By Edward Irby

12/17/2010

Purpose of Presentation

In this presentation you will find my

reworked provider market entry

selection chart. Its purpose is to help us

view the potential of different institutional

provider categories. I've modified it a bit

from last time.

Highest score possible is 50

Scores under 30 don’t meet my senate

style majority requirements.

Differences between First Chart

In my first chart I identified 10

institutional categories. I’ve since added

2.

I understand there is a difference

between the image of the institution or

organization that has computer power to

spare and finding institutions with spare

computer power.

There are Five Indicators INSTITUTIONS WITH SPARE

COMPUTER POWER Weighted 3 as this is what we are

looking for initially. Judging from the executive summary 100 computers is the ideal number for the example jobs listed. Meaning a single individual/institution that has 50 or more is significant. Thus the point scoring below.

(1 pt < 10 pc’s) (2 pt < 20 pc’s) (3 pt < 3 pc’s0) (4 pt < 40 pc’s) (5 pt < 50 pc’s)

YOUTH PATRONAGE Weighted 2

○ 93% of this age group are online

○ Every year millions enter the adult age group we should seed this market sector

○ We want to identify Cpusage as being the company to go to for rewards for doing nothing other than owning a pc and having a internet connections,

18-35 PATRONAGE Weighted 1 because this is our core

online user adult base

SETI @ home the precursor to BOINC was released in 1999 assuming that the majority of initial adopters were grad school age and younger then setting the upper limit at 35 seems to encompass the majority of those technologically aware enough to consider adopting CPUsage.

HOUSEHOLD INCOME 30K+ OF PATRONAGE Weighted 1 because 84% of this

portion of the adult population are internet using computer owners.

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT NEEDS Weighted 3 because when I think of

an institution and the probability of it partnering with us I feel this is one of the strongest indicators.

Indicator 1

In the initial chart with regards to indicator 1, I assigned those places with no real computer power to spare or a willingness to spare their computer power a 1, such as hospitals.

I agree with Shiv with regards to hospitals and other institutions such as government offices. It’s not that they don’t have computers to spare I just think there is no willingness.

However, that does not mean that they can’t provide access to private individuals who in turn have computer power to spare.

I was under the impression from the executive summary and conversations that CPUsage wanted to use consumer owned computers not solely clusters of pc’s found in institutions.

This time I have assigned those institutions without relative computer power (PC’s<7) to spare or no willingness to spare computer power a 0.

Indicators 2-4

The next three indicators relate to

patronage. These groups are the

portions of the provider market that

these institutions have direct contact

with.

I rated them based on how I perceived

the exposure, interactions and influence

over each group a given institutions had.

Indicator 5

The final indicator Resource

Development is the real need we are

solving for institutions. It is this need that

will be the primary factor determining

whether institutions partner with us as

solely providers of spare computing

power, channels of awareness for

provider acquisition, or a combination of

the both.

Ind

ica

tor 1

Weig

ht

Po

ints

Ind

ica

tor 2

Weig

ht

Po

ints

Ind

ica

tor 3

Weig

ht

Po

ints

Ind

ica

tor 4

Weig

ht

Po

ints

Ind

ica

tor 5

Weig

ht

Po

ints

To

tals

College 2 yr or 4 yr 5 3 15 1 2 2 5 1 5 1 1 1 4 3 12 35

Public schools 5 3 15 5 2 10 1 1 1 3 1 3 5 3 15 44

Private schools k-12 4 3 12 5 2 10 1 1 1 5 1 5 3 3 9 37

Youth Org. 1 3 3 5 2 10 2 1 2 4 1 4 5 3 15 34

Religious Org. 1 3 3 5 2 10 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 9 28

Library 5 3 15 5 2 10 3 1 3 2 1 2 5 3 15 45

Public Broadcasting 1 3 3 2 2 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 5 3 15 30

NP Hum/social 2 3 6 1 2 2 4 1 4 3 1 3 5 3 15 30

NP Art-Cult 1 3 3 3 2 6 3 1 3 3 1 3 5 3 15 30

Community Centers 3 3 9 4 2 8 2 1 2 2 1 2 5 3 15 36

Museum 1 3 3 3 2 6 3 1 3 5 1 5 3 3 9 26

State-Comm Parks 0 3 0 3 2 6 4 1 4 3 1 3 4 3 12 25

Youth Rec-Sports 0 3 0 5 2 10 1 1 1 4 1 4 2 3 6 21

Wifi Providers 5 3 15 2 2 4 4 1 4 5 1 5 0 3 0 28

Prison 4 3 12 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 5 3 15 27

Comm Clinic 0 3 0 3 2 6 1 1 1 3 1 3 4 3 12 22

Hospital 0 3 0 3 2 6 2 1 2 3 1 3 2 3 6 17

Non-Profit Medical 0 3 0 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 4 3 12 18

