This morning, during a fairly animated discussion about an ongoing political issue, one of the team recited this rather wonderful poem, and it's kept a smile on my face all day long, no matter how big amd fierce the dragons ... (thanks Martin!)
KNIGHT IN ARMOUR
Whenever I'm a shining Knight,
I buckle on my armour tight;
And then I look about for things,
Like Rushings-Out, and Rescuings,
And fighting all the Dragons there.
And sometimes when our fights begin,
I think I'll let the Dragons win ...
And then I think perhaps I won't,
Because they're Dragons, and I don't.
A.A. Milne
Now We Are Six
Thursday, 19 November 2009
Friday, 6 November 2009
Educause 2009 - Sharepoint 2007 - Yes Please!
Arrived slightly late for the session, so hoping that it's the right one .... we have committed to Sharepoint for our VLE (or LMS, whichever you call it) and for corporate document management, content management system etc. So I'm keen to hear from other who are further down this path than we are .....
Speaker is showing an IT service web site - with integration with data from underlying systems displayed - service incidents etc. Each IT Function department has its own area which looks different if they are logged in as a member of the team with a lot more information and the ability to post, also integrated with document management where they keep all files and documents - AhHa! - screen looks like Sharepoint - so I am in the right presentation!
They also have their service catalogue on Sharepoint with all the services that they offer - it looks great and exactly where we want to go with our Sharepoint implementation. When they load documents onto Sharepoint they can decide which documents should be published as public - rather than having to have a seperate public folder. They also have it integrated with Remedy as their helpdesk solution. (We use Support Works, but same principles apply).
95% of the development was done through the browser and only 5% needed to be done through the development tools - that sounds good!
The project manager is now saying that a key benefit is being able to access all historical documentation about a project. There is a tool on the internet that allows you to search through all project documentation involving a named individual and reports on what that individuals current work load is, it looks like they have fairly large IT function. They also use it as a time management system so ITS staff can fill in hours worked against different projects and services. It all looks very impressive but it does come across as a bit of a 'command and control' way of doing things - perhaps it's just that they already have a very trusting and collaborative culture and automating all these things that normally need lots of delicate handling is just not an issue. It would be good if we could!
Next speaker was from the Open University of Hong Kong and talked about use of Sharepoint 2007 for Communciation, Collaboration and Learning. http://www.ouhk.edu.hk/
They are a distance learning university - (Note to self: LDS back home may well be interested in this!) 13,000 distance learning students with 700 courses.
Speaker gave an overview of Sharepoint functionality: BI, collaboration, Portal, Search, Content Management, Business Forms, BI - all good tools for sharing information, managing workflow and team collaboration ie: all the kind of stuff you need for an LMS (VLE)
They are using Sharepoint in 8 main areas: Portal, Document Management, Team collaboration (esp. research), student support and administration, teaching and learning, workflow and process improvmeent, BI, social computing.
The presenter then talked about the maturity model for BI - ie: from decriptive and evaluative reporting through to predictive reporting for decision making and strategic planning. They have a 'mature' BI tool written in Sharepoint called InfoShare. It took 100 man (sic) days to develop the BI tool and 67 man days to develop their On-Line Learning Environment tool in Sharepoint. Crumbs - that's a bit speedy! Perhaps we ought to talk to them. We were using a third party to help us with our VLE development using Sharepoint but are currently doing much of it ourselves. It might be useful to have a more detailed follow up conversation with the HOng Kong OU about their Sharepoint project. (Note to Self: Pass this info on to the architect working on our project)
The speaker reccomended this document as a resource: http://www.eduserv.org.uk/research/studies/~/media/research/SharePoint%20Study%20LiteratureReview%20Sep2009%20pdf.ashx
It is a report on the use of Sharepoint within HE.
Speaker is showing an IT service web site - with integration with data from underlying systems displayed - service incidents etc. Each IT Function department has its own area which looks different if they are logged in as a member of the team with a lot more information and the ability to post, also integrated with document management where they keep all files and documents - AhHa! - screen looks like Sharepoint - so I am in the right presentation!
They also have their service catalogue on Sharepoint with all the services that they offer - it looks great and exactly where we want to go with our Sharepoint implementation. When they load documents onto Sharepoint they can decide which documents should be published as public - rather than having to have a seperate public folder. They also have it integrated with Remedy as their helpdesk solution. (We use Support Works, but same principles apply).
95% of the development was done through the browser and only 5% needed to be done through the development tools - that sounds good!
Comment from the developer was that it is a bit like a blank canvas and you have to provide a structure in terms of metadata, forms, schemas etc ie: an Intranet template and then push that out to customers who can use it to create their own Intranets. Usage of this is now starting to approach the functionality of web content management, and they are evaluating whether or not this is how they should do their web content management (if you're using it for document management and your Intranet already why wouldn't you?)
They showed an example of a Sharepoint content managed web site which they thought was a very good case study http://www.cps.edu/The presenter rutns out to be from the University of Iowa - Information Technology Services, and the Intranet he was showing us is called Ohana. http://its.uiowa.edu/
Next up is a project manager from the ITS department. The sharepoint intranet has proved very useful for communicating about projects and for reinforcing the project management process and why it's there. The Intranet has a list of all the current projects. There is an on-line form with all the fields you would expect to see on a project mandate/pid. The data in these fields in then used to drive how the information about the proejct is used elsewhere. All the related documentation for the project is also stored here. This form is something that the customer fills in (Crikey! I wasn't expecting that!). The customer then submits this to a weekly 'review' meeting where the form and documentation can be viewed on-line be the review committee. They can then approved or reject the project on line. Am I hearing this right. On-line Project Governance - or how to say No automatically! They must have a fantastic relationship with their customers! :-)The project manager is now saying that a key benefit is being able to access all historical documentation about a project. There is a tool on the internet that allows you to search through all project documentation involving a named individual and reports on what that individuals current work load is, it looks like they have fairly large IT function. They also use it as a time management system so ITS staff can fill in hours worked against different projects and services. It all looks very impressive but it does come across as a bit of a 'command and control' way of doing things - perhaps it's just that they already have a very trusting and collaborative culture and automating all these things that normally need lots of delicate handling is just not an issue. It would be good if we could!
Next speaker was from the Open University of Hong Kong and talked about use of Sharepoint 2007 for Communciation, Collaboration and Learning. http://www.ouhk.edu.hk/
They are a distance learning university - (Note to self: LDS back home may well be interested in this!) 13,000 distance learning students with 700 courses.
Speaker gave an overview of Sharepoint functionality: BI, collaboration, Portal, Search, Content Management, Business Forms, BI - all good tools for sharing information, managing workflow and team collaboration ie: all the kind of stuff you need for an LMS (VLE)
They are using Sharepoint in 8 main areas: Portal, Document Management, Team collaboration (esp. research), student support and administration, teaching and learning, workflow and process improvmeent, BI, social computing.
The presenter then talked about the maturity model for BI - ie: from decriptive and evaluative reporting through to predictive reporting for decision making and strategic planning. They have a 'mature' BI tool written in Sharepoint called InfoShare. It took 100 man (sic) days to develop the BI tool and 67 man days to develop their On-Line Learning Environment tool in Sharepoint. Crumbs - that's a bit speedy! Perhaps we ought to talk to them. We were using a third party to help us with our VLE development using Sharepoint but are currently doing much of it ourselves. It might be useful to have a more detailed follow up conversation with the HOng Kong OU about their Sharepoint project. (Note to Self: Pass this info on to the architect working on our project)
The speaker reccomended this document as a resource: http://www.eduserv.org.uk/research/studies/~/media/research/SharePoint%20Study%20LiteratureReview%20Sep2009%20pdf.ashx
It is a report on the use of Sharepoint within HE.
