The recent Federal budget has focused attention on the role of innovation in driving wealth creation in Canada. This is a welcome focus and encourages us to look at investing in innovation in order to generate a return to Canada. The government has already announced and continues to announce a number of steps in line with the priority.  While I don’t wish to underplay any of these welcome initiatives, they only represent small steps in a journey that requires great leaps. Further, they suggest that the government is still heading in an outdated direction when a change in orientation is required.

The government continues to focus on inputs and not enough on outcomes. Too much on increasing the availability of resources and too little on stimulating the adoption of innovation, with the consequent impact on both productivity and wealth creation. While to some extent this is inevitable, as innovation outcomes can only be measured several years after the initial investments is made, continuing along a path which has had limited success in the past may not be the best alternative.

In fact, the current governments profound understanding of the challenges of innovation should lead them look at alternative ways innovation can be supported. Specifically, while the recent budget highlights a change in funding for NRC/IRAP and the support of venture capital –  the provision of investment money and the encouragement of further technology research will do nothing to increase the success rates of technology entrepreneurs or stimulate innovation in larger companies. There are two reasons for this. First, the key ingredient for enhancing the success rates of entrepreneurs their development and training, and the establishment of an entrepreneurial culture with advisers and other support mechanisms. Simply encouraging more technology research and, making more money available is only a small part of  the answer. We need to look at the entrepreneurial process, what factors influence the likelihood of success and how we can help entrepreneurs reduce the likelihood of failure (we have already started down this path with the VentureStart program). This approach will increase the quality of technology entrepreneurs not just the quantity, and lead to enhanced outcomes.

On the stimulation of more innovation in larger companies, we need to be clear that this will come from the adoption and new technology processes to improve productivity.  While this can be partly achieved by fostering new technology ventures –  addressing the well documented productivity gap requires a much broader adoption of new technologies and ways of doing business in larger companies. Unfortunately,  today we have few programs to encourage companies to be more innovative. Organizations who wish to change their level of innovation must change the way they make decisions and behave. This is what being innovative is all about.  Government can play a role in stimulating innovation by providing incentives to both the public and private sectors. For example, by encouraging companies to adopt new technologies that will enhance productivity, wherever the source of that technology, by making it easier for Canadian companies to license and share IP from universities and government labs, and by stimulating partnerships between large companies and sources of innovation to encourage first customers. We need to move our thinking from technology research to the dissemination of our understanding of how innovation happens in practice – embedding our findings to increase the rate of innovation in larger companies. The good news for government is that innovative large companies have a more rapid impact on wealth creation and can also stimulate the next generation of technology companies by becoming their first customers.

Minister Announcement from TheInnovationCentre on Vimeo.

The Honourable Gary Goodyear, Minister of State for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (FedDev Ontario), today announced a contribution of up to $4,999,575 for the Research Innovation Commercialization Centre that will provide graduates in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) with the skills and support they need to start their own businesses.

The Canadian Innovation Centre is a key partner in this project and will develop and deliver the online tools that will provide learning opportunities and business development support to eligible graduates in all parts of southern Ontario.

Read the full story: http://www.feddevontario.gc.ca/eic/site/723.nsf/eng/00773.html

While it is difficult to determine the value of your business before it achieves revenues, it is often necessary to attract equity capital at this stage – which raises the question – how much equity should you give up for a fixed level of investment? Many entrepreneurs are challenged to value companies at this stage, and the debate between an investor and entrepreneur is often quite negative. In fact, on many occasions a failure to agree on this issue eliminates a potential investment offer. Even worse, the adversarial nature of the discussion can damage the future relationship between entrepreneur and investor.

Given that many VCs use the Venture Capital method for calculating a pre-investment valuation, I discuss not the process of calculating the value, but how you can increase it by increasing the value of the venture at exit. As the Venture Capital method starts from the value at exit and works backwards, increases in the value at ext are likely to result in a higher company value now.

The traditional model of the venture creation process shows the sale of the business as the logical final step in the venture creation process, but I suggest that unless every strategic decision you make along the way is designed to increase this likelihood, future valuation will never be maximized. In the event that you want to raise money from investors, then the issue of maximizing future potential value of the company and the likelihood of attracting an acquirer is critical. In fact, without a strategy to be acquired – it is unlikely that you will make the appropriate decisions that enable you to get investment. 

