Whatever you do, please don’t start another EdTech company.The L&D and education industries don’t need another software startup tryingto solve old problems with fancy new technology. What organizations needinstead is a more technological focus. That is, they need more coders on staffto collaborate with non-coders and to build custom solutions in-house, insteadof outsourcing to generic, off-the-shelf third-party solutions. Some third-party solutions help organizations solveproblems, save money, work more efficiently, increase revenues, or improveoutcomes, but many do not.

Alienfootwear: A solution in search of a problem

To understand why, imagine if a space alien invented someexpensive but amazing new alien footwear, and then came to earth looking forspecies that have feet the footwear might fit. Odds are exceedingly slim thesealien shoes would be designed for earth conditions and work on human feet, much less fit perfectly on any particularhuman’s foot. Any rational person, after recovering from the shock ofencountering a space alien trying to sell them shoes, would realize the shoesdon’t fit and pass on buying them. Similarly, EdTech software designed bypeople outside your company—and often outside your industry—won’t fit yourcompany’s needs perfectly either.

Too often, programmers with limited industry experience rushto launch a company by building a software “solution” that uses the hottest emergingtechnology such as AI, AR, VR, IoT, or blockchain. They search for problemstheir software solution could theoretically solve, find a niche with 26identical competitors with forgettable features, raise gobs of investmentcapital, quickly build a glitchy and poorly designed beta version, and launch …thus becoming forgettable competitor number 27. They heavily promote this dubiouslyuseful software, vastly overselling its value. If they manage to keep raisingmoney and stay afloat, they may somewhat improve the initial product over time,but the new versions introduce still more glitches and unforeseen problems andstill don’t solve the initial problem entirely. Most potential users wisely ignorethe software. A few buy it and are quickly disappointed, joining the ranks ofcynics who ignore the next “transformative” EdTech solutions that come along.

Most products take years, decades even, before they’rerefined enough to consistently create value and a positive experience forusers. It’s hard to imagine creators of other mediums operating this way.Authors submit their books (and columns!) to editors for improvement beforepublishing, and musicians work with producers to refine their songs, but techcompanies are forever releasing first drafts of software products.

I don’t blame programmers for wanting to start an EdTech softwarecompany. Programmers, like so many other people (including me), want to usetheir skills to build innovative and successful companies. It’s an admirableurge. However, when you have a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.When you’re good at writing code, code becomes your hammer. “Solve it withsoftware!” becomes the mantra, and every problem looks like a nail you can hitwith your software “hammer.”

Don’tdo it like this

I attended an AR event last week and met the founder of an EdTechstartup. Her company creates QR codes that open up AR learning experiences forstudents. These QR codes can be included in textbooks and training manuals,with the eventual goal of replacing textbooks altogether. She has big clients,but I question whether this software creates any value for anyone. QR codes wereinvented in Japan in 1994–nearly a quarter century ago–but have you ever used aQR code? Do you know anyone who has? Do you even know how? Could you figure itout in less than five minutes? Would you assume it’ll work smoothly every time,especially when combined with something as complex as AR? Do you even attempt touse a QR code when you see one? My answer to all those questions, and theanswer for most people, is no.

This same logic applies to virtually every new technology. Thetechnology gets overhyped, a few companies in specialized industries put it togood use, and everyone else waits until the technologyadvances to the point where it’s seamless, reliable, and ubiquitous.

Doit like this instead

Fortunately, there’s a better way: buildyour own software. Rather than starting with a technology solution insearch of a problem, a better approach is for an organization to start byidentifying a problem, look for the best technologies to solve that problem,and then build a custom solution in-house, specifically tailored to theorganization’s unique needs.

The architecture industry serves as a good case study. Plentyof uninspired third-party VR software exists in this space, mostly in the formof Unity plug-ins. However, a few forward-thinking architecture firms likeGensler are taking the build-it-yourself approach. They’re not looking foroff-the-shelf VR and AR software to support their architectural design work, becauseno outside company can fully grasp the internal company workflows and industrynuances. Instead, they’re hiring experienced developers in-house to buildexactly the immersive experiences they need. L&Ddepartments and educational institutions would benefit from adopting a similarapproach.

In order for larger organizations to create softwarein-house, they need to operate more like startups. Like Google does with itsvarious divisions (Android, Google X, ARCore, Daydream, etc.), organizations needto be able to iterate, pivot, and adapt to rapidly changing needs withoutslowing down the product development process with approval required at everystep from eight levels of bureaucracy. Talented technologists won’t work for companiesthat stifle creativity, offer limited opportunities for personal growth, and don’tprovide a dynamic work environment. Part of the allure of working for a startupis having the ability to make changes and receive immediate gratification fromseeing the product updates. Assuming your organization can overcome theseobstacles, you’ll be able to attract the talent you need to build valuablesoftware solutions in-house.

Insummary…

I’m no neo-Luddite. I do write a column about emergingtechnologies, after all. That said, I urge any aspiring EdTech entrepreneursout there to think critically about your customers’ needs and whether yourproposed solution solves any real problem. Conversely, if you and yourorganization do decide to build solutions in-house by leaning on your deepindustry experience, you just might end up creating powerfulsoftware that many others would find valuable too. That kind of EdTech software would definitelybe worth building.

Additionalresources