Lindsay McHone
Kim Moody
Diane Weaver
MAKING A CASE FOR THE
FOUNDATION
http://www.arcticlanguages.com/language_examples_video_map.html
LISTEN AND LEARN
13 ENDANGERED LANGUAGES in 30 minutes
=
26 ENDANGERED LANGUAGES in 1 year
Introduction
Topics covered:
• Sources of innovation
• SWOT & collaborative advantage
• Collaborative possibilities
• Target market/priorities
• Cost & economics
• Team & funders
• Stewardship principles
• Sustainable value chain
• First & second order innovations
• Timeline & milestones
Description
• Rosetta Stone Foundation, a non-profit entity
of Rosetta Stone
• Preserves and revitalizes endangered
languages
• Technology is highly interactive and teaches
by immersion
…language meaning is not lost
Mission
• …to promote language fluency in endangered
language communities through appropriate and
sustainable technologies
• and…to enable intercultural communication and
understanding through innovative and effective
language-learning solutions where they are
needed most
Sources of Innovation
The Unexpected
“What basic changes are now appropriate for this organization in
the way it defines its business? Its technology?”
(Drucker, 1985, p. 42)
GO BEYOND teaching the true spoken languages, to
unspoken languages.
IMPLICATIONS:
Because RSF is embarking on this journey – it may find
opportunities to grow even larger – and expand into
unexpected markets.
Possibility: Partnering with Financial Organization to teach
communities financial sustainability practices.
Sources of Innovation
The Incongruity
The endangered languages “industry” seems to be focused on recording languages – not
teaching & sustaining.
This Represents An “incongruity between the efforts of an industry and the values and
expectations of the customers” (Drucker, 1985, p. 58)
IMPLICATIONS:
Teaching just one generation isn’t enough!
 The “customers” are expecting more than just the technology!
 RSF will need to go beyond JUST the language software, into cultural
revitalization!
Sources of Innovation
The Innovation Based on Process Need
Technology = “the missing link”
IMPLICATIONS:
Make good use folks that have come before
RSF. Partner with these folks. Providing the
technology link will help the sustainability of
both RSF and the other organizations. You’re
part of a bigger picture!
Sources of Innovation
Demographics
Change in population of active speakers
IMPLICATIONS:
Goal: to get generations communicating
Goal: to get different communities speaking
the same languages.
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities,
Strategy and Potential Threats
• STRENGTH: Unique relationship with software
developer
• OPPORTUNITY: 2nd Order Innovations: eg.
technology + research / young generation as leaders
• STRATEGY: Collaborative relationships with other
non-profit entities: Endangered Language Fund,
university scholars/researchers & for-profit
businesses
• STRENGTH: Soft advertising & brand recognition
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities,
Strategy and Potential Threats
• POTENTIAL THREAT & OPPORTUNITY: Why is
this important to investors?
• STRATEGY: Collaborative innovation =
reaching across small network line
• OPPORTUNITY: Pharmaceuticals, bio-energy
• OPPORTUNITY: Just as Shakespeare created
many words that we use today – these
languages hold many words and meanings
that are important to future generations.
Competitive/Collaborative Advantage
• RS already demonstrates competency in
language preservation with its ELP
• Assessing the environment through a
competitive lens (Porter’s 5 forces) isn’t
enough anymore
• Every company needs to watch the full
stakeholder playing field carefully
(Esty & Winston, 2009)
Collaborative Innovation
• Language extinction is happening at an exponential
rate
• Preserving one or two languages at a time will have
limited influence on the contextual environment in
which RSF operates (Smith, 2009)
• Assess stakeholders for collaborative partnerships
• Serve as a network agent by connecting stakeholders
interdependent on one another as they co-produce
social change
Collaboration Possibilities
Foundation For Endangered Languages (GB)
The Foundation for Endangered Languages exists to support, enable and assist
the documentation, protection and promotion of endangered languages. In
order to do this, it aims:
To raise awareness of endangered languages
To support the use of endangered languages
To monitor linguistic policies and practices of endangered languages
To support the documentation of endangered languages
To collect and make available information regarding endangered languages;
To disseminate information on all of the above activities as widely as possible.