Question time - and an interesting point that emerged was that there is a limit on the number of documents in Sharepoint 2007 of 30,000 after which Sharepoint become unstable. Presenters were asked if this had been a problem, but they said they hadn't come anywhere near that limit yet. Apparently, Sharepoint 2010 removes this limitation. (NB: Couple of comments subsequently posted on this blog to say that the 30,000 limit of Sharepoint 2007 is not correct. See comments below.)
Right - next stop Brenda Gourley's closing keynote. Looking forward to that .....Educause 2009: Higher Education and SOA
Friday 8.10am, and a session on SOA and student data. A subject that is very hot for us at the moment as we try and implement XML .Net based SOA to tie all our student data together and deliver the information agility that our University needs.
So far and not too technical - presentation starting with quick overview of the problem - increasing need for data and information, data in lots of silo systems, access to data and reporting via 'programmers' based in IT ie: fixed reports and ad hoc reports if you were lucky. Yup - all very familiar ....
Data warehouses and BI tools allow 'Surfacing of Data' - data in the hands of the decision makers, removing or at least reducing silos, creating flexible outputs which the end user can use so that developers can get on with developing rather than having to spend all their time generating reports ..... Ok - agree with all of that ...
BI tools are now changing the expectations of decision makers - predictive modelling, decision processing, point in time analysis (not sure what that means exactly), all being demanded. However there are problems with deciding how granular you are going to need your raw data to be, the context and definitions of your data and the data refresh cycles you need - these are all issues you need to address.
(As an aside this presentation is being delivered as a classic put up the slides and then paraphrase the slide and expand on it - which makes it nice and easy for those of us who are sitting here writing notes as the presentation happens, but maybe makes it a bit slow and repetative otherwise?)
A move from static data to "Dynamic BI" means that you have to start thinking 'processes' in a different way. Process flows and workflows become important and data rules have to be agreed and understood as they are going to be automated so they have to deliver the right thing.
It occurs to me that this is the same old story that was told in the days when BPR (Business Process Re-engineering) was all the rage. Make sure that you don't pave over the cow paths. If you just automate the processes that have evolved over time then you just end up automating inefficient processes, that meander all over the place, and that don't take you from A to B efficiently. You need to start from scratch and re-engineer the processes first (so that you cross the field in a straight line rather than by means of meandering cow paths) before you automate them.
Back to the presentaion - the demand for dashboard functionality and reports also starts rising exponentially (as we have already seen with the implementation of a simple dashboard reporting tool for some of our data)
BI requires - "next-generation architecture" ie: SOA (Service Orientated Architecture). Current architectures are limited. Yup.
Buzz phrase "Change Adaptive" used by the speaker to mean we are working in an era of rapid change - legislative, compliance, business etc and systems need to change at the same speed.
Ok I was already convinced that I need SOA, and now I'm convinced all over again. A different speaker now (hope he's not going to get too techy)
How does SOA help solve these problems? - the underlying data schema can evolve with out requiring a whole load of changes to reporting and systems integration. This means you have to put a service layer inbetween the actual databases and the workflow, integration and reporting functionaliuty you want - Yup - come on we know all this thats why we're sitting here .....
(As another aside if you're reading this and you're not familiar with SOA in an HE environment then I can thoroughly reccomend this short JISC animation http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/eframework/soa.aspx which describes it brilliantly and simply even for the non-techie!)
Presenter now showing a schema of a generic SOA layout ..... (watch the animation above and you'll get the idea if you don't know what this might look like)
One change that this brings in is that you need a different data structure for the service layer than for the database(s) underneath it and you need to think about it. The schemas and dictonrys for the service layer are multiple and small. They need to capture 'transformational logic' by which I assume speaker means the rules by which data is changed or processed within the service layer. Each data element (object? artifact?) needs a common service definition in the service layer that applies to all databases that hold that element. What this means is that you need to treat business logic as if it is data - ie: business rules and workflow processes are now automated and therefore have to be defined and captured as data. This I think is the essential BIG change. Administrators and managers are not used to thinking of their processes and ways of working in this discplined way. But the benefits are huge in terms of flexibility of reporting and adapting to changing process requirements.
Speaker now talking through a diagam of how service adapters (chunks of code that define transformational logic and data elements) are used -a bit over my head at this point but I think I get the gist!
Adapters can be used for different things for example they can be used to carry out a mapping of a data element across two databases and carry out a transformation of that data in some way eg: changing the status of a student from application to registration. Or it can be used to access the same data element from different systems and any associated data elements and pass them up to a reporting function within the service layer (eg: tying together timetabling information and course information for a single student from the timetabling system and the student information system). (NB: the eg: are mine not the speakers so they come with a health warning as I may have totally misunderstood!)
We are now going to get a live demo on reporting via a service layer - and at this point it all gets way too technical for me. The demo essentially seemed to be using an open source 'ETL' tool (don't know what ETL is? Extraction Translation Language??) called Talend.
The demo showed to a list of data elements that were defined for use in the Service Layer. Woa! - there's a whole load of code on the screen and most of the blokes with beards are all leaning forward and concentrating intently! I feel like an 'under-cover' interloping CIO! - 3 people have just left ...... maybe they're CIO's too ....
Think I'll stick it out but what would be helfpful for me is to hear more about the challanges of actually implementing this stuff. How long did it take, what where the obstacles, what are the limitations and the BIG question - how do you manage to get the stakeholders to sit down with you to define the processes and data elements that are needed to create a service layer?
Speaker now making the point that you can create user interfaces for different purposes to the data in the service layer which comes from different systems. Now showing some fancy open source reporting tools that you can layer on top of your service layer - much like we will do with our reporting tool Qlikview which when we get SOA in place will sit on top of the service layer instead of sitting on top of data extracted and combined into spreadsheets as at present.
Question time at last - and I asked how did they get the administrators etc to engage with defining the data and processes etc - the answer:
- it took a year and a half!
- the process was iterative - defining requirements of what you actually want to do and what data is needed - defining use cases (I'm assuming UML use cases?), implementing, testing and piloting some of the service layer then going back round the loop again
- looking for commonality of data elements and processes across all the requirements
In a nutshell slowly and with a LOT of effort. Mmmm - this is going to be a tough project for us but one we MUST do if we are going to deliver our corporate strategy.
We need to deliver some solid results by the beginning of next academic year and we're not going to be able to do everything by then - sounds like DSDM might be a good way of tackling this.
Another question was asked from the floor about the difficulty of defining access/permissions. Response was that this took a lot of time too - and when you think about it that's not surprising. You are no longer defining access/permissions to individual databases that are 'owned' by seperate groups of users (or organisational silos). Instead you are having to identify access/permission to a common entity (the service layer) for all groups. It could be complicated and would almost certainly mean changes to the current access requirements to simplify and consolidate them.
So far and not too technical - presentation starting with quick overview of the problem - increasing need for data and information, data in lots of silo systems, access to data and reporting via 'programmers' based in IT ie: fixed reports and ad hoc reports if you were lucky. Yup - all very familiar ....
Data warehouses and BI tools allow 'Surfacing of Data' - data in the hands of the decision makers, removing or at least reducing silos, creating flexible outputs which the end user can use so that developers can get on with developing rather than having to spend all their time generating reports ..... Ok - agree with all of that ...
BI tools are now changing the expectations of decision makers - predictive modelling, decision processing, point in time analysis (not sure what that means exactly), all being demanded. However there are problems with deciding how granular you are going to need your raw data to be, the context and definitions of your data and the data refresh cycles you need - these are all issues you need to address.
(As an aside this presentation is being delivered as a classic put up the slides and then paraphrase the slide and expand on it - which makes it nice and easy for those of us who are sitting here writing notes as the presentation happens, but maybe makes it a bit slow and repetative otherwise?)
A move from static data to "Dynamic BI" means that you have to start thinking 'processes' in a different way. Process flows and workflows become important and data rules have to be agreed and understood as they are going to be automated so they have to deliver the right thing.
