

The creation of a support plan will be required prior to implementing the new system.

This support plan will be heavily dependent on support options available from the

vendor that the partnership choses.

The following will need to be documented in the support plan:

Automated support

• Confirmations

o Confirmation of course registration

o Confirmation of changes

o Confirmation of course cancellation

o User should receive an automatic email with all the details of their

transaction, including support information (email / phone)

o Any pre-course work (such as articles, readings) should be sent to the

user at time of purchase/registration

o This is documented as part of the product requirements - vendors

should be providing this functionality as part of the solution

• Reminders

o Users should receive reminder emails several days prior to their

course, as well as the day of (depending on user/administrator

settings)


o This is also documented as part of the product requirements -

vendors should be providing this functionality as part of the solution

• Content owner re-directs

o In some cases a course provider or content creator within a library

system may have offered support

o In these cases, there needs to be re-directs to the supplier of content

for support

The human touch

A key part of the support plan will be maintaining the human touch to ensure that the

service feels welcoming to users. Some methods to do this include:

• Give instructors registrant info?

o A decision needs to be made as to whether or not instructors will

receive registrant details and contact info

• Enable content owners to trouble-shoot post-purchase support

• A help line with shared responsibility

o An idea that came out of one session with the partners was that the

group of partners could share in providing support. The setup could

work such that the email/phone que could rotate amongst different

partners depending on a set schedule

o The ability for vendors to enable this type of support model should be

queried during the RFP process

• A help line with extended hours

o The partners would need to decided how would this could be funded


COST STRUCTURE

There are two elements of this system which must be budgeted for – external costs

and internal costs. Through the vendor surveys which Overlap has administered, the

partnership now has a clear estimate of the range of external costs required for a

vendor to implement and maintain this solution. Although Overlap can not provide

the additional internal costs which the partners may incur, we have identified the

major cost items and provided a very rough estimate of these costs in the attached

table.

External costs

The three elements of external costs are:

• Vendor implementation fees

• Annual system hosting fees

• Third-party fees

Overlap has reported on the range of fees from vendors for the first two elements

(please refer to Table 1: LMS Vendor Comparison).

Examples of third-party fees are fees paid to a webinar or audio conferencing solution

provider for elements of the solution which a selected vendor may not provide

natively. These fees can not be estimated until vendors provide a formal response to

an RFP.

Overlap recommends that the partnership reserve up to $158,325 in funding to cover

the maximum vendor fees for the first year, plus $133,325 for each additional year

that the system will need to be supported prior to becoming self-sustaining. For

example, if the system is expected to become self-sustaining in three years, then the

budget reserve for this portion should be: $158,325 + $133,325 + $133,325 =

$424,975. (Note: taxes extra, above these quoted figures).


Reserving this level of available funds does not mean that the partnership will spend

it. It simply means that the partnership has the freedom to select the highest cost

vendor in the range, if it is decided that that vendor is best suited to meeting the

needs of users. Cost savings could be achieved if a lower-cost vendor is selected, or if

fewer users are active on the system.

Additionally, the budget reserved for additional years can be adjusted depending on

revenue models which would allow the system to be self-sustaining sooner.

Internal costs

Costs internal to the partnership include:

• Staff

o A dedicated project manager to coordinate implementation during

start-up

o Temporary staff member to assist with implementation

• Travel expenses

o To execute the communication plan

Overlap has estimated a rough salary cost of $80,000 for a project manager and

$40,000 for a temporary staff member in the first year. The travel expenses are

estimated at $4,000 to execute the communication plan, and are based on travel

spent during the consultations for this project. (It is assumed that internal staff time

will be used, so no additional labour fees would be part of the estimate for the

communication plan). These estimates have been included in the Budget Table on

page 52 of this report.

While it may be a difficult task to estimate these additional internal costs, Overlap

does recommend that a budgetary figure be assigned to such costs and tracked as the

project progresses. If funding sources external to the partnership are sought, now is

the time to raise these requirements.


REVENUE STREAMS

There are several revenue models which have been discussed during the engagement

sessions with partners for this project. It is important to note that revenue is sought

simply for cost-recovery of the system, as we are operating in a non-profit

environment.

Revenue models:

1. Monthly recurring fees

• A library system, or other body could pay a monthly fee to provide

access to the system for its group of users

2. Per-transaction fees

• A small fee could be added to each transaction

• Ex. If a vendor charges $100 for the delivery of a course, the end user

could be charged $102 and $2 would be put towards a system fund

• (The end user would be reimbursed from their library system per

standard processes)

3. Bulk / discount savings

• Discounts can be negotiated with vendors for connecting them with a

larger group of users taking a given course

• The discount can then be diverted to a system fund

• For example, if the normal price of a course is $100, but the vendor

will give a 10% discount if 20 users take the course ($90/user), the

partnership can ‘resell’ the course for $100 and divert the $10/user in

‘surplus’ to the system fund.