Today I will highlight ten issues that demonstrate the challenges of making decisions that will increase the value of your company tin the long-term but might result in sub-optimal decisions in the short term about profit maximization and partner selection.  Awareness of how you might need to make trade-offs between these factors can inform your strategic decisions and help you make those that are best in the long term. 

1.      Picking the optimum team
Building the team of partners, employees and advisers to guide and operate the company is the single most important decision a technology entrepreneur will make. Choosing an experienced team may be critical to attract a future investor or acquirer – but the costs of this can be prohibitive and incur expenses that diminish short-term financial performance.

 2.      Strategic suppliers
No entrepreneurial venture can develop a solution or go to market in isolation. Strategic partners are a critical element of the value chain.  Large and reputable partners can enhance your venture’s attractiveness to a potential acquirer – alternatively smaller and less well-known partners might offer more cost-effective solutions that you can deploy more rapidly.

 3.      Develop scalable technologies
For an acquirer to be interested in your business, they must believe that after the acquisition they can make more money from operating the business than you can. This is because they can grow the business by leveraging their existing business assets to expand the market for your product or service. However, building scalability into solutions upfront can incur significant additional costs for startup companies and delay their deployment, in comparison with a bootstrapping approach.

 4.      Choose strategic technology partners
While deploying a scalable technology is critical when developing a technology solution that enhances the value of the company – the company’s choice of technology partners also influences company value.  While a well-known technology partner may produce an expensive solution and slow down your implementation, their reputation can help build your reputations and increase the venture value.

 5.      Creating pilot approaches to identify market opportunities
Similar to the issue of developing technology scalability the development of  a Go To Market plan for a new venture can take two directions. The first can be to go after the low hanging fruit and create profitability quickly, the second is to target customer and markets that can be scaled post-acquisition.  The latter option makes the business attractive for potential acquirers who can see how existing success can be replicated in other areas or core technologies applied to other markets.

 6.      Selection of distribution partners.
Given evidence that the most likely acquirer of your business is a current distributor, choosing the optimum distribution partners requires trading off the short-term with the long –term.  Developing a distribution relationship with a potential acquirer can help them understand the market opportunity and your business potential increasing their likelihood of being interested in acquiring you, however types of distributors may be challenging to deal with and limit the attention they pay to your business.  

 7.      Leverage your existing assets to make you more attractive
Here are three specific market actions that you might take to make your business more attractive to acquirers:
a) capture a high profile customer (especially if you can steal them from a major competitor
b) acquire and integrate smaller competitors into your business to show the opportunities for consolidation in the market.
c) acquire your technology supplier – reducing technology risk and supplier relationship uncertainty and increasing your intellectual property portfolio

 8.      Ensure appropriate legal agreements in place.
Many of the initial relationships and obligations in a startup are informal, yet this informality can become an issue when external parties are looking at investing or acquiring. Six critical legal agreements should be consummated to increase the perceived venture value and even the likelihood of long-term venture survival:

a) Clear identification of patent portfolio and ownership of intellectual property,

b) Evidence of patent position (perhaps with evidence that public disclosure has been covered by an appropriate use of NDA)

c) where required – license for use of IP in business, including appropriate in-license and out-license agreements

d) appropriate contracts in place with employees, including employment contracts and non-compete agreements

e) shareholder agreements that specify rights to existing shareholders

f) third party agreements that may create obligations for the future(such as supplier, distributor, banker)

 9.      Create third party endorsement

It is difficult in a large company to make acquisitions of small technology companies, as it can be difficult for them to gather reliable information to convince their board of the wisdom of the acquisition. In many cases, it is possible to utilize the reputation of an existing organization who will endorse your business or technology who will provide the necessary indirect references for your organization.

 10.  Create a bidding war

Create a compelling value proposition for two parties, so that you are not reliant on one for an offer. This will encourage each to make an acquisition offer due to perceived pressure from competition both to acquire the business and compete in the marketplace. In fact, creating a bidding war between potential acquirers is the single most likely way to increase the value of your company. Alternatively, you may find that two acquirers look at different aspects of your business and you may be able to sell various aspects of the business to different acquirers in order to maximize value.

Andrew credits Minister Goodyear for his focus on innovation but also warns that it takes decades for the government’s measures to pay off and there is a great need for non-partisan collaboration on this topic.