It occurs to me that this is the same old story that was told in the days when BPR (Business Process Re-engineering) was all the rage. Make sure that you don't pave over the cow paths. If you just automate the processes that have evolved over time then you just end up automating inefficient processes, that meander all over the place, and that don't take you from A to B efficiently. You need to start from scratch and re-engineer the processes first (so that you cross the field in a straight line rather than by means of meandering cow paths) before you automate them.
Back to the presentaion - the demand for dashboard functionality and reports also starts rising exponentially (as we have already seen with the implementation of a simple dashboard reporting tool for some of our data)
BI requires - "next-generation architecture" ie: SOA (Service Orientated Architecture). Current architectures are limited. Yup.
Buzz phrase "Change Adaptive" used by the speaker to mean we are working in an era of rapid change - legislative, compliance, business etc and systems need to change at the same speed.
Ok I was already convinced that I need SOA, and now I'm convinced all over again. A different speaker now (hope he's not going to get too techy)
How does SOA help solve these problems? - the underlying data schema can evolve with out requiring a whole load of changes to reporting and systems integration. This means you have to put a service layer inbetween the actual databases and the workflow, integration and reporting functionaliuty you want - Yup - come on we know all this thats why we're sitting here .....
(As another aside if you're reading this and you're not familiar with SOA in an HE environment then I can thoroughly reccomend this short JISC animation http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/eframework/soa.aspx which describes it brilliantly and simply even for the non-techie!)
Presenter now showing a schema of a generic SOA layout ..... (watch the animation above and you'll get the idea if you don't know what this might look like)
One change that this brings in is that you need a different data structure for the service layer than for the database(s) underneath it and you need to think about it. The schemas and dictonrys for the service layer are multiple and small. They need to capture 'transformational logic' by which I assume speaker means the rules by which data is changed or processed within the service layer. Each data element (object? artifact?) needs a common service definition in the service layer that applies to all databases that hold that element. What this means is that you need to treat business logic as if it is data - ie: business rules and workflow processes are now automated and therefore have to be defined and captured as data. This I think is the essential BIG change. Administrators and managers are not used to thinking of their processes and ways of working in this discplined way. But the benefits are huge in terms of flexibility of reporting and adapting to changing process requirements.
Speaker now talking through a diagam of how service adapters (chunks of code that define transformational logic and data elements) are used -a bit over my head at this point but I think I get the gist!
Adapters can be used for different things for example they can be used to carry out a mapping of a data element across two databases and carry out a transformation of that data in some way eg: changing the status of a student from application to registration. Or it can be used to access the same data element from different systems and any associated data elements and pass them up to a reporting function within the service layer (eg: tying together timetabling information and course information for a single student from the timetabling system and the student information system). (NB: the eg: are mine not the speakers so they come with a health warning as I may have totally misunderstood!)
We are now going to get a live demo on reporting via a service layer - and at this point it all gets way too technical for me. The demo essentially seemed to be using an open source 'ETL' tool (don't know what ETL is? Extraction Translation Language??) called Talend.
The demo showed to a list of data elements that were defined for use in the Service Layer. Woa! - there's a whole load of code on the screen and most of the blokes with beards are all leaning forward and concentrating intently! I feel like an 'under-cover' interloping CIO! - 3 people have just left ...... maybe they're CIO's too ....
Think I'll stick it out but what would be helfpful for me is to hear more about the challanges of actually implementing this stuff. How long did it take, what where the obstacles, what are the limitations and the BIG question - how do you manage to get the stakeholders to sit down with you to define the processes and data elements that are needed to create a service layer?
Speaker now making the point that you can create user interfaces for different purposes to the data in the service layer which comes from different systems. Now showing some fancy open source reporting tools that you can layer on top of your service layer - much like we will do with our reporting tool Qlikview which when we get SOA in place will sit on top of the service layer instead of sitting on top of data extracted and combined into spreadsheets as at present.
Question time at last - and I asked how did they get the administrators etc to engage with defining the data and processes etc - the answer:
- it took a year and a half!
- the process was iterative - defining requirements of what you actually want to do and what data is needed - defining use cases (I'm assuming UML use cases?), implementing, testing and piloting some of the service layer then going back round the loop again
- looking for commonality of data elements and processes across all the requirements
In a nutshell slowly and with a LOT of effort. Mmmm - this is going to be a tough project for us but one we MUST do if we are going to deliver our corporate strategy.
We need to deliver some solid results by the beginning of next academic year and we're not going to be able to do everything by then - sounds like DSDM might be a good way of tackling this.
Another question was asked from the floor about the difficulty of defining access/permissions. Response was that this took a lot of time too - and when you think about it that's not surprising. You are no longer defining access/permissions to individual databases that are 'owned' by seperate groups of users (or organisational silos). Instead you are having to identify access/permission to a common entity (the service layer) for all groups. It could be complicated and would almost certainly mean changes to the current access requirements to simplify and consolidate them.
Looks like that's it - so the take-away (as our American colleagues say). Implementing SOA is going to be just as hard as we thought it would be, and probably harder - but the benefits are more than worth it and in fact are probably essential for organisational survival given the exponential rise in the volume and pace of changing requirements.
Next stop - coffee!!
Thursday, 5 November 2009
Educause 2009 - Learning from failure ...
I've always thought that failure was under-rated and that the best way of improving things was to pay attention to when things went wrong and learn from the mistake. The trouble is you have to do it carefully, otherwise everyone starts getting anxious and muttering about blame cultures. So, I was quite excited when I saw a session at Educause entitled "Houston, we have a problem - Leading through Failure"
The presentation was from a group of senior manager's from different HEI's who all felt that learning from failure was very useful and worth talking about - they described it as 'rich learning'
The session started with a short video from Honda http://dreams.honda.com/videos/failure-the-secret-to-success/ talking about the culture within Honda of encouraging failure and risk taking in order to achieve extraordinary success - it's worth watching.
Each presenter talked about a separate example from of where failure was a really useful learning experience for them.
The first presenter talked about a failure caused primarily by not understanding the context of a project. His advice, to check every so often that you are taking a macro view of the situation. Risk looks a lot smaller and a lot less risky the further you are from the situtaiton. A risk embedded within a single project looks huge to someone in the project team, but is insignificant and possible well worth taking from the view of the VC. It is certainly true that within some of our projects, especially the big strategic ones, we do not always step back often enough to look at things from our customers perspective - and as a result we get caught by surprise with demands for things that we think we are already delivering. Note to self: when it goes wrong, spend more time looking at what has gone wrong and why and learn from it.
A speaker from the University of Hawaii talked about a huge project to put in place a new campus student information system and then the vendor left the project at a critical stage. The positive consequences of the failure was the way in which everyone else, spurred by panic initially, pulled together into a team in a way that would not have happened otherwise and the project plan acted as the stable 'skeleton' around which they could motivate and pull resources together, with more trust and better communication, and they succeded. Fail to plan and you plan to fail, as someone later quipped.
A university librarian talked about a project to tackle running out of space for books. DiscusTo him it was obvious - we have to get rid of the old stock that we no longer use. This was not obvious to everyone. Discussions with stakeholders made it clear that to some the obvious solution was 'let's build a new bigger building'. Key lesson - different minds make different decisions - make sure that everyone understands what the decision actually is. His experience was that although spectacular failures are often the best learning experiences - spectacular failures are often not as spectacular as you might think. One vocal critic can make the failure seem huge and create a lot of fear, but actually they are just one voice and other quieter voices may have a very differrent view.
The next speaker talked about the role of assumptions. This was a portal implementation. Everything was looking good, there was a plan, there was time, it all looked on track. But, after roll out new faculty staff couldn't log on, and there were a lot of them. The HR process for provisioning new accounts was not working in the way that the project had assumed it had. Although assurances had been given they had been given by individuals who did not have the positional authority to follow them through. The lesson learned - watch the assumptions, and watch whose making them and based on what information.
