technology transfer center business drivers behind mobile learning dr. andrás gábor
Post on 21-Dec-2015
215 views
TRANSCRIPT
Technology Transfer Center
Business Drivers behind Mobile Learning
Dr. András Gábor
September 8-9, 2005, DublinmLearning Conference,
2Technology Transfer Center
Mobile Learning
Technology (platforms)– Smartphone– PDA– Notebook
Methodology – Infrastructure– Domain
Economic rationale– Contact hours– Credit
September 8-9, 2005, DublinmLearning Conference,
3Technology Transfer Center
Convergence of Technologies
WiF I WiMAX UMTS
September 8-9, 2005, DublinmLearning Conference,
4Technology Transfer Center
Why Mobile Learning?
Scope: Higher Education, regular teaching environment Blended learning
– F2F education– e-Learning– syncrhonous– asynchronous
Organisational approach– matrix organisation– program management– organisational containers
September 8-9, 2005, DublinmLearning Conference,
5Technology Transfer Center
Assumptions
Normative financing– number of active students– normative cost per capita per type of education– 60 credits / students/ year
Courses– Number and composition of instructors
• wage• % working time devoted to teaching
– Number of desired contact hours– Credit associated with the course– Infrastructure cost– OH
September 8-9, 2005, DublinmLearning Conference,
6Technology Transfer Center
Balance equation
Balance requirement: [cost of credit] = [revenue on credit]
[cost of credit] = [instructors] * [wage] / [working hours] * [contact hours]
[revenue on credit] = [students] * [normative reimbursement] / [total credit/year/student]
September 8-9, 2005, DublinmLearning Conference,
7Technology Transfer Center
Balance equation
Course Instructors #
% of teaching activites
Wages (total)
Working hours per year
Contact hours
Credit Cost / credit
Students # Normative re-imbursement /year/student
Credit total p.a.
Balance
101 1 100% 20000 2000 60 5 120 5 1440 60 0
Balance requirement: [cost of credit] =[revenue on credit]
[cost of credit] =[instructors]*[wage]/[working hours]*[contact hours]
[revenue on credit] = [students]*[normative reimbursement]/[total credit/year/student]
September 8-9, 2005, DublinmLearning Conference,
8Technology Transfer Center
Balance equation
Course Instructors #
% of teaching activites
Wages (total)
Working hours per year
Contact hours
Credit Cost / credit
Students # Normative re-imbursement /year/student
Credit total p.a.
Balance
101 1 100% 20000 2000 60 5 120 5 1440 60 0102 4 100% 80000 2000 240 5 1920 80 1440 60 0
Remark: Seminars means uses more resources
September 8-9, 2005, DublinmLearning Conference,
9Technology Transfer Center
Balance equation
Course Instructors #
% of teaching activites
Wages (total)
Working hours per year
Contact hours
Credit Cost / credit
Students # Normative re-imbursement /year/student
Credit total p.a.
Balance
101 1 100% 20000 2000 60 5 120 5 1440 60 0102 4 100% 80000 2000 240 5 1920 80 1440 60 0102 4 100% 80000 2000 240 5 1920 75 1440 60 -120102 4 100% 80000 2000 240 5 1920 85 1440 60 120
Remark: Less student means loss, more student makes profit
September 8-9, 2005, DublinmLearning Conference,
10Technology Transfer Center
Balance equationResource based financing
Course Instructors #
% of teaching activites
Wages (total)
Working hours per year
Contact hours
Credit Cost / credit
Students # Normative re-imbursement /year/student
Credit total p.a.
Balance
101 1 100% 20000 2000 60 5 120 5 1440 60 0102 4 100% 80000 2000 240 5 1920 80 1440 60 0102 4 100% 80000 2000 240 5 1920 75 1440 60 -120102 4 100% 80000 2000 240 5 1920 85 1440 60 120102 4 80% 80000 1600 240 5 2400 85 1440 60 -360102 4 80% 80000 1600 240 5 2400 100 1440 60 0
Remark: Wages are the same, the available working time is smaller
September 8-9, 2005, DublinmLearning Conference,
11Technology Transfer Center
Balance equationmLearning means making profit?
Course Instructors #
% of teaching activites
Wages (total)
Working hours per year
Contact hours
Credit Cost / credit
Students # Normative re-imbursement /year/student
Credit total p.a.
Balance
101 1 100% 20000 2000 60 5 120 5 1440 60 0102 4 100% 80000 2000 240 5 1920 80 1440 60 0102 4 100% 80000 2000 240 5 1920 75 1440 60 -120102 4 100% 80000 2000 240 5 1920 85 1440 60 120102 4 80% 80000 1600 240 5 2400 85 1440 60 -360102 4 80% 80000 1600 240 5 2400 100 1440 60 0102 4 100% 80000 2000 120 5 960 40 1440 60 0102 4 100% 80000 2000 120 5 960 100 1440 60 1440
Remark: The difference comes from e(m)-Learning. Also infrastructure cost can be saved
September 8-9, 2005, DublinmLearning Conference,
12Technology Transfer Center
Balance equationStrategic options
Course Instructors #
% of teaching activites
Wages (total)
Working hours per year
Contact hours
Credit Cost / credit
Students # Normative re-imbursement /year/student
Credit total p.a.
Balance
101 1 100% 20000 2000 60 5 120 5 1440 60 0102 4 100% 80000 2000 240 5 1920 80 1440 60 0102 4 100% 80000 2000 240 5 1920 75 1440 60 -120102 4 100% 80000 2000 240 5 1920 85 1440 60 120102 4 80% 80000 1600 240 5 2400 85 1440 60 -360102 4 80% 80000 1600 240 5 2400 100 1440 60 0102 4 100% 80000 2000 120 5 960 40 1440 60 0102 4 100% 80000 2000 120 5 960 100 1440 60 1440
Program total
1080
Remark: Cross financing
September 8-9, 2005, DublinmLearning Conference,
13Technology Transfer Center
Balance equationStrategic options
Course distribution
20% 30% 50%Total wages 10000 20000 10000
101 -9880 31840 -6400102 11800 20000 10000102 -10000 31840 -6400102 12040 20000 10000102 -10000 31840 -6400102 11920 20000 10000102 -10960 31840 -6400102 13360 20000 10000
Program total
-13360 207360 14400
P/L per organisational container (department, unit, institute, group, etc.)