Indicators 1:

Computer Power to

Spare

Indicator 2: Youth

Patronage

Indicator 3: 18-15

Patronage

Indicator 4: House

hold income 30K+

Patronage

Indicator 5:

Resource

Development Needs

First Labour

When I last met with Shiv I was asked to come up with 10 or so intuitional categories and from them you guys would pick 5 or so. I have identified 12 categories of Institutions.

1. Educational Institutions

2. Youth organizations

3. Religious Organizations

4. Library

5. Public Broadcasting

6. Non-Profits

7. Community Centers

8. Museums

9. Parks and Recreations

10. Wi-Fi Providers

11. Correctional Facilities i.e. Prisons

12. Medical Institutions

Sub-categories

Four of these categories I have divided

into sub-categories and this is reflected

in the chart by the highlighted blocks.

This in turn gave me a total of 18

institutional types

Parks and Recreation

State and Community Parks

Youth Recreational Sports

Medical Institutions

Community Medical Center

Hospital

Non-Profit Medical

Educational Institutions

2 year colleges and non research 4 year

institutions

Clark College in Vancouver

Public School k-12

Beaverton School District

Private Schools k-12

Central Catholic High School whose 2010

phonathon reached nearly 6,000 parents,

alumni, and friends of Central Catholic asking

for contributions in support of their students.

Non-Profits (Not on Oregon’s 20 Worst Charities – 2010 list)

Humanitarian, Environmental and Social Work focused nonprofits Americorps and the Nature conservancy (146,232

Facebook Likes)

Mercycorps (20,264 Facebook Likes)

Project Wilderness (1,424 Facebook Likes), Ecotrust(Facebook Likes 884) Freshwater Trust, (615 Facebook Likes)

Art and Culture The Portland Japanese Garden (3,616 Facebook

Likes)

Portland Opera (2,133 Facebook Likes), Oregon Historical Society (1,934 Facebook Likes), Oregon Cultural Trust (1,455 Facebook Likes)

Indicators 1:

Computer Power to

Spare

Indicator 2: Youth

Patronage

Indicator 3: 18-15

Patronage

Indicator 4: House

hold income 30K+

Patronage

Indicator 5:

Resource

Development Needs

Ind

ica

tor 1

Weig

ht

Po

ints

Ind

ica

tor 2

Weig

ht

Po

ints

Ind

ica

tor 3

Weig

ht

Po

ints

Ind

ica

tor 4

Weig

ht

Po

ints

Ind

ica

tor 5

Weig

ht

Po

ints

To

tals

College 2 yr or 4 yr 5 3 15 1 2 2 5 1 5 1 1 1 4 3 12 35

Public schools 5 3 15 5 2 10 1 1 1 3 1 3 5 3 15 44

Private schools k-12 4 3 12 5 2 10 1 1 1 5 1 5 3 3 9 37

Youth Org. 1 3 3 5 2 10 2 1 2 4 1 4 5 3 15 34

Religious Org. 1 3 3 5 2 10 3 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 9 28

Library 5 3 15 5 2 10 3 1 3 2 1 2 5 3 15 45

Public Broadcasting 1 3 3 2 2 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 5 3 15 30

NP Hum/social 2 3 6 1 2 2 4 1 4 3 1 3 5 3 15 30

NP Art-Cult 1 3 3 3 2 6 3 1 3 3 1 3 5 3 15 30

Community Centers 3 3 9 4 2 8 2 1 2 2 1 2 5 3 15 36

Museum 1 3 3 3 2 6 3 1 3 5 1 5 3 3 9 26

State-Comm Parks 0 3 0 3 2 6 4 1 4 3 1 3 4 3 12 25

Youth Rec-Sports 0 3 0 5 2 10 1 1 1 4 1 4 2 3 6 21

Wifi Providers 5 3 15 2 2 4 4 1 4 5 1 5 0 3 0 28

Prison 4 3 12 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 5 3 15 27

Comm Clinic 0 3 0 3 2 6 1 1 1 3 1 3 4 3 12 22

Hospital 0 3 0 3 2 6 2 1 2 3 1 3 2 3 6 17

Non-Profit Medical 0 3 0 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 4 3 12 18