The next story was a 'tale of woe' about a Graduate Admission Application Form that was going to be redesigned and made into an on-line form. There was a perception amongst Faculty that IT were not going to be able to do a good job as they did not provide Faculty with the support and help that they wanted on a day to day basis. So they decided to do it themselves (sound familiar?). As you would expect there were data integration issues, not enough testing, when they asked for help from IT, as you can imagine, tempers flared. Faculty admissions staff thought that IT are being unhelpful and IT thought that Faculty admissions staff are being unreasonable. This went on for two years. It is now up and running but the legacy is a lot of hard feelings. So what are the lessons from the failure? It started because of a perception that IT was inadequate and it was exacerbated by an attitude of do first and ask later, total lack of communication and egos. You have to really look out for the warning signs that communication is not happening, or is happening but is not going well - body language in meetings? failure to return calls and answer emails? lack of any face to face discussions?
I asked the question I started this note with, about how do you manage to create a culture where people are willing to investigate and understand what went wrong in order to learn without seeing it becoming, or being perceived as, a blame culture. Responses from the presenters included ensuring that you are up front about the fact that things have gone wrong and make it clear that we need to get past the 'finger-pointing' and on to the more productive discussion around how do we learn from it. Also as a leader making it clear that if it all goes wrong you will take the wrap and if it all goes well the team will take the credit - something which I completely agree with. But you need ot make sure you don't just say it but follow through if an when it happens.
Another questioner pointed out that continual honest communication is key to all of it and a common thread across the presentations.
I thought it was one of the best sessions at the conference - and it is great to see people talking about the things that didn't work well. Usually the conference sessions are all about the success stories and the best practice case studies - but it's the failures that we learn most from. On Monday, back at the ranch, we have the first meeting of our new, reconstituted, IT governance group and having some honest conversations about why the previous governance group failed will be a very positive initial step towards increasing the chances of success second time round.
The presentation was from a group of senior manager's from different HEI's who all felt that learning from failure was very useful and worth talking about - they described it as 'rich learning'
The session started with a short video from Honda http://dreams.honda.com/videos/failure-the-secret-to-success/ talking about the culture within Honda of encouraging failure and risk taking in order to achieve extraordinary success - it's worth watching.
Each presenter talked about a separate example from of where failure was a really useful learning experience for them.
The first presenter talked about a failure caused primarily by not understanding the context of a project. His advice, to check every so often that you are taking a macro view of the situation. Risk looks a lot smaller and a lot less risky the further you are from the situtaiton. A risk embedded within a single project looks huge to someone in the project team, but is insignificant and possible well worth taking from the view of the VC. It is certainly true that within some of our projects, especially the big strategic ones, we do not always step back often enough to look at things from our customers perspective - and as a result we get caught by surprise with demands for things that we think we are already delivering. Note to self: when it goes wrong, spend more time looking at what has gone wrong and why and learn from it.
A speaker from the University of Hawaii talked about a huge project to put in place a new campus student information system and then the vendor left the project at a critical stage. The positive consequences of the failure was the way in which everyone else, spurred by panic initially, pulled together into a team in a way that would not have happened otherwise and the project plan acted as the stable 'skeleton' around which they could motivate and pull resources together, with more trust and better communication, and they succeded. Fail to plan and you plan to fail, as someone later quipped.
A university librarian talked about a project to tackle running out of space for books. DiscusTo him it was obvious - we have to get rid of the old stock that we no longer use. This was not obvious to everyone. Discussions with stakeholders made it clear that to some the obvious solution was 'let's build a new bigger building'. Key lesson - different minds make different decisions - make sure that everyone understands what the decision actually is. His experience was that although spectacular failures are often the best learning experiences - spectacular failures are often not as spectacular as you might think. One vocal critic can make the failure seem huge and create a lot of fear, but actually they are just one voice and other quieter voices may have a very differrent view.
The next speaker talked about the role of assumptions. This was a portal implementation. Everything was looking good, there was a plan, there was time, it all looked on track. But, after roll out new faculty staff couldn't log on, and there were a lot of them. The HR process for provisioning new accounts was not working in the way that the project had assumed it had. Although assurances had been given they had been given by individuals who did not have the positional authority to follow them through. The lesson learned - watch the assumptions, and watch whose making them and based on what information.
The next story was a 'tale of woe' about a Graduate Admission Application Form that was going to be redesigned and made into an on-line form. There was a perception amongst Faculty that IT were not going to be able to do a good job as they did not provide Faculty with the support and help that they wanted on a day to day basis. So they decided to do it themselves (sound familiar?). As you would expect there were data integration issues, not enough testing, when they asked for help from IT, as you can imagine, tempers flared. Faculty admissions staff thought that IT are being unhelpful and IT thought that Faculty admissions staff are being unreasonable. This went on for two years. It is now up and running but the legacy is a lot of hard feelings. So what are the lessons from the failure? It started because of a perception that IT was inadequate and it was exacerbated by an attitude of do first and ask later, total lack of communication and egos. You have to really look out for the warning signs that communication is not happening, or is happening but is not going well - body language in meetings? failure to return calls and answer emails? lack of any face to face discussions?
I asked the question I started this note with, about how do you manage to create a culture where people are willing to investigate and understand what went wrong in order to learn without seeing it becoming, or being perceived as, a blame culture. Responses from the presenters included ensuring that you are up front about the fact that things have gone wrong and make it clear that we need to get past the 'finger-pointing' and on to the more productive discussion around how do we learn from it. Also as a leader making it clear that if it all goes wrong you will take the wrap and if it all goes well the team will take the credit - something which I completely agree with. But you need ot make sure you don't just say it but follow through if an when it happens.
Another questioner pointed out that continual honest communication is key to all of it and a common thread across the presentations.
I thought it was one of the best sessions at the conference - and it is great to see people talking about the things that didn't work well. Usually the conference sessions are all about the success stories and the best practice case studies - but it's the failures that we learn most from. On Monday, back at the ranch, we have the first meeting of our new, reconstituted, IT governance group and having some honest conversations about why the previous governance group failed will be a very positive initial step towards increasing the chances of success second time round.
Wednesday, 4 November 2009
Designing Learning Spaces
The session started with a brainstorming exercise to produce a list of "things that you want students to do in a learning space" - it was a long list covering individual and group activities, noisy and quiet, learning and socialising etc. Pretty much the sort of thing you would expect (full list from flip chart at bottom of this blog post!).
We then broke into groups to look at a suggested student survey for getting students views on their experience of how they use spaces and what they want from a space. One group came up with a survey question that just listed things that students could do in a learning space and listed features that you might have and asked the students to rank them or score them as to what they would be most likely to do and use. This is something that I think we could usefully do as part of the design process for the Cambridge development.
However, (as seems to be happening in most sessions I've been to so far!) our group didn't actually do the task we'd been assigned and instead we had a good discussion sharing our experiences of the problems, issues and solutions with designing learning spaces.
Word of wisdom from our group included:
- easily movable furniture, that was well designed. NB: Getting the balance right between sufficiently robust furniture that was going to stand up to wear and tear but was light enough for student to move around.
- Wandering round old spaces and where students are found using hallways or foyers to gather and work (often because there is a power point there!) redesigning those spaces to make them usable even if just putting some a table and some chairs there - sort of student self-selecting spaces!
- making use of pillars by putting circular tables around them and power on them.