4. Listing fees

• The portal could be offered as a “marketplace”

• Vendors would have their training content reviewed and approved


• Once approved, the vendor would be charged a listing fee (either a

flat fee or a percentage of sales) to offer their material to the user

base

5. Memberships

• Users could be charged a membership fee to access the portal

6. Certifications

• A portion of fees to become certified can be re-diverted to a system

fund pool

7. Diversion of training funds

• With the new system the clearinghouse feature has the potential to

save money for some library systems, as they can obtain training

from partner library systems rather than re-creating the content

themselves

• The cost savings could be diverted to a system fund pool

The partnership must decide which of these revenue models (if any) will be followed,

or define new revenue models. Through these options the partnership may find a

viable method to make the system self-sustaining.


Budget Table

Project Budget: three scenarios

Startup Ongoing

Low-Cost Mid-Range Premium Low-Cost Mid-Range Premium

LMS Vendor

Implementation Fees $ 52,522 $ 40,000 $ 25,000

Hosting Fees (First Year) $ 26,580 $ 73,487 $ 133,325 $ 26,580 $ 73,487 $ 133,325

Add: fees for third-party modules (requires formal RFP to confirm) (requires formal RFP to confirm)

Sub-total $ 79,102 $ 113,487 $ 158,325 $ 26,580 $ 73,487 $ 133,325

ADD: Internal considerations

Temporary staff for implementation

(one-time) $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000

Project manager salary (start-up) $ 80,000 $ 80,000 $ 80,000

Communication plan - travel $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000

LESS: Cost recovery options

Discount in annual fees (if only 4,000

active users) -$ 10,580 -$ 5,270 -$ 17,325 -$ 10,580 -$ 5,270 -$ 17,325

Service fee revenue

Net costs: $ 192,522 $ 232,218 $ 265,000 16,000 $ 68,218 $ 116,000

Note: taxes extra

Yellow highlights = Overlap

placeholder data


recommendations

Your users are excited about the potential of this solution. It has become very clear

to us that they have real training needs which are not being met by the present

options. Across the province library staff are seeking relevant skills, collaboration,

and career growth. A healthy sampling of users has worked hard with us to define

the ideal solution to meet their needs, and we have found a number of vendors who

satisfy the majority of those needs with off-the-shelf, customizable software

solutions. Overlap recommends that this partnership sets a budget and then moves

forward with an RFP to select a vendor which best meets the requirements set out in

the associated document to this report.

The following represents our recommended next steps:

1. Set a project budget and obtain approval

2. Share status with users

3. Issue an RFP

4. Select a vendor

5. Create a communications plan, and support plan

6. Implement solution

7. Communicate with users

We recommend the creation of a project budget from the outset – ideally set at a

minimum of $158,325 (plus taxes) for external costs to enable the full range of vendor

offerings -- however internal cost constraints may limit options. This budget should

also account for internal costs, estimated to the best of your ability at the time of


project kickoff. Approval of budget funds should be sought, with this report as

supporting documentation. Once a decision is made to move forward, Overlap

recommends communicating an update to the user base, or at the very least the

stakeholders who participated in the focus group sessions.

A formal RFP should be issued to the vendors indicated in this report, and additional

vendors in the Learning Management System space, identified by the partnership.

Given the wide range of vendor options for vendors specializing in this type of

solution, there is no need to seek out a vendor for a custom software solution.

Vendor selection should be made utilizing the prioritization scales provided with this

report – a vendor should be rejected if they can not provide any feature ranked

“critical”. Vendors’ capabilities in meeting “critical” features should be weighted

more heavily than their capability in meeting “important” features, likewise for

“important” vs “useful” features.

A communication plan and support plan will need to be created once a vendor is

selected. This will ensure that the solution ties into your existing business processes –

ensuring that users are aware of it, and know where to go to get support when

needed.

Lastly, implementing the solution will be the most rewarding part of the whole

process. We recommend that a dedicated project manager be designated for this

activity (and the follow-through activities to get system up and running).

We know that there will be a question during budget discussions asking whether or

not this partnership can afford the range of costs outlined here. However, we would

like to ask, after knowing all the benefits that this solution can provide and the

training and collaboration problems that it will solve: can you afford to not move

forward?


Appendices

The following documents are included as separate attachments to this document, and

are available on request by contacting Barbara Franchetto at [email protected] :

Appendix A - Survey Results

Appendix B - Survey Data

Appendix C - Southern Sessions Summary

Appendix D - Northern Sessions Summary

Appendix E - Vendor Survey

learning portal business plan------final report - · PDF filelearning portal business...

Documents

Transcript of learning portal business plan------final report - · PDF filelearning portal business...