Now of the 12 Institutional categories listed

the highest possible score any could receive

was 50. Those categories with subcategories

I averaged to get an overall score:

Educational Insitutions-38.67, NonProfits-30,

Parks and Recreation-23, Medical

Institutions-19

I decide not to even bother considering

anything under 30. So the new chart of

prospective institutions looks like the one

presented on the next slide.

In

dic

ato

r 1

Weig

ht

Po

ints

In

dic

ato

r 2

Weig

ht

Po

ints

In

dic

ato

r 3

Weig

ht

Po

ints

In

dic

ato

r 4

Weig

ht

Po

ints

In

dic

ato

r 5

Weig

ht

Po

ints

To

tals

College 2 yr or 4 yr 5 3 15 1 2 2 5 1 5 1 1 1 4 3 12 35

Public schools 5 3 15 5 2 10 1 1 1 3 1 3 5 3 15 44

Private schools k-12 4 3 12 5 2 10 1 1 1 5 1 5 3 3 9 37

Average Educational Institutions 38.7

Youth Org. 1 3 3 5 2 10 2 1 2 4 1 4 5 3 15 34

Library 5 3 15 5 2 10 3 1 3 2 1 2 5 3 15 45

Public Broadcasting 1 3 3 2 2 4 4 1 4 4 1 4 5 3 15 30

NP Hum/social/envio 2 3 6 1 2 2 4 1 4 3 1 3 5 3 15 30

NP Art-Cult 1 3 3 3 2 6 3 1 3 3 1 3 5 3 15 30

Average NonProfits 30

Community Centers 3 3 9 4 2 8 2 1 2 2 1 2 5 3 15 36

Indicators 1:

Computer Power to

Spare

Indicator 2: Youth

Patronage

Indicator 3: 18-15

Patronage

Indicator 4: House

hold income 30K+

Patronage

Indicator 5:

Resource

Development Needs

What the chart reveals

There are six categories 2 of which are subdivided for a total of 9 types of institutions that meet the 30 point score or higher limit.

I’m not saying these are the must have choices but they are the ones that I perceived as being the ones to consider first. We are trying to create channels here. We have to ask ourselves through which channels do we reach our provider segments?

Proposed Solution to Channel “?” Creating awareness just among private individual

providers will be difficult. Marketing is expensive, along

with modifying public perceptions of something they might

not understand especially during a time when identity theft

and a dislike of corporate America in general are serious

thoughts on the minds of the many of Americans. The

institutions are a channel to reach the public and overcome

these major hurdles.

The institutions hypothetically provide something else

dedicated pc’s whose hours of operations are relatively

within our control.

Well 5 of the 9 institution types scored 3 or higher on indicator 1 and

thus could conceivably provide this.

All of the institutional types have the potential to forward

greater expansion into the consumer owned computer

provider market.

So why did I ask about Skins?

First it occurred to me even if the app is being run with the sponsorship of an institution CPUsage is going to mean a lot less to people than say “MercyCorps”

Think of the institutions as our Shields and Champions to someone who’s not comfortable letting Corporate America into their machines. MercyCorps Disturbed Networking Donations powered by CPUsage

I know badly worded but this is a possible approach.

So is the cost of making personalized skins for each institution greater than the ROI that continual visual reminders of: Not just reward points stacking up but also good intentions/deeds

I think it would serve as a great psychological incentive if the provider is given visual reminders of who they are helping as they glance at their taskbar. They will be more inclined to leave the computer on longer and not worry so much about the business using their machine.

Consider This

You’re a private individual visiting OPB.org or some other Nonprofit/Charity and you read this. Give a gift that only costs four more dollars a month

in your power bill. When you donate your time and money, sometimes that is not enough because sometimes you can't even give that. So, in addition to giving what dollars you can this year to your favorite charity or non-profit, donate something new: your Idle Processing Time. Let (charity) harness your spare computer power. In return, you'll not only be providing needed funds to (charity), you'll also be receiving rewards as you accumulate points for every hour donated.

So what’s next?

I Look forward to you feedback

Edward Irby