- that students wanting physical spaces that reflect how they want to be and what they want to do in on-line spaces - allowing food a drink, flexible furniture, minimum constraints on space usage etc
- Moving all the books out of library open learning spaces and putting them in robotically served warehouse spaces like University of British Columbia
- whiteboard walls (with whiteboard paint) that you can also project onto
- some universities had looked at the desks which are double purpose computer lab and computer-free space and have used the desks where the monitor pulls up and keyboard comes out for use. Experience has been that they do not stand up too well to wear and tear and student use
- Critical importance of selecting AV/Media for classrooms that is totally intuitive so that you don't have teach academic staff how to use it. Common experience that is was difficult to get academic staff to take part in training sessions for av/media technology. Concerns that students seeing academic staff struggling to get classroom technology to work impacted on student experience and views of the quality/credibility of the teaching itself(!).
- very common experience to find students using their own laptops as well as the computers provided within open access space - at the same time. They use their laptops, which are generally lower spec. for internet access and word and then the provided computers for higher spec applications that they cant run on their own laptops.
- Importance of having student produced art in the spaces - experience is that having art out in open spaces impacts behaviour, particularly as it shows trust.
- Lots and lots of issues with supplying power. All the usual sorts of problem with trailing cables, health and safety and inflexibility and lack of robustness of floor power boxes etc. Some designs of floor box where described that were a lot more robust, as well as some other methods of providing power. Photos from a trip yesterday to Denver University were shared by Mal Booth http://www.flickr.com/photos/malbooth/sets/72157622729274880/ (Mel says to please forgive all the snow photos, but he is from Australia!) They have a lot of these innovative ideas already in use at Denver University, including the different ways of supplying power, and I'm hoping to try and visit before I fly back on Sunday.
During feedback from the group sessions one group asked whether there was any assessment of whether students actually learn better in all these "fancy new spaces" that are provided. Of course, for some Universities the desired primary outcome may well be that student satisfaction goes up. It may be that students are not using the new space for learning at all, but are using it for social activities or non-learning activities and are doing their learning elsewhere - however if they are happy students with high satisfaction levels then they are probably learning better anyway, wherever they are doing it.
As an aside (for those who read my blog yesterday on the parallels between knowledge creation processes and learning processes) - it occurs to me that the brainstorming list the session generated at the beginning (collaborate, explore, search, communicate, et, drink, archive, talk, concentrate, innovate, present, stuy, interact, learn from each other, socialize, build, play, read, watch, practice, write, act, analyze,think, conceptulize, listen, integrate, coach, rehearse, perform, move, grow, show, test etc.) could be mapped onto the different stages in the SECI Knowledge Creation Spiral - essentially all the tools and technologies are all about enabling processes at the different stages of the spiral. To go back to an earlier session, it applies to things like Twitter too:
- Externalisations (tacit -> explicit knowledge) - eg: writing a thought in a tweet
- Socialisation (sharing explicit knowledge) - eg: interacting on a social network
- Combination (combining different explicit knowledge from different sources)- eg: reading different tweets from different people
- Internalisation (explicit -> tacit knowledge) - eg: generating new internal thoughts and ideas as a result of the above process and then ..... back round the spiral to Externalisation ...
.. and you can apply it to everything from Twitter to the design of learning spaces.
Right! - off to find a coffee and then off to "Virtual Desktops: 60% cheaper but are they worth it?" - I am hoping to find out .....
We then broke into groups to look at a suggested student survey for getting students views on their experience of how they use spaces and what they want from a space. One group came up with a survey question that just listed things that students could do in a learning space and listed features that you might have and asked the students to rank them or score them as to what they would be most likely to do and use. This is something that I think we could usefully do as part of the design process for the Cambridge development.
However, (as seems to be happening in most sessions I've been to so far!) our group didn't actually do the task we'd been assigned and instead we had a good discussion sharing our experiences of the problems, issues and solutions with designing learning spaces.
Word of wisdom from our group included:
- easily movable furniture, that was well designed. NB: Getting the balance right between sufficiently robust furniture that was going to stand up to wear and tear but was light enough for student to move around.
- Wandering round old spaces and where students are found using hallways or foyers to gather and work (often because there is a power point there!) redesigning those spaces to make them usable even if just putting some a table and some chairs there - sort of student self-selecting spaces!
- making use of pillars by putting circular tables around them and power on them.
- that students wanting physical spaces that reflect how they want to be and what they want to do in on-line spaces - allowing food a drink, flexible furniture, minimum constraints on space usage etc
- Moving all the books out of library open learning spaces and putting them in robotically served warehouse spaces like University of British Columbia
- whiteboard walls (with whiteboard paint) that you can also project onto
- some universities had looked at the desks which are double purpose computer lab and computer-free space and have used the desks where the monitor pulls up and keyboard comes out for use. Experience has been that they do not stand up too well to wear and tear and student use
- Critical importance of selecting AV/Media for classrooms that is totally intuitive so that you don't have teach academic staff how to use it. Common experience that is was difficult to get academic staff to take part in training sessions for av/media technology. Concerns that students seeing academic staff struggling to get classroom technology to work impacted on student experience and views of the quality/credibility of the teaching itself(!).
- very common experience to find students using their own laptops as well as the computers provided within open access space - at the same time. They use their laptops, which are generally lower spec. for internet access and word and then the provided computers for higher spec applications that they cant run on their own laptops.
- Importance of having student produced art in the spaces - experience is that having art out in open spaces impacts behaviour, particularly as it shows trust.
- Lots and lots of issues with supplying power. All the usual sorts of problem with trailing cables, health and safety and inflexibility and lack of robustness of floor power boxes etc. Some designs of floor box where described that were a lot more robust, as well as some other methods of providing power. Photos from a trip yesterday to Denver University were shared by Mal Booth http://www.flickr.com/photos/malbooth/sets/72157622729274880/ (Mel says to please forgive all the snow photos, but he is from Australia!) They have a lot of these innovative ideas already in use at Denver University, including the different ways of supplying power, and I'm hoping to try and visit before I fly back on Sunday.
During feedback from the group sessions one group asked whether there was any assessment of whether students actually learn better in all these "fancy new spaces" that are provided. Of course, for some Universities the desired primary outcome may well be that student satisfaction goes up. It may be that students are not using the new space for learning at all, but are using it for social activities or non-learning activities and are doing their learning elsewhere - however if they are happy students with high satisfaction levels then they are probably learning better anyway, wherever they are doing it.
As an aside (for those who read my blog yesterday on the parallels between knowledge creation processes and learning processes) - it occurs to me that the brainstorming list the session generated at the beginning (collaborate, explore, search, communicate, et, drink, archive, talk, concentrate, innovate, present, stuy, interact, learn from each other, socialize, build, play, read, watch, practice, write, act, analyze,think, conceptulize, listen, integrate, coach, rehearse, perform, move, grow, show, test etc.) could be mapped onto the different stages in the SECI Knowledge Creation Spiral - essentially all the tools and technologies are all about enabling processes at the different stages of the spiral. To go back to an earlier session, it applies to things like Twitter too:
- Externalisations (tacit -> explicit knowledge) - eg: writing a thought in a tweet
- Socialisation (sharing explicit knowledge) - eg: interacting on a social network
- Combination (combining different explicit knowledge from different sources)- eg: reading different tweets from different people
- Internalisation (explicit -> tacit knowledge) - eg: generating new internal thoughts and ideas as a result of the above process and then ..... back round the spiral to Externalisation ...
.. and you can apply it to everything from Twitter to the design of learning spaces.
Right! - off to find a coffee and then off to "Virtual Desktops: 60% cheaper but are they worth it?" - I am hoping to find out .....
Xavier - a new build with a radical approach
First session I attended this morning was about Xavier University's new learning commons (87,000 square feet of it!), which opens this summer and hopefully will provide some useful insights for our new build at the Cambridge campus.
There is a website with lots of info about the project, including a video and a live web-cam of the construction site here http://www.xavier.edu/hoffquad
The session started off with the good old "digital-natives" numbers, complete with obligatory personal example of offsprings learning style ...