You can find the full article here: http://www.hilltimes.com/policy-briefing/2012/02/27/pm-finance-and-industry-to-make-innovation-a-top-policy-priority-in-2012-%E2%80%A8/29752?page_requested=1

IT managers are coming under increasing pressure to provide enhanced business functionality at lower costs. They are also charged with the responsibility of ensuring system reliability and security. However, increasing pressure to provide enhanced services that deploy new and unproven technology may make the achievement of reliability and security difficult, especially when the business does not recognize these inherent conflicts.  Such challenges are exacerbated by external compliance events or the increasing availability of new technologies that make this complex issue ever more difficult. As a consequence, many IT managers adopt a defensive and reactive approach to new technology solutions, despite the fact that they would like nothing better than to find ways to enhance the overall contribution IT can make to organizational performance.

In the last couple of years the increasing utilization of intelligent devices by individuals outside of the work environment, specifically smart phones and laptop computers, has created awareness of the potential for new information technology solutions to enhance workplace productivity. Access to a broad array of online services and the availability of hundreds of software applications that can be inexpensively downloaded offers users an increasing number of opportunities for individuals to adopt solutions that can improve organizational performance.  Further, organizations that don’t embrace these opportunities are seen as repressive and lacking in innovation by individuals raised on smart mobile devices and instant internet access.  Employees’ and managers’ knowledge of the benefits of deployment such devices, and the willingness of younger staff to challenge the status quo that all IT decisions are made by IT managers, create a tension between IT managers who need to maintain a discipline around IT implementation that ensures procedures and security protocols are maintained, especially when they have limited resources to implement and support the wide array of devices and software solutions now available. 

The idea of bringing a personal device to work (Bring Your Own Device – BYOD) or the provision of such devices by the company, creates a number of challenges for IT managers, who often respond by raising concerns about the lack of security that such devices introduce into the corporate IT environment. Given that they are accountable to senior management for security, this often results in maintenance of the status quo, rather than an active investigation of how security concerns can be addressed. While security concerns are undoubtedly legitimate, both in terms of managing data on the devices (i.e. backing up critical data and wiping data on lost devices), and ensuring that personal devices don’t breach corporate IT firewalls (i.e. introducing malware into the organization’s IT’s software infrastructure), security challenges are possible to overcome. Other issues associated with the introduction of devices are also resolvable, but require both a significant deployment of corporate resources (i.e. 24 hour support for a myriad of downloaded applications on a variety of devices) and the establishment of new corporate procedures (i.e. what is acceptable use for a personal device).  Given the complexity of these issues, and increasing budgetary pressures to keep IT costs under control, it is not surprising that, while acknowledging there could be substantial business benefits, many IT managers are reluctant to embrace BYOD implementation. With foreseen benefits often difficult to quantify, but support costs and security issues easier to understand, many organizations fail to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by these new solutions. As a result, they fail to achieve their innovation potential and fully engage their employees in identifying opportunities to enhance business productivity, as well as increase employee satisfaction.

Organizations that want to change the status quo and become more innovative through wide spread adoption of smart mobile devices must address the cultural and innovation management issues that preclude change. Faced with evidence of bottom line business benefits, such as improved customer intimacy and enhanced process management, BYOD has the potential to link IT investment more closely to bottom line performance. However developing a strategy to take advantage of these opportunities requires two fundamental changes in how organizations manage their IT investments and decisions. First, organizations that recognize the benefits of implementing BYOD solutions must understand that supporting these devices has an associated cost. Business managers, rather than the IT department, can then weigh up the costs and benefits of supporting BYOD, and make an informed decision of whether or not they will fund increases in IT support costs, and look to link these costs with direct business results. Second, traditional models of IT policy making, where decisions are made and enforced centrally, will have to adapt to one where IT organizations enable individuals to make decisions about the devices and software they use, rather than allowing IT to make all such decisions. In this role IT managers guide and recommend rather than manage, and have to explain why certain decisions are made and devices supported, based on cost effectiveness and the need to protect corporate data, rather than simple edict.

Unlike most IT implementation processes, where IT management simply respond to an external change in standard or software/hardware upgrade, organizations implementing BYOD solutions must address four separate areas: device compatibility, applications, policy and support:

A)     There are a number of devices used by individuals that have different operating systems and levels of security. Organization must decide which devices to support, and choose operating systems that provide both the required level of security and functionality. While Apple devices seem to offer both, connecting Android devices, which also offer a large number of applications, creates security due to the variety of flavours of operating system. While Blackberry devices are designed for security, the number of applications available is limited.  
As a consequence of these different capabilities IT managers may wish to limit the number of devices supported, a decision which may be impacted by the industry in which the organization operates, or the nature of the data and applications being accessed.

