1 / 20

NEKIA Business Development Progress Report Board of Directors Meeting May 7,2003

NEKIA Business Development Progress Report Board of Directors Meeting May 7,2003. Task Force Members Tim Waters, Ericka Miller, Chris Dwyer, Wes Hoover, Bob McLaughlin, John Kofel, Jim Kohlmoos, Adie Becker.

tavita
Download Presentation

NEKIA Business Development Progress Report Board of Directors Meeting May 7,2003

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NEKIA Business DevelopmentProgress ReportBoard of Directors MeetingMay 7,2003

  2. Task Force MembersTim Waters, Ericka Miller, Chris Dwyer, Wes Hoover, Bob McLaughlin, John Kofel, Jim Kohlmoos, Adie Becker

  3. ChargeTo propose to the Board…(A)One or more initiatives for NEKIA to undertake in the near future that will enhance members’ competitiveness and/or business development opportunities in the changing education and public outreach market over the next three years.(B)An organizational plan for making business development a major component of NEKIA’s work.(C)A strategy for strengthening NEKIA’s long term financial position as a by-product of the new initiatives. (D)An approach for how to address potential competitive conflicts among members as a result of the initiative (s).

  4. Considerations·Complements and does not distract from NEKIA’s current and future government relations program.·Adds clear value to participating members’ efforts·Is financially viable and self supporting·Is fully compatible with NEKIA mission and values·Has strong potential of improving members’ competitiveness·Focuses on a realistic time frame such as three years·Is more cost effective to do it as a group rather than as individual organizations.·Does not have a high degree of financial or reputational risk.·Helps to strengthen NEKIA financial viability (generates additional revenues that contribute to overhead). ·Promotes collaboration within the trade association.·Helps members diversify revenues·Appeals to new members and retain current members

  5. CriteriaAmount of time to implement Cost of creating the opportunity Return on investment for members Return on investment for NEKIA

  6. PRIMARY FOCUS…the most vital, value added type of service that NEKIA could provide members would be in the form of brokering relationships

  7. Stages of Brokering ActivityStage #1 --- InformationalConducting market researchAttending conferences and informational meetingsPackaging NEKIA and its membersStage #2 --- IntroductoryConvening introductory brokering forumsHolding one-on-one dinners or brokering meetingsStage # 3--- ProgrammaticParticipating in advisory panels, board meetingsApplying for /requesting funding

  8. Stages of BrokeringContinuedStage #4 --- CollaborativeEstablishing long term strategic partnershipsHelping to merging organizationsCreating consortiaImplementing joint projectsStage #5 --- New Business CreationDeveloping new legislationDeveloping new productsDeveloping new distribution systems

  9. Market SegmentsGovernment/ Department of Education --- grants and contractsGovernment/ Other agencies --- education-related grants and contractsFor profit and non-profit business --- Strategic partnerships, mergers, acquisitionsPhilanthropies --- grants and contractsPrivate investment --- venture capital

  10. MATRIX

  11. TimelineBoard Meeting in DC Present to Board a progress report on our thinking and collect additional suggestions.June 3-4 Planning Meeting in DenverFurther develop brokering ideas and begin development of business plan proposal.June –JulyConduct research and develop business plan for the initiative(s)July 17-18Board Meeting in HonoluluPresent business plan to Board and make decision July-September     Launch initiative (s) September9 Board Meeting in DCReview statusNovember 20-21 Retreat in ArizonaImplement, review and develop future options

  12. Immediate TasksFor each market segment determine current stage Identify desired stage for next three yearsDevelop specific plan for each segment for next three years Assess plans using the four evaluative criteriaMake proposal to board at July

  13. Comprehensive Legislative CampaignProgress ReportBoard of Directors MeetingMay 7, 2003

  14. Compelling FactorsProposed Budget Cuts   SERP (Strategic Education Research Partnership) Gap in ESRA Foundation for next reauthorization

  15. Goals1.Support2.Champions 3.Partnerships4.Case5.Visibility6.Message

  16. Campaign ElementsLegislation Kickoff Allies Champions Communications

  17. Guiding PrinciplesProtects and expands current programs       Stimulate demand for our member services       Has media appeal       Supports some ED goals (eg transform education into evidence based field)      Gives something tangible to potential collaborators.

  18. Key ElementsCenter Placement Leadership Purposes Current programs New Programs for demand New Programs for supplyS pecial Activities

  19. ConsiderationsTiming Partners Cost options

  20. Immediate IssuesShould we time this strategy with short term appropriations needs or take a longer view?Where should place the national center?What should we name the national center? Which partners should we seek and what kinds of benefits for them should we include in the legislation?How should we position this legislation with the current Administration?How should we position this effort relative to the past and future reauthorizations?How much will it really cost?How does this effort relate to the Business Development initiative?What more does the Board need to know in order to make a go/no-go decision?

More Related