Xavier started by looking at the demographic mix of students and the anticipated changes into the future to try and assess what changing needs might be. "Developing and strengthing the student experience" was a key objective of their strategic plan. They are 90% tuition fees driven and recruiting and retaining students is a top priority.
The project was $108m in total - 3 buildings - utility plant, residence hall and new learning commons, which goes live this coming summer.
Key questions they started with:
- what resources and services do 21st century learners need
- What service models best support contemporary teaching and learning methodologies
- what organisational models are best suited for delivery of the servoices
- What facilities will best support these service and organisational models
Gosh! - refreshing to see these kind of questions being asked up front rather than considered as an after thought. Their Steering Committee for the project spent a lot of time considering these questions and challanging 'sacred cows' - which they now feel was a critical success factor. Making compromises was an essential part of the processes.
Key answers to question 1. - students learn - more collaborativly, they form their own collaborative communities, technology is an embedded part of the experience, students want seamless, highly satisfactory and self-driven services. They don't want to deal with a person unless they really need value add, they want services now and on-line. Which went against some of the traditionally held views that the only good service is personal service.
They formed a new organisational unit called "Information Resources" which pulled together all the key services that were involved in delivering services to students -eg: IT, Library, student services, administration etc - Wow! in other words they restructured the organisations in order to ensure the new devleopment was a sustainable success!!!
There was a pulling together of all the Faculty based administrative and student services into a single unit called the Division of Academic Affairs. Within that they had a centre for student excellence which included learning development, academic advice, learning assitance, retention services, shared labs such as languages lab, maths lab and so on. In other words all the academic services that were previously shared across faculties. Also a centre for teaching excellence with an experiemental classrooms and learning studios with the associated support and research activities.
Within the Information Resources Centre they had an integrated student service for delivery and integrated service points which pulled together IT support, classroom support, library reference support to provide all techncial AND informational support including the library for ALL students and staff. Looks like real integrated 1st line delivery - this is currently running as a prototype - "it's for the most part harmonious on good days!" - so obviously still some issues.
One key thing is that there was a LOT of discussion and planning about the space and how it should be used and for what - including all the design - long before they commissioned the building. There was whole organisational support and involvement in the project. A key success factor was bringing faculty and academic staff together as early as 2001 to start thinking collectivly about what they wanted in 2011!
The question - what is learnign and teaching going to look like was answered before thinking about what sort of space do we need. They saw elsewhere that without doing this buildings end up "getting in the way" of what you want to do. In 2006 they then started to think about the types of building, square footage and all the other initial planning issues.
The architects they chose also had an open-space collaborative working environment for their own staff and they had done a lot of research on learning spaces in HE.
The Information Resources Centre provided a connection both physically and in terms of service delivery between the Library and the Information Commons.
They spent A YEAR on the detailed process of design and layout of spaces, furniture etc through multiple phases before they got it right. They also trialed different layouts in small areas elsewhere as prototype spaces to see how they worked. In the prototypes they did exercises like mapping where all the furniture and resources on wheels (smartboards etc) where in the space at the beginning of the week and then mapping them again at the end of the week to see how much they were moved around. This gave good data on usage. If they aren't moved much then maybe you don't need mobile units.
Lots of mixed spaces in the new building, social spaces as well as more regimented rows. The new staff spaces in the Centre for Teaching Excellence includes a large faculty lounge which looks much like open learning spaces for student - mix of social and collaborative work spaces for staff too.
The building is under construction at the moment and due to open this Summer. They offerred an open invitiation to go and visit when it's open.
Students were heavily involved in the project from the start and student engagement was viewed as critical.
I asked a question about the level of organisational and cultural change that they achieved in terms of succesfully delivering genuinly integrated services and whether they thought they could have achieved it if they hadn't spent 10 years in the thinking and planning. The response was that it did take a very long time to get the collaborative working and to build the trust necessary to achieve an agreed restructure around newly designsed services. It meant bringing together areas that had never worked together before and "there was a LOT of talking for a long time" in the early years before there was any real planning or action.
It's a radical approach to delivering genuinly integrated services, but it shows that it can be done - and it's great to see not just innovative thinking but innovative and radical action to solving these issues.
Key learnings:
- Start early
- Long before you think about the building itself focus on what the needs of stare going to be in the future and what it is you want to deliver
- Design the services first and then if necessary restructure organisational units to deliver them. It is NOT about co-location of existing services, but creation of new fit-for-purpose integrated service.
- True integration requires genuine collaboration and trust and that takes time, a LOT of time.
There is a website with lots of info about the project, including a video and a live web-cam of the construction site here http://www.xavier.edu/hoffquad
The session started off with the good old "digital-natives" numbers, complete with obligatory personal example of offsprings learning style ...
Xavier started by looking at the demographic mix of students and the anticipated changes into the future to try and assess what changing needs might be. "Developing and strengthing the student experience" was a key objective of their strategic plan. They are 90% tuition fees driven and recruiting and retaining students is a top priority.
The project was $108m in total - 3 buildings - utility plant, residence hall and new learning commons, which goes live this coming summer.
Key questions they started with:
- what resources and services do 21st century learners need
- What service models best support contemporary teaching and learning methodologies
- what organisational models are best suited for delivery of the servoices
- What facilities will best support these service and organisational models
Gosh! - refreshing to see these kind of questions being asked up front rather than considered as an after thought. Their Steering Committee for the project spent a lot of time considering these questions and challanging 'sacred cows' - which they now feel was a critical success factor. Making compromises was an essential part of the processes.
Key answers to question 1. - students learn - more collaborativly, they form their own collaborative communities, technology is an embedded part of the experience, students want seamless, highly satisfactory and self-driven services. They don't want to deal with a person unless they really need value add, they want services now and on-line. Which went against some of the traditionally held views that the only good service is personal service.
They formed a new organisational unit called "Information Resources" which pulled together all the key services that were involved in delivering services to students -eg: IT, Library, student services, administration etc - Wow! in other words they restructured the organisations in order to ensure the new devleopment was a sustainable success!!!
There was a pulling together of all the Faculty based administrative and student services into a single unit called the Division of Academic Affairs. Within that they had a centre for student excellence which included learning development, academic advice, learning assitance, retention services, shared labs such as languages lab, maths lab and so on. In other words all the academic services that were previously shared across faculties. Also a centre for teaching excellence with an experiemental classrooms and learning studios with the associated support and research activities.
Within the Information Resources Centre they had an integrated student service for delivery and integrated service points which pulled together IT support, classroom support, library reference support to provide all techncial AND informational support including the library for ALL students and staff. Looks like real integrated 1st line delivery - this is currently running as a prototype - "it's for the most part harmonious on good days!" - so obviously still some issues.
One key thing is that there was a LOT of discussion and planning about the space and how it should be used and for what - including all the design - long before they commissioned the building. There was whole organisational support and involvement in the project. A key success factor was bringing faculty and academic staff together as early as 2001 to start thinking collectivly about what they wanted in 2011!
The question - what is learnign and teaching going to look like was answered before thinking about what sort of space do we need. They saw elsewhere that without doing this buildings end up "getting in the way" of what you want to do. In 2006 they then started to think about the types of building, square footage and all the other initial planning issues.
The architects they chose also had an open-space collaborative working environment for their own staff and they had done a lot of research on learning spaces in HE.
The Information Resources Centre provided a connection both physically and in terms of service delivery between the Library and the Information Commons.
They spent A YEAR on the detailed process of design and layout of spaces, furniture etc through multiple phases before they got it right. They also trialed different layouts in small areas elsewhere as prototype spaces to see how they worked. In the prototypes they did exercises like mapping where all the furniture and resources on wheels (smartboards etc) where in the space at the beginning of the week and then mapping them again at the end of the week to see how much they were moved around. This gave good data on usage. If they aren't moved much then maybe you don't need mobile units.