B)      There are tens of thousands of software applications that can run on these devices. Organization must decide how it will make decisions as to which are appropriate (or allow end users to have no restrictions). In addition, IT departments must decide whether application or device functionality should be limited for security reasons.  

C)       Allowing people to use their own smart devices for work creates policy implications which the organization must address, not just from a technical issue, but from a legal, financial and ethical perspectives also. Organizations must develop policies about who owns content, and how the device, applications and data plans are funded. As well organizations must define acceptable use policies   and be conscious of the signaling impact these policies have on both individual status, and the drive to increase innovation throughout the organization.  

D)      IT managers are acutely aware of the challenges of managing even a limited range of devices and applications in a corporate environment. To provide the required level of support for a wide range of mobile devices and downloadable applications to individuals at all levels within an organization presents an enormous challenge to IT managers, especially given the variability in end user expertise. Required support includes remote device management, management of data plans, and answering simple device and applications issues 24 hours a day.

Given the complexities of implementing a BYOD program, it is not therefore surprising that most IT managers fail to embrace BYOD as a corporate strategy by hiding behind security concerns. Senior management in organizations hold IT managers responsible for security and find it difficult to argue with IT managers who express security concerns despite evidence that other organizations have found appropriate technology solutions that can address these issues. Senior management in organizations that wish to harness the potential from BYOD activities need to change the decision-making processes in organizations so that it is decentralized to individuals who can see the benefits, understand the pitfalls and approve the budget. Organizations must work hard to develop establishing policies appropriate to the culture and regulatory environment in which they operate.

Given the variety of issues, and the complexity of policy and resource issues that need to be addressed, IT managers are well served to look for external guidance when implementing BYOD in their organizations. This guidance can come from technology suppliers, existing partners or industry experts, such as Info-Tech Research group (http://www.infotech.com/) who can provide guidance on each of the issues identified, and provide templates for companies to use when making implementation decisions and developing appropriate policies.

Another popular alternative is to find an external service provider who can cost-effectively provide hardware, software, services and both device and software support. In addition, experienced service providers can often identify ways to reduce costs (for example of data management) and facilitate adoption (for example by providing appropriate use policies).  Utilization of such services limits the changes required in the organizations IT staff, and enables the organization to benefit from the partners experience in this area, where support and learning costs are shared.  Further, appropriate external partners can help address many of the practical issues around the adoption of BYOD to encourage adoption and a culture of IT innovation. However, the choice of the most appropriate partner requires a different selection approach to that of issuing an RFP that assumes the customer knows what they want. Partnering to optimize the implementation of BYOD devices can only be achieved with a partner who understands how to increase customer productivity, which requires additional resources to train, develop policy, implement solutions and provide direct support to end users 24/7. 

The fact that demand for enhanced IT service comes from end users makes it easier to allocate new funds as there is a direct link between the end users who see improvements in productivity and effectiveness and those with budgetary responsibility. This should make it easier for IT managers to make the case for allocation of new resources required to implement BYOD policies and gather broader support for the program from the entire organization. Harnessing end user demand for BYOD solutions can allow organizations to more rapidly move forward and achieve benefits from this next generation of IT technology that has the potential to achieve outcomes more directly linked to business performance.  If you are in an organization that is failing to the address this opportunity, perhaps I have provided some insights on opportunities to move forward.

I have frequently written about the challenges organizations face when they wish to become more innovative. Often this is because they either focus on the development rather than the deployment of a new technology, or because their current processes discourage rather than enhance the innovation culture within the organization by reinforcing what has worked in the past.

Yesterday I was fortunate to meet a wonderful technology entrepreneur who has developed a novel medical device that will improve patient care, increase surgeon efficacy and reduce costs, yet I realized that without understanding the barriers to innovation, the commercial success of the innovation is in doubt.  I raised a number of questions about his technological innovation that I think illustrate ten of the critical challenges faces when attempting to innovate in the health care arena. In this blog I share these questions, which both illustrate the importance of knowing which questions to ask, and highlight specific challenges to illustrate why health care innovation is so challenging.  Identifying the right questions to ask, and finding appropriate answers at an early stage of the process are critical in both avoiding wasted effort, and implementing an innovation process. 

