RESPONSE

TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL ISSUED BY FAR WEST LABORATORY f o r EVALUATION OF DETERMINING INSTRUCTIONAL PURPOSES

Presented by: RTP Solutions, L LC March 13, 2012 rtpsolutions.com, 1201 1st Ave, San Diego, California 92105 p. 619.221.9995 f. 619.221.9888

I. Introduction:

Our company, RTP Solutions, is responding to a request for proposal from Far West Laboratories (FWL) to provide evaluation services for their training program: Determining Instructional Purposes (DIP). We propose to provide information and recommendations for determining the feasibility of producing and disseminating the DIP program. We will also provide recommendations for a marketing program targeted at school administrators to provide information about the DIP program. Our targeted approach to a systematic evaluation will address the needs of the FWP with a highly personalized approach to evaluation. In order to best serve these needs and to address any adjustments to the proposal, RTP Solutions wants to be as up-to-date as possible on any modifications to the RFP, which may occur in the future. RTP Solutions has been a leader in providing solid analyses and evaluation services for over 10 years. Our experienced staff, led by Dr. Trudy Pachon, has helped leading edge companies make optimal decisions to maximize the potential of products and programs. We have provided guidance in the development of several cutting edge programs, and our clients include Ben Banchard Leadership Training, Smell Computers, and Pear Electronics on their eTable touch interface sales training program.

II. Description of Program:

Far West Laboratories has developed a program for school and educational administrators to train on skills related to the selection of effective school programs. The program, Determining Instructional Purposes (DIP), is broken into units, and each is a stand-alone product. The units can be combined and trained in any order and can be bought as a package as well. The training materials include a coordinators handbook. The units are broken into three main areas: Setting Goals, Analyzing Problems and Deriving Objectives. Each unit is broken down into modules, and each module contains instructional objectives and activities for the goals of the unit. Each covers approximately 10-15 hours of instructional material. The program is a tool for helping school administrators in the complex task of choosing school improvement programs that are effective, solve identified problems, have well defined goals and state measurable objectives.

III. Evaluation Method:

A. Determining feasibility of disseminating DIP program: In order to evaluate the feasibility of developing and producing the DIP program, several factors should be analyzed and tested. We want to determine whether there is a need for the program, the demand and willingness of administrators to spend money on the program, administrator preference for whole program versus individual units and the method of producing the materials. Print may not be the most effective manner of delivering the product so an analysis of delivery methods is also recommended. A program evaluation of the DIP program is included in the proposal, however this is optional. It was not included in the RFP. FWL can determine whether or not they would like RTP Solutions to evaluate the DIP program effectiveness. If the program evaluation has been done, the data will be used in developing the marketing materials in C. It is highly recommended that a program evaluation of DIP be included before determining feasibility of program development. The following tables include the evaluation questions and evaluation design for the project, at this point in time. i. Need: Is there a need for this program?
Objective Activities Data Source Online surveys sent out to school administrat ors Semi- structured interviews with administrat ors and graduate students Population/ Sample Administrat ors and graduate students in the United States Data Collection Design Survey crafted using the goals and objectives in the DIP Interviews conducted by research team Data Analysis Responsibility Audience

Determine if there is a need for the DIP program

Survey administrators to see if they are interested in DIP program goals and objectives Interview administrators and graduate students about need for product

Collection, compilation and graphical representatio n of data

Principal FWL evaluator, product Research team developm ent manager

ii.
Objective

Delivery: What form should the final deliverables take? Is a print product more cost effective than an online product?
Activities Data Source Population/ Sample Data Collection Design Survey designed with Likert scale to assess preference for online versus print material Data Analysis Responsibility Audience

Determine demand and cost for online versus print materials for program development.

Survey administrat ors to determine preference for online materials versus print materials.

Online surveys sent out to school administr ators

Administrat ors in the United States

Collection, compilation and graphical representatio n of data

Principal evaluator

FWL product developm ent manager

iii.
Objective

Price Point and Demand: What is the level of demand for the product that justifies the cost of development of the product?
Activities Data Source Online surveys sent out to school administr ators Population/ Sample Data Collectio n Design Administrators Survey in the United crafted States using the cost of the DIP program. Data Analysis Collection, compilation and graphical representati on of data Responsibility Audience

Determine if school administrators are willing to spend the money on the DIP program. Determine if there is enough demand for the product to justify development.

Survey administrato rs to asses if they are willing to spend money on the program. Quantify the number of administrato rs willing to purchase the product.

Principal evaluator

FWL product developme nt manager

iv.

OPTIONAL: Effectiveness: Is the DIP program effective in helping administrators make decisions regarding new school programs (i.e.: set goals, analyze problems, derive objectives)?
Activities Data Source Populatio n/ Sample Administr ators in the United States/ graduate students in administr ation Data Collection Design Online test will be scored, and performance assessment will have performance indicators to measure effectiveness of DIP program. Data Analysis Responsibility Audience

Objective

Are administrat ors better able to articulate goals, analyze problems and derive objectives?

Pre-test participants. Run beta test of DIP program with administrator s and graduate students. Post - test participants.