Lots of mixed spaces in the new building, social spaces as well as more regimented rows. The new staff spaces in the Centre for Teaching Excellence includes a large faculty lounge which looks much like open learning spaces for student - mix of social and collaborative work spaces for staff too.
The building is under construction at the moment and due to open this Summer. They offerred an open invitiation to go and visit when it's open.
Students were heavily involved in the project from the start and student engagement was viewed as critical.
I asked a question about the level of organisational and cultural change that they achieved in terms of succesfully delivering genuinly integrated services and whether they thought they could have achieved it if they hadn't spent 10 years in the thinking and planning. The response was that it did take a very long time to get the collaborative working and to build the trust necessary to achieve an agreed restructure around newly designsed services. It meant bringing together areas that had never worked together before and "there was a LOT of talking for a long time" in the early years before there was any real planning or action.
It's a radical approach to delivering genuinly integrated services, but it shows that it can be done - and it's great to see not just innovative thinking but innovative and radical action to solving these issues.
Key learnings:
- Start early
- Long before you think about the building itself focus on what the needs of stare going to be in the future and what it is you want to deliver
- Design the services first and then if necessary restructure organisational units to deliver them. It is NOT about co-location of existing services, but creation of new fit-for-purpose integrated service.
- True integration requires genuine collaboration and trust and that takes time, a LOT of time.
Tuesday, 3 November 2009
Educause 2009 - Learning spaces, SOA and metadata - and yes we're still talking libraries ....
Afternoon session started with discussion around who does what. The essential point was made quite quickly that from a student's perspective they don't care who does what - they just need services and support and they ideally want it from a single place. The organisational structural divides between library, IT, faculty, learning development etc are artificial constructs that from a student perspective are pretty meaningless and tend to just get in the way. If only we could be as clear sighted.
Integration of systems - ie: VLE, digital learning resources, library systems etc etc and delivery through a single portal with single sign-on was quickly identified as a key issue. In other words SOA for learning resources and services as well as administrative services such as timetabling, loans, email etc - all delivered through a portal.
The session quickly got to the nub of the problem. Students being able to access all the information and applications they want through a single portal was described by one person as "the holy grail" for libraries and she asked the question, "If we can do it technically and everyone agrees it's want we want then what's stopping us!" - very good question.
Another participant described how they had achieved this already at a smaller college and saw no reason why it couldn't be achieved by larger HEI's. The conclusion? It's all because of politics and silo structures ....... a bit simplistic perhaps, but the debate finished with general agreement that we all just need to work together much more closely and build more trust.
I took the opportunity to plug JISC's client animation that describes SOA from an HE perspective - and does it so well (I still think this is one of the best articulations of SOA I've ever seen and is VERY undersold) http://www.jisc.ac.uk/news/stories/2007/02/news_animation.aspx
Next subject for the afternoon was metadata standards. Our group were given an exercise using two different metadata standards Dublin Core and VRA Core 3.0 - our group was obedient this time and actually did the task which involved creating metadata for a fine art print and its associated information. The interesting bit was the discussion around metadata standards themselves. There are apparently lots in use within libraries generally and these are the same standards that are also used by library HEI's . There are apparently some moves to try and create an XML metastructure to sit on top of the most commonly used meta-data structures which of course will help hugely in terms of being able to include access to information repositories in any SOA based delivery of services and information to students.
Of course the other issue is how this overlaps with metadata standards in other disciplines such as enterprise architecture, configuration management, and who knows what outside of IT - but that's for another day ...
After the tea break and we're on to learning spaces - a very hot topic for us right now with the new building happening in Cambridge.
Many of the same issues being experienced - practical and H&S problems with power supply in open access spaces, how much space to give to laptop users, balance between group working and single working spaces (interestingly demand for group working seemed much higher amongst US students (maybe the Americans just have a more gregarious learning culture?), high demand for quiet space, and the usual discussion about flexibility - to teach or not to teach in your open access spaces.
No new answers BUT did discover that the University of Colorado, Boulder Campus and University of Wyoming both have very good brand new learning spaces, so I'm going to try and hook up with their CIO's whilst I'm here and see if I can go and visit them before flying back to the UK on Sunday. It's a long shot but it would be good to see a US example of best practice given we're about to start the serious design work for our new building in Cambridge.
Also recommended was the Educause guide to developing learning spaces http://www.educause.edu/ELI/LearningPrinciplesandPractices/LearningSpaceDesign/5521. Will be interesting to see how it compares with the JISC one http://www.jisc.ac.uk/eli_learningspaces.html
The session finished with a round up of the day. The question was posed - "what is a library once you take books away?" How do you then differentiate between 'IT' and 'Library'. The point was well made that books have an historical, emotional value for many, which needs to be recognised and accommodated - for many a university isn't a university without 'real' books. Nevertheless, the reality is that a book is just another medium for information like a database or web content.
My perspective is that IT and Libraries are effectively doing the same stuff - it's just that one is coming at it with a pedagogical model and the other with a knowledge/information creation and management model which for me is best articulated in Nonaka and Takeuchi's SECI knowledge spiral model. A fun game would be to plot pedagogical technologies on the SECI model (something I had a bash at when I was interviewed for my current job, not realising of course that information and knowledge creation and management is seen firmly as HE core business and therefore not the domain of HE CIO's who are expected merely to attend to the plumbing!)
Perhaps that should be a compulsory exercise for librarians and IT people to do together to get a better insight into where the other is coming from and thereby create a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.
Integration of systems - ie: VLE, digital learning resources, library systems etc etc and delivery through a single portal with single sign-on was quickly identified as a key issue. In other words SOA for learning resources and services as well as administrative services such as timetabling, loans, email etc - all delivered through a portal.
The session quickly got to the nub of the problem. Students being able to access all the information and applications they want through a single portal was described by one person as "the holy grail" for libraries and she asked the question, "If we can do it technically and everyone agrees it's want we want then what's stopping us!" - very good question.
Another participant described how they had achieved this already at a smaller college and saw no reason why it couldn't be achieved by larger HEI's. The conclusion? It's all because of politics and silo structures ....... a bit simplistic perhaps, but the debate finished with general agreement that we all just need to work together much more closely and build more trust.
I took the opportunity to plug JISC's client animation that describes SOA from an HE perspective - and does it so well (I still think this is one of the best articulations of SOA I've ever seen and is VERY undersold) http://www.jisc.ac.uk/news/stories/2007/02/news_animation.aspx
Next subject for the afternoon was metadata standards. Our group were given an exercise using two different metadata standards Dublin Core and VRA Core 3.0 - our group was obedient this time and actually did the task which involved creating metadata for a fine art print and its associated information. The interesting bit was the discussion around metadata standards themselves. There are apparently lots in use within libraries generally and these are the same standards that are also used by library HEI's . There are apparently some moves to try and create an XML metastructure to sit on top of the most commonly used meta-data structures which of course will help hugely in terms of being able to include access to information repositories in any SOA based delivery of services and information to students.
Of course the other issue is how this overlaps with metadata standards in other disciplines such as enterprise architecture, configuration management, and who knows what outside of IT - but that's for another day ...
After the tea break and we're on to learning spaces - a very hot topic for us right now with the new building happening in Cambridge.
Many of the same issues being experienced - practical and H&S problems with power supply in open access spaces, how much space to give to laptop users, balance between group working and single working spaces (interestingly demand for group working seemed much higher amongst US students (maybe the Americans just have a more gregarious learning culture?), high demand for quiet space, and the usual discussion about flexibility - to teach or not to teach in your open access spaces.
No new answers BUT did discover that the University of Colorado, Boulder Campus and University of Wyoming both have very good brand new learning spaces, so I'm going to try and hook up with their CIO's whilst I'm here and see if I can go and visit them before flying back to the UK on Sunday. It's a long shot but it would be good to see a US example of best practice given we're about to start the serious design work for our new building in Cambridge.
