STEAM Camp Senior Project Manager
Contents
Average Pay
- About $8k on [1]
Revenue Model
- For sustainability, the SPM should bring in more revenue than their pay
- At 24 events per month, monthly net revenue is $120k in the fully developed STEAM Camp
- Flight risk management - (1) candidate is not motivated by money, but by purpose; (2) they are supercooperators, which promotes collaboration over defection; (3) they are themselves interested in learning the content, such that they are in it for the personal growth as well; (4) pay structure reflects their performance.
Why Open Works
We are radically open to enterprise replication by third parties. This is because if others are adopting the curriculum, that means that they are using 100% open source toolchains to engage in open source product development: the whole world wins if this happens. If they don't do this, then they are creating their own proprietary product, which is likely to have less economic distribution associated with it.
The best examples of proprietary collaborative design platforms that work - are unknown. Kickstarter is a good one for projects that are mostly not open source. They are collaboratively funded, but typically not collaboratively developed - and typically the product is not open source. So Kickstarter and other platforms like this already exist. We're aiming for the next level - where the product and process is collaborative and open source. We believe that this is a stronger value proposition than partially collaborative and partially open products.
99 Designs, for example, is plain crowdsourcing. It is not collaborative nor open source. Period. It is essentially about cheaper access to talent, where talent competes, not collaborates.
The best example of collaborative proprietary designs that may work - is OpenDesk. But it is not clear whether anyone there is actually making money.
The perennial problem is always attribution: how do you divide revenue fairly? It's not worth it. That's why the world came up with the open source paradigm: Accounting for proprietary contributions for payment is very hard - so to avoid the difficulty - you attribute without payment - which is what open source does.
Is it possible that a company takes our curriculum and through improved execution takes our market share? If that were to happen, that would be excellent.
Is it possible that a company takes our curriculum - and makes it partially closed - and takes our market share? If that were to happen, that should be ok because we provide a different product, which would likely be better. The 'better' comes from the fact that anyone can start a business. For us to succeed, we should spend as much effort on creating a support infrastructure for new entrepreneurs as possible: turnkey support for building open source microfactories in any community. That is exactly what we are doing, and must be strong on this part. Otherwise, some half-ass company can come in and beat us if our product is sufficiently small. We can win only by having the most ambitious product - and that product is transformative by nature. In summary: we are likely to be more attractive to the producer because we give more wealth away than a proprietary platform.
The practice shall be seen as it emerges...
Pay Structure Options
- $8k/mo regular + annual bonus. 3 month time to first events -
- 10% bonus per event.