Online test and in class performance assessment to determine if objectives of DIP program have been met.

Collection, Principal compilatio evaluator n and graphical representa tion of data

FWL product developme nt manager

B. Feasibility of whole program versus stand-alone unit program FWL wants information about whether or not to sell individual units or to keep the product whole. We will provide recommendations about the preferences of consumers. i. Unit Versus Whole Program: Is there enough of a demand to sell individual units rather than the whole program?
Objective Activities Data Source Population / Sample Administra tors in the United States Data Collection Design Survey will be designed to asses preferences of whole program versus units for purchase Data Analysis Responsibility Audience

Do adminstrat ors prefer to purchase individual units based on skill gaps or do they prefer to purchase the whole program?

Survey administrator s on preferences of individual units or whole unit discount purchase.

Online surveys

Collection, Principal compilatio evaluator n and graphical representa tion of data

FWL product developme nt manager

C. Marketing and information dissemination We will also be providing recommendations for a marketing program targeted at school administrators to provide information about the DIP program. The marketing program should include i. Product information: What information should be provided in the rollout?
Objective Activities Data Source Populati on/ Sample Intervie Administ w rators instructi and onal graduate design students group. in the Conduct United survey. States Data Collection Design Semi- structured interviews with graduate students and select group of administrat ors Survey Data Analysis Collection, compilation and analysis of interview answers Responsibility Audience

Determine critical information to include in marketing and rollout of product to target audience.

Work with instructional design group from FWL to determine most exciting goals and activities to highlight in marketing push. Interview graduate students and administrators to determine key goals and activities.

Evaluation team, Principal evaluator

FWL product developme nt manager, Marketing departmen t

ii.
Objective

Rollout: How should the product be rolled out?

Activities Data Source Population / Resources Data Collection Design Data Analysis Responsi bility Audience

Determine most effective methods for rolling out and informing potential customers about product

Research cost- effective ways to market and provide information to administrators and graduate students. Test marketing strategy in small market with alpha test during product development.

Research team will provide marketing report based on market research of target population, advertising opportunities, venues such as conferences where information can reach large portions of the target audiences.

Administr ators in the United States, conferenc es, trade shows, and advertisin g opportuni ties

Researchers will survey target audience, collect information on advertising logistical information and research popular conferences

Compilatio n and synthesis of data, research and input from stakeholde rs

Principa l evaluat or, Researc h team

FWL product developm ent manager

All of our evaluation methods will include input from the design and development team at FWL, and communication on the project will be scheduled at least every other week during the evaluation period. The Principal and Jr. evaluators will be involved in each meeting.

IV. Task Schedule:

RTP Solutions prides itself on maintaining a rigorous adherence to the proposed task schedule. We make every effort to maintain the schedule. This is a preliminary task schedule to be finalized upon acceptance of the proposal. Activity Start Date Completion Date Needs assessment surveys October 2012 November 2012 and interviews constructed and conducted Optional- Program October 2012 December 2012 effectiveness evaluation Whole program versus unit November 2012 January 2013 based preference surveys Price Point and Delivery November 2012 January 2013 surveys Product Information January 2013 February 2013 Interviews and surveys Rollout and marketing surveys January 2013 February 2012 and interviews Preliminary Report March 2013 Final Report and March 2013 Recommendations Delivered

V. Project Personnel:
Name Trudy Pachon Title Principal Evaluator Qualifications PhD, Educational Technology, 10 years experience as principal evaluator and owner of RTP Solutions, proven record of effective evaluations for top-tier companies Master of Instructional Design, three years experience on team, lead evaluator on four projects, project manager at RockHeed Markin for six years BA in Communications, has provided research services for RTP Solutions for past five years BS in Information Technology, provides research as well as technology solutions for over seven years

Gary Onstad

Junior Evaluator

Rene Obuntu Jose Gomez

Researcher Researcher

Mei Haruka Leni Greenburg

Jr. Researcher Jr. Researcher

Has provided various research and writing services for RTP for two years New member of research team.

VI. Budget:
Name Daily Rate Number of days on project in entirety 30 30 30 45 45 45 Total in USD

Trudy Pachon 400 12,000 Gary Onstad 200 6,000 Rene Obuntu 200 6,000 Jose Gomez 150 6,750 Mei Haruka 150 6,750 Leni Greenburg 150 6,750 Total Personnel Costs: 44,250 Travel Expenses: .55 per mile Estimate of approximately 40 miles between FWL and interview sites x 20 visits: 1600 Miles $880 travel Other expenses: per diem additional costs: 100 per day for the team, times 45 days = $4,500

VII. Conclusion:
RTP Solutions is committed to providing research and data driven evaluation and analysis for our clients. We feel our skills and competencies match the identified goals in the RFP for the Determining Instructional Purposes training program for Far West Laboratories. We are happy that you are taking the next step in the development of your successful program and looking at an evaluation to guide your work on rolling out the DIP program. We look forward to working with FWL and providing you with the high quality solutions we are known for. Sincerely, Trudy Pachon, PhD Owner and Principal Evaluator, RTP Solutions