Also recommended was the Educause guide to developing learning spaces http://www.educause.edu/ELI/LearningPrinciplesandPractices/LearningSpaceDesign/5521. Will be interesting to see how it compares with the JISC one http://www.jisc.ac.uk/eli_learningspaces.html
The session finished with a round up of the day. The question was posed - "what is a library once you take books away?" How do you then differentiate between 'IT' and 'Library'. The point was well made that books have an historical, emotional value for many, which needs to be recognised and accommodated - for many a university isn't a university without 'real' books. Nevertheless, the reality is that a book is just another medium for information like a database or web content.
My perspective is that IT and Libraries are effectively doing the same stuff - it's just that one is coming at it with a pedagogical model and the other with a knowledge/information creation and management model which for me is best articulated in Nonaka and Takeuchi's SECI knowledge spiral model. A fun game would be to plot pedagogical technologies on the SECI model (something I had a bash at when I was interviewed for my current job, not realising of course that information and knowledge creation and management is seen firmly as HE core business and therefore not the domain of HE CIO's who are expected merely to attend to the plumbing!)
Perhaps that should be a compulsory exercise for librarians and IT people to do together to get a better insight into where the other is coming from and thereby create a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.
Educause 2009 - Understanding University Libraries
This morning was mostly spent in the first half of a session on libraries - billed as "a primer for CIO's on cutting edge library technology . An area that I badly need to understand better if we are to work more closely with our University library colleagues.
It's interesting, and turning out to be useful, but so far not quite in the way I expected.
Attendees seem to be a mix of librarians, learning technologists, IT people and various HE senior managers responsible for one of or a mix of these areas. The session was kicked off with a debate about IT's perception of the library and vice versa.
It became fairly clear quite quickly that stereotypes are alive and kicking and the debate did not really rise above the level of a polite slanging match. The criticisms of IT were the usual ones that are made by any area of any organisationwith poor capital project governance and an IT function that is not mature and not delivering: too slow, doesn't understand our needs, too busy, never answers the phone, is just there to say No, shouldn't be 'driving the business' (which is how my suggestion that IT can help identify and develop business requirements was interpretted!) - and so on.
At one point the discussion disintegrated into an enthusiastic compare and contrast discussion between librarians about different VLE platforms (along the usual open source v mainstream axle) and proved to be a subject that is clearly close to librarians hearts, at least the ones here. It finally fizzled out in agreement that IT and libraries just needed to work together better. I made the point that UDI is not neccessarily a sensible approach to a poor IT function, but I'm not sure it helped! :-)
We then had a presentation of two or three case studies of the development and implementation of various learning exercises, including an assignment. I was rather perplexed as to what this had to do with 'cutting-edge library technologies' - when the presentation finished we were split into groups to have a go at designing an assignment including thinking about aspects such as addressing the information literacy of the students. I was even more perplexed. Was I in the wrong seminar?
My group included several senior HE managers and we quickly discarded the task and had a useful and very informative discussion (at least for me!) about the function and role of university libraries vis a vie designing assignments or any other pedagogical activity. Light dawned at last!
Librarians over here clearly carry out the same sort of function as our Learning Development Services, including course design and development, learning development of both students and staff, student information literacy, course design, learning technology development and support, information management including support for pretty much all information and knowledge management processes related to any academic or pedagogical information, information quality, even higher level course design and structure. A staggering range of activities - all under the umbrella, I would argue (and did!), of knowledge management
If you take Nonanka and Takeuhci's classic knowledge creation model the Knowledge Spiral or SECI model then everything in the above list is pretty much an activity that supports one or more of the quadrants in the cycle (Socialising, Externalising, Combining or Internalising) - ie: supporting the flow of knowledge back and forth between tacit and explicit and the combination of different elements of knowledge together as part of that flow to create new knowledge - or new learning. I seem to remember this theory being positioned, when I studied it, as critical to the learning process.
Anyway - in our group we discussed this (sort of) as well as the impact of the nature of the institution on course design and the purpose of learning development etc, and impact of different academic governance structures of lack of them etc - and much more informative and interesting stuff besides.
Key learning for me from this morning: There are a whole host of knowledge management activities that are called various things in HE (... course design and development, learning development, information literacy, course design, ... etc see above) and the debate seems to focus around who should do them and who is responsible for them as they are variously spread across Faculty, Library, IT, Learning technologists, learning development etc, depending on the individual HEI, though there are some trends.
Who should do them seems a bit of a sterile debate to me. What I'm interested in is how do HEI's do them and how can new technologies help HEI's do them even better!
Maybe we'll get onto that this afternoon .....
It's interesting, and turning out to be useful, but so far not quite in the way I expected.
Attendees seem to be a mix of librarians, learning technologists, IT people and various HE senior managers responsible for one of or a mix of these areas. The session was kicked off with a debate about IT's perception of the library and vice versa.
It became fairly clear quite quickly that stereotypes are alive and kicking and the debate did not really rise above the level of a polite slanging match. The criticisms of IT were the usual ones that are made by any area of any organisationwith poor capital project governance and an IT function that is not mature and not delivering: too slow, doesn't understand our needs, too busy, never answers the phone, is just there to say No, shouldn't be 'driving the business' (which is how my suggestion that IT can help identify and develop business requirements was interpretted!) - and so on.
At one point the discussion disintegrated into an enthusiastic compare and contrast discussion between librarians about different VLE platforms (along the usual open source v mainstream axle) and proved to be a subject that is clearly close to librarians hearts, at least the ones here. It finally fizzled out in agreement that IT and libraries just needed to work together better. I made the point that UDI is not neccessarily a sensible approach to a poor IT function, but I'm not sure it helped! :-)
We then had a presentation of two or three case studies of the development and implementation of various learning exercises, including an assignment. I was rather perplexed as to what this had to do with 'cutting-edge library technologies' - when the presentation finished we were split into groups to have a go at designing an assignment including thinking about aspects such as addressing the information literacy of the students. I was even more perplexed. Was I in the wrong seminar?
My group included several senior HE managers and we quickly discarded the task and had a useful and very informative discussion (at least for me!) about the function and role of university libraries vis a vie designing assignments or any other pedagogical activity. Light dawned at last!
Librarians over here clearly carry out the same sort of function as our Learning Development Services, including course design and development, learning development of both students and staff, student information literacy, course design, learning technology development and support, information management including support for pretty much all information and knowledge management processes related to any academic or pedagogical information, information quality, even higher level course design and structure. A staggering range of activities - all under the umbrella, I would argue (and did!), of knowledge management
If you take Nonanka and Takeuhci's classic knowledge creation model the Knowledge Spiral or SECI model then everything in the above list is pretty much an activity that supports one or more of the quadrants in the cycle (Socialising, Externalising, Combining or Internalising) - ie: supporting the flow of knowledge back and forth between tacit and explicit and the combination of different elements of knowledge together as part of that flow to create new knowledge - or new learning. I seem to remember this theory being positioned, when I studied it, as critical to the learning process.
Anyway - in our group we discussed this (sort of) as well as the impact of the nature of the institution on course design and the purpose of learning development etc, and impact of different academic governance structures of lack of them etc - and much more informative and interesting stuff besides.
Key learning for me from this morning: There are a whole host of knowledge management activities that are called various things in HE (... course design and development, learning development, information literacy, course design, ... etc see above) and the debate seems to focus around who should do them and who is responsible for them as they are variously spread across Faculty, Library, IT, Learning technologists, learning development etc, depending on the individual HEI, though there are some trends.
Who should do them seems a bit of a sterile debate to me. What I'm interested in is how do HEI's do them and how can new technologies help HEI's do them even better!
Maybe we'll get onto that this afternoon .....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)