Strategic Plan 2018
- OSE Incentive Challenge is a focal point around which infrastructure for OSE can be built because this is a first dedicated effort at mass creation of right livelihood.
- Protocols for ongoing tasks must be recorded for the every-day tasks of OSE so these can begin to scale as a transparent organization. The ideal model here is that processes are so clear that any admin person can execute with minimal training.
The following strategies must be clear, and corresponding protocols must be explicit - to the point that they are executable readily.
- Marketing Strategy - the process from A to Z on how OSE markets its products (workshops, immersions, kits, OSE Clubs, Professional Development)
- Funding Strategy - what avenues does OSE use to fund operations for the mass creation of right livelihood on a broad scale? General budget for projected revenues from each channel.
- Publishing/Communications Strategy - how do we communicate our values, our products, our developments? How do we invite contributors? What are all the venues that we post at? How do we secure writers? What do we say in public and what means do we use to say these things - internet, media, speaking, etc.
- Development Strategy - overall, full program of how development should happen, right now, in an executable fashion. Combines remote and local dev, incentive challenges, OSE Clubs, Pro Dev, Kits/Products, Book, Basic Wiki, How to Contribute, Governance, Transition to a Real Community, How to Capitalize a Project, etc. Hitting the Streets - going to schools to train teachers in design. Still requires first stable OSE enterprise to prove the economics of distributed production as scaled to multiple people. Work out a proven package of production, marketing, and R&D for the 3D printer. Leverage the unlimited value of collaborative development. Critical Ineternet Infrastructure - Upvoting, Wiki, Docs, FreeCAD. Includes necessary supporting internet infrastructure and physical facilities. Really good Getting Involved page for volunteers to change the world. Design Guides and how to leverage them as a generative force for design?
- Site development strategy - Full site regeneration of soil. Addition of water retential, perennial polyculture, and plant breeding infrastructure. Bbuilding additional critical infrastructure for a Campus to acquiring additional land. Starting with running Build Events based on the Incentive Challenges, year round programs, and short workshops.
- Topgrading - finding the most qualified teachers, professors, and other individuals to acts as force multipliers for OSE Teaching and Immersion Programs. Creating a top program for STEM with a Purpose. Creating the most widely replicated machines in the world.
- Curriculum Strategy - What curriculum and what staff do we need to take our curriculum to be self-managing, enabling cutting edge research to be performed? Clear learning goals of product releases. 4 hours per day class time, rest is design and build projects. 90% design to 10% build ratio. 2 hours per day teaching time. Design Guides.
- Reframing Common Problems - identifying common issues in global production in a clear way that leads to a large potential market. Relies on creating clarity for market creation.
- Product development - SZOIL collaboration for kits, edu kits, small laser cutter, CNC ciruit mill
- Public Engineering, OSE Clubs - in high schools - collaboration between shop class, programming, CAD, electronics, science classes. Specifically, there is programming, there is build as a STEM class, and there is shop class for real machine builds. These 3 should be leveraged.
- For OSE Clubs - Educators - visit teachers' conferences to introduce the idea of OSE Clubs and Public Engineering for social good. Then can reach out to multiple schools at a time.
There are 2 competing funding approaches emerging from OSE work. One is a training model - where revenue from education activity funds development. Two is a production model - where we focus on the raw power of production - capturing value via Extreme Manufacturing. In particular, Extreme Manufacturing Workshops have shown promise as a sustainable revenue model. See Strategic Plan and OSE Model of Change for connections to the greater OSE framework.
In one model, student tuition funds the development program and continued investment in infrastructure. It's a way to scale development, but a more compelling case would be to provide more value by hiring directly on the basis of robust enterprises. Thus, it would be useful if the OSE funding model shifts to robust enterprise development - which allows for immersion training with guarantee of jobs. Thus, we can create more value for and from the same students.
If the goal is to replicate points of light worldwide - the key is having sufficient investment for this. Our case for invenstment may be stronger for a university model IF we are offering training in the replication of verified enterprises based on the Global Village Construction Set. Thus, it appears that the most effective case for heavy investment is to invest in proving out various enterprises into very profitable XM operations. This will allow us to capture clear value from social business investors. These investors may provide either simple loans, or other grants or CSR funding.
If there are guarantees of a job after OSE immersion - then attracting students should be easy. In this way - the students themselves could be the investors. This would have the added attraction to students - a guaranteed position in the OSE ecosystem. A proposed scenario is recruiting 40 students per year, with $25k/year tuition. This is below the $35k average private university - but above he $10k in-state tuition.
40 students per year generate $1M revenue - which is sufficient to cover the creation of a land-based campus as part of the curriculum - in a radically bootstrapped model. Radically bootstrapped means that the model can be highly replicable because of manageable cost structure. Subsciption to the 1 year program is pending provision of clear meaning and value. For this to be feasible - GVCS tools must be available to keep costs low. In the proposed program - agriculture, housing, and manufacturing infrastructures would be built as part of the training program, which means that infrastructure costs would be included in the $1M figure. Curriculum and tools must be well-developed for this to work.
Campus Startup Budget Breakdown
Working on it.
Conceptual Plan for Growing to Dunbar's Number as an Education and R&D Campus
Current model is operational: 2 of us here now. We build to 4 sustained by an open source scalable hardware enterprise in year 1 from ground 0, where ground 0 is development of a robust and growing $100k/year net business. We scale to 12 using this enterprise in year 2. These 12 are teachers. We co-create a 4 year curriculum and test it on 40 people in year 3, building infrastructure here as we go along. By year 4, we grow to 40 more, and by year 5, to about Dunbar's Number. This is a live-in university. 150 of us create a 100% autonomous community up to making PV from sand and probably topping out at some simple integrated circuits from the onsite microfactory. The Campus replicates, where graduates start new campuses, where the commitment for incoming classes is to be microstate entrepreneurs. We coin our own currency once we have 150 people and a real economy, and governance is defined up front, with material governance according to OSE Specifications, and social governance to be defined by the core 12 team in year 2.
Large 3D Printer
- (This section is in reference to the first slide right hand side "3D Printer Enterprise" box)
- Which one(s) is this exactly referencing, the Cubic Meter D3D 3D Printer, the 2 Meter Tall 3D Printer, or the Open Source 10 Cubic Meter FDM 3D Printer? (Or a mix of these?)
- Also This Page] may be of use