Manage To Change

SIIA: New Rules for Licensing, Building & Aggregating Information

Earlier in the spring, while attending the Software and Information Industry Association (SIIA) NetGain conference, I was asked to answer a question as part of a series for the SIIA Content Division. 

As the result of sheer coincidence, Chris Anderson was a keynote at the conference and was also asked the same question.

Several people were interviewed and the SIIA has posted all of the interviews as well as all of the sessions from NetGain.

The question?

What are the new rules for licensing, building and aggregating information?

Chris' answer was brief and pointed to Freemium as the new model.

My answer was a little longer and is included here just for fun!

Boring Technology & Convening Supporters

Kent Anderson from the Scholarly Kitchen linked to this Clay Shirky video filmed at the State Department by TED.

It's 17:03 minutes of insight!

"What matters here isn't technological capital, it's social capital.  These tools don't get socially interesting until they get technologically boring...when everybody is able to take them for granted."

"They had understood that their role with my.barackobama.com was to convene their supporters, but not to control their supporters."

Online Education: Tastes Great or Less Filling?

Whether to provide a more vibrant and relevant educational experience or to save money on text books, it looks like online education is making some headway. 

Connecticut District Tosses Algebra Textbooks and Goes Online, that's what I read last week in the New York Times .  Connecticut teachers were