Collaboration Possibilities
The Hans Rausing Endangered Languages Project
(London)
The Documentation Programme (ELDP) is providing £15 million in research grants to document
the world's most endangered languages
The Academic Programme (ELAP) Teaches postgraduate courses in language documentation and
description, and field linguistics. It also hosts post-doctoral fellows, researchers, visitors, and
conducts seminars and training
The Archiving Programme (ELAR) is preserving and disseminating endangered language
documentation, developing resources, and conducting training in documentation and
archiving
National Efforts:
Collaborative Possibilities
The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and the National
Science Foundation (NSF) have joined forces on Documenting
Endangered Languages (DEL), a new, multi-year effort to preserve
records of key languages before they become extinct.
By encouraging use of digital standards and best practices for archiving new
documentation and reformatting earlier recordings, DEL is laying the
ground for wide use and sharing of language resources and helping to
ensure the long-term preservation of the collected data.
The Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) participates in DEL as
a research host, a non-funding role.
Collaboration Possibilities
“The Kallawaya herbalist healers living in Bolivia: For the
past 500 years, they have encrypted their knowledge of
thousands of medicinal plants in a secret language handed
down in the practitioner families from father to son.”
(Soars, 2007, p.2)
What could this mean for the pharmaceutical
industry?
Pharmaceutical Implications
“In 1990, drug companies made $85 billion in
profits on medicines derived from plants first
known to indigenous peoples for their healing
properties” (Peters, 2009, p.1)
Science Implications
“Much of what humans know about nature is
encoded only in oral languages. Indigenous
groups that have interacted closely with the
natural world for thousands of years often have
profound insights into local lands, plants,
animals, and ecosystems—many still
undocumented by science”
What could this mean for scientists and scholars?
Source: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/mission/enduringvoices/
“Value is created with the experiential
learning that comes from examining
value chains and developing strategy
within a collaborative network of
external thought leaders.”
(Chris Laszlo, 2008, p. 18)
Target Market/Priorities
Language Types:
Type I
At risk w/ several million speakers
Type II
Seriously endangered w/ several
thousand speakers
Type III Nearly extinct w/ less than 100
speakers
Where can RSF be most effective?
Target Market/Priorities
• RSF’s inclination to focus on mid-range
communities is wise
• Trying to be all things to all people is a classic
mistake that many businesses make
• Start on a small niche when entering the
market
(Laszlo, 2008)
Target Market/Priorities
• Each new success will build the brand
• Collins says,
“…persistent efforts will lead to unstoppable
momentum where potential supporters not
only believe in the mission, but also in the
capacity to deliver on the mission.”
(Collins, 2005, p.25)
Cost Allocations
• “Take stock of the organizational capacity”
(Oster, 2004)
• Including:
– Resources
– Staff
– Management
– Outsourced resources
– Profit vs. mission
– Timeline & measures of success
Economic Profitability
and Sustainability
• Little contribution from communities
• “reframe the mission to reach across small
network” (Smith, 2009)
• Language learners = sustainability for both
communities and Rosetta Stone Foundation
RSF Team
• Organization governance – 2-3 members of RS
board, other 5 members newly selected
• The inside team on payroll should be
extremely committed to the mission, and the
sustainability of its success. Diverse set of
backgrounds, led by someone with non-profit
leadership experience
What is the Reward for the Funders?
• Tax incentives
• Pride of being part of something extremely
different than many other non-profits
• Possibility of language revitalization trips to
work with groups using technology
• Possibility of high profile events and name
recognition (ie. Smithsonian, etc)
Stewardship Principles
Balance
• Board composition
• Indigenous language w/ need for intercultural
communication
Interdependence
• RS & RSF relationship
• RSF & donors
Stewardship Principles
Regeneration
• Preservation of language and culture
• Donors help protect their own livelihood
Diversity
• Multilingualism instead of monoculture
• Diverse funding base
• Board composition
Stewardship Principles
Succession
• Young people care about their heritage and
pass it on!
BIRDS
Sustainable Value Chain
•
Business Context: Broaden spectrum to include intercultural
communication technology and programs, in conjunction with
language learning software.
Brand/Culture: Develop software that is easy to use, and easy to
teach with so that it will create a culture of “learning leaders”
within communities. Build on brand already established by RS to
be the best in big and small communities.
Market: Look and Listen! Who needs the product the most?
Build the protect to suit the needs of the end user.
Product: Creating a product that is good for both Rosetta Stone
AND the community members (especially the younger
generation).
Process: Reducing “process costs” when developing software.
Risk: Adhering to IRS rules for allocating costs of services or
resources from Rosetta Stone to the foundation. Adhering to
appropriate IRS reporting measures for the non-profit
organization.
First Order Innovations
First Order Already Completed
• Growing RS to 800+ employees and offices in 6 areas across the globe:
BRAND RECOGNITION AND GROWING SIZE OF COMPANY
• Launching three endangered language programs from 2006-2009:
CREATING RSF & GROWING PROGRAM FROM 0 TO 3
• Hiring 3 FTE’s to begin the process of starting the non-profit: INCREASED
QUANTITY
First Order to Complete
• Couple with more endangered language communities to create software
for other languages: QUANTITIES
• Add more staff to RSF/ couple with additional RS staff to create products
in a more timely fashion: SPEED
Second Order Innovations
Second Order Already Completed
• Launching 2 grant programs in 2007: WORKING WITH
ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF FUNDING / MULTI-DISCIPLINARY
• Thinking to use the parent software engineering company to
create programs (and serve the mission of the non-profit):
MERGING THE EFFORTS OF TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES / CROSS
FUNCTIONAL
• Creating a dual mission statement: POSSIBLY CREATING NEW
ALLIANCES WITH PEACEBUILDERS ACROSS THE GLOBE.
Second Order Innovations
Second Order to Complete
• Is there new technology that RSF can consider when bringing
language teaching technology to those in areas of endangered
language?” (Drucker, 1985, p.135)
• Apply for more grants with foundations with similar mission
statements (without language software piece)
QUANTITIES/SIZE
• Creating partnerships with communities and/or other
organizations to make this cost-neutral for RSF: NEW
ALLIANCES
Timeline & Milestones
Late August: Cooperatively agree on cost allocation & budget details
(RS and RSF) and financial requirements for the non-profit start-up.
Go/No Go.
Late August: Start small! Establish 1-3 languages to focus on during
the upcoming year.
Early September: Research the languages and the organizations that
are currently recording/have recorded these languages. No need to
re-create the wheel.
Mid-September: Schedule meetings with potential collaborative
research partners to talk about languages and the potential types of
information that they hold.
Timeline and Milestones
October – December: Start “making the case” to funders. Work with
collaborative partners to apply for R&D grants to document the
languages. Talk with potential community leaders about their
product needs and financial abilities.
December – March: Meet consistently with all collaborative partners
and funders. Also meet with community members and start to get
the attention of the younger generations.
April – May: Create the final product. Continue to evaluate budget
against agreements (RS and RSF).
Timeline and Milestones
May – June: Make distribution of the product a “family affair”.
Include collaborative partners, funders and all community
members.
July – August: Regularly follow-up with community members and
collaborative partners.
August: Start thinking about the next steps. Re-evaluate budgets, staff
and relationship between RSF and the parent company.
Ongoing: Never stop communicating with communities! They could
become collaborative partners for future products.
Conclusion
• RSF has GREAT potential
• Brand recognition for leverage w/ strategic
partners
• Result in an international movement
• Empower the youth through technology
• Empower communities through more than
just language education
Questions?
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bittinger, M. (2009, July 16). Rosetta Stone Foundation, EMU MBA 658. Harrisonburg, VA.
Collins, J. (2005). Good to great and the social sectors. Boulder, CO
Drucker, P. F. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Esty, D., Winston, A. (2009). Green to Gold: How Smart companies use environmental
strategy to innovate, create value, and build competitive advantage. Hoboken: John
Wiley.
Laszlo, C. (2008). Sustainable Value, how the world’s leading companies are doing well by
doing good. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Oster, S. M., Massarsky, C., W., Beinhacker, S. L. (2004). Generating and Sustaining Nonprofit
Earned Income. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Smith, Anthony E. (2009). Stewardship Design Principals. Harrisonburg: Virginia: Eastern
Mennonite University.
Smith, Anthony. (2009). Shakespeare and the Spirit of Innovation. EMU MBA 658.
Harrisonburg, VA.
Soars, Claire. (2007). The languages of extinction: The world's endangered tongues.
Retrieved August 2, 2009 from:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article2976695.ece
Peters, Nathaniel. ( 2007). Saving Lost Languages. Retrieved August 2, 2009 from:
www.FirstThings.com
References Continued
WEBSITES VISITED
•
•
•
http://www.ogmios.org/manifesto.htm
http://www.hrelp.org/
http://www.neh.gov/grants/guidelines/del.html