To illustrate the innovation challenges, I will first introduce the product PelvAssist™. You can get more details on the  Avenir Medical web site (www.avenirmedical.com). PelvAssist™ integrates with current operative techniques to display the precise positioning of hip implants when undertaking hip replacement surgery, allowing allows surgeons to move beyond visual alignment while providing a low-cost and portable alternative to today’s computer assisted surgery.  As 1 in 40 hip replacements are not properly aligned the first time, this product reduces the need for corrective surgery and gives the patient peace of mind. This also has a benefit to funders, as the cost of repeat surgeries is reduced.

Ten critical questions:

1. 1.      What is the main advantage of the innovation and who benefits?
2. 2.      How does the use of this innovation address the identified problem, and how will you show that it will work?
3. 3.      Who will be interested in the use of this innovation to the point that they will want this innovation, and how will you find evidence to support this?

(In healthcare this is one of the biggest challenges, there are three (and sometimes more) stakeholders, who can have competing interests: the patient, the medical professional and the funding organization).

1. 4.      Who will be the decision-maker in deciding to use this innovation, and are they the same person as the person who will benefit?
2. 5.      Is the person or organization that has to pay for the use of the innovation the same as the decision-maker or the user, and where will the budget to cover the cost come from.
3. 6.      How will the person who has to pay for the innovation justify the expense, especially if it does not directly reduce operating costs? (Frequently the benefits accrue to several stakeholders, but only one has to pay for it)
4. 7.      Are there changes involved in the operating or administration procedures to enable this innovation to be deployed? If so do they significantly reduce the benefits of the innovation?
5. 8.      Is there a learning curve associated with the adoption of the innovation? How will this impact the implementation decision? If training is required, who will provide it and how much will it cost?
6. 9.      Is the level of technological or financial risk associated with this innovation acceptable, and how can it be mitigated?

 10.   How will you encourage specific early adopters, and how will use these experiences to encourage subsequent adoption?

 While in the case of PelvAssist™ many of these questions have already been raised and answered, some still remain. However in terms of this article, the questions raise important points about innovation in the health care arena that can be applied to many innovations. They also highlight the fundamental challenge in the healthcare industry of meeting the needs of the patient, the healthcare professional and the funding organization. Unfortunately I have all too often seen important medical devices fail to achieve their potential because the entrepreneur has struggled to identify how the purchase decision is made, and who pays for it. A better understanding of these issues are essential if we are to use innovation to simultaneously improve the quality of health care and reduce the cost of providing it.

Dr. Andrew L Maxwell, Chief Innovation Officer, Canadian Innovation Centre             © 2012

When I challenge executives in our Business Innovation course  to become more innovative I am often faced with one of two responses, either they think they are already an innovative company, or they know they need to innovate but struggle to do so. Most of the time I work with organizations in the latter category, where senior management recognize the innovation opportunity but need help to implement innovation processes. In this blog I consider organizations in the former category that are not achieving their innovation potential, but fail to recognize this fact. In my experience these companies can often innovate more effectively or innovate in none-traditional areas than they currently do, but don’t realize this and therefore do not make the changes required to achieve their innovation potential. I now discuss why such companies are not achieving their innovation potential, and suggest ways in which they can harness the potential benefits of innovation.

Companies often limit their innovation potential through their failure to implement an innovation process, which results in making sub-optimal innovation decisions and applying insufficient innovation resources. In addition, organizations limit their innovation potential by restricting their innovation scope to a single type of innovation (such as product innovation), although there are other types of innovation (such as process or business model innovation) that can have a greater impact on company performance. The consequences of this are that innovation outcomes can be limited and the likelihood of innovation failures increased. A better understanding of both the benefits of implementing an innovation process, and the broader scope of innovation opportunities and challenges can help organizations achieve their innovation potential.

Maximizing the potential of innovation within an organization requires the implementation of an innovation process: ideation, evaluation, implementation and assessment. A failure to implement an innovation process, within the context of the organization’s strategy, culture, resources and decision process will result in sub-optimal innovation outcomes and high rates of failure. A company’s innovation strategy can include one of the following: productivity improvement, customer intimacy, technology leadership or reinventing the market, while the company’s innovation culture reflects how individuals within the organization behave and make decisions. The selection of innovation activities within an organization requires an understanding of both the company’s business processes and the availability of resources that can be leveraged when implementing selected projects.

Organizations that don’t follow an innovation process (even an informal one) are likely to get sub-optimal outcomes at each of these four process stages. They fail to seek innovative ideas from a number of sources (such as suppliers, competitors and sales staff) and rely on a single source of innovation ideas (i.e. research and development). This limits the likelihood of identifying optimal innovation opportunities. An incomplete innovation assessment process, either fails to formally review which innovative ideas should be resourced, or makes the decision based on a subset of critical factors, both of which result in the selection of sub-optimal innovation projects. In addition, a more comprehensive evaluation process, not only helps select the most appropriate projects, but also provides a learning tool to help others understand why certain projects are selected and others not, in some cases allowing high potential ideas to be reframed to more closely match company needs.

