Business Intelligence Reports in EducationGlobal born can provide you the relevant insights in terms of business intelligence reports to earn some time vis-à-vis your competitors within the arena of Education.
In the following section, the focus on this business intelligence report is on the potential of the Education Technology or e-learning sector.
In the next years, it will be extremely important to figure out if the Edtech sector can disrupt the whole 5 trillion USD education sector or if the traditional education system will resist or/better find out solutions to lower the threat of these new entrants.
Edtech: From the boom to a bubble?
The innovations in the distance learning sector from 2008 – with the invention of the MOOC (Massive Open Online Courses) in 2008 by Downes and Siemens - to 2012 – considered as the year of the MOOC (Pappano, 2012) with the creation of start-ups such as Udacity, Coursera and EdX – paved the way to a subsequent rise of VC funding with the advent of many initiatives not only from developed market firms (DMFs) but as well from emerging markets firms (EMFS) for the period 2012-2015 representing at best a more than 40 billion USD market (Docebo, 2014).
Nevertheless, the now called education technology sector (Edtech) experiments currently a crisis due to several flaws (high dropout rates, limited social interaction, poor results for underrepresented populations, problems of costs and credentials (Christensen, 2013, Siemens, 2015, and The Economist, 2017). The reference to an edtech bubble becomes always more recurrent as negative perspectives for the upcoming years arise for all regions in the world excepted in Africa (Adkins, 2016).
A new framework to explain the Edtech bubble? Using the New Development Product theories from Emerging markets
Globally, the difficulties of all these start-ups have been considered in these studies through the same prism despite a wide variety of business models, contents, locations and institutional backgrounds.
However, two major issues happened recently. First, if the conclusions of Christensen´s Innovator´s dilemma (1997) framework were approved for almost 20 years, recent sound breaking critics have emerged (King and Baatortoghtokh, 2015 and Gans, 2016). Second, the impact of emerging markets has drastically changed (Seth, 2011). Hence, the practice of innovation has been modified with incorporations of new theories stemming from EMFs such as Indigenous Innovation (Chen, 1994), Catalytic Innovation (Christensen et al., 2006), Grassroots Innovation (Gupta, 1997), Gandhian Innovation (Prahalad and Mashelkar, 2010), frugal engineering (Ghosn,2012), Jugaad and Frugal Innovation (The Economist, 2010, Radjou and Prabhu, 2011 and 2014) or Reverse Innovation (Govindarajan and Trimble, 2012 a and b).