Selected innovation projects need to be adequately resourced, with explicit outcome expectations that define success or failure. The development of an implementation plan allows appropriate resources to be made available, barriers to innovation anticipated, and outcomes (i.e. time and performance) agreed and measured. Lack of a formal implementations plan will both reduce the likelihood of successful innovation and the impact it might have on company performance. The development of such an implementation plan also enables the outcomes of an innovation project to be assessed, the need for additional resources to be determined, and the opportunity to scale up pilot projects recognized. Without the assessment of innovation projects, their implementation can be delayed and impact reduced. The implementation of a formal assessment process on innovation projects also allows organizations to learn from their innovation activities, both successful and unsuccessful, and modify their innovation process and assumptions when considering further innovation opportunities. Failure to assess outcomes and learn from previous implementation activities reduces the likelihood of creating a sustainable innovation process.

Organizations also limit their innovation potential by limiting the scope of innovation activities they consider. Innovation opportunities can arise from product innovation, service innovation, process innovation or business model innovation. Organizations tend to focus on a single type of innovation activity, with which they become comfortable, either because they find it challenging to change how the company makes decisions or because key people within the organization fail to fully understand the broad range of innovation activities that can improve company performance.

Companies that want to maximize their innovation potential will look at opportunities to innovate in each of the four innovation areas we identify, based on their competitive environment and innovation strategy. This requires a deeper understanding of the role that innovation can play in the organization, and the need to change current practices within the organization (such as cross-functional decision-making or incentive plans) that currently limit the type of innovation project considered. This can require changing organizational structure, decision process and the development of collaborative partners, to develop a more pervasive innovation culture. Organizations that implement innovation processes and expand the role innovation plays in their organization will achieve higher levels of performance, more satisfied employees and customers and greater opportunities for further innovative activities.

Making changes in an organization to maximize its innovation potential can be challenging, an area in which the Canadian Innovation Centre (CIC) can help. Based on increasing demand for innovation, the CIC has developed an introductory course “The Foundations of Business Innovation” in conjunction with the University of Toronto’s School of Continuing Studies. The course is designed to help individuals identify and overcome the challenges of transforming their companies to become more innovative. The course starts in the last week of January 2012, and is run at both the downtown and Mississauga University of Toronto campuses. Alternately the Canadian Innovation Centre offers company specific workshops, courses and innovation engagements to work with a number of individuals from the same organization or company.

The Waterloo version of the book can be found here: http://www.entrepreneurialeffect.com/contact.htm

The entrepreneurial effect is more than just a book. It is an initiative by entrepreneurs to give back to the community. A prize valued at over 22,000 consisting of services and/or cash will be given to the student who best demonstrates an intention to start wealth generating company in the Ottawa or Waterloo area.

More information about the award can be found at http://www.entrepreneurialeffect.com/search.htm

The 2011 book launch was captured on video and is available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZUTPJ296QA

Attached is a presentation tied to the award: Entrepreneurial Effect Award

Practical experience is hard to beat, but requires time.  Classroom training can acelerate the process.   

The University of Toronto School of Continuing Studies offers a course entitled “Tools and Fundamentals of Web Marketing” (SCS2118), which covers the strategies, tools and techniques used to create impactful web marketing programs. The course examines the role of web marketing in the overall marketing mix and explores key elements of web marketing, such as website design, search engine optimization (SEO), email marketing, digital advertising and the use of social media. The course is designed to combine a strong conceptual and practical understanding of web marketing and equip the student to apply the most important tools and techniques in their business environment.

The course is part of a certificate in E-Business and Web-Marketing designed to provide a practical knowledge of the fundamentals and tools necessary to succeed in business online. The certificate, which is recognized by the Canadian Marketing Association, is comprised of two courses;

SCS2118 Tools and Fundamentals of Web-Marketing

SCS 2115 Tools and Fundamentals of E-Business

Both of these courses are available at the University of Toronto Mississauga, with the next sessions beginning in January 2012. For more information, or to register, visit E-Business and Web Marketing Certificate 

John Foreman, Instructor – SCS 2118 Tools and Fundamentals of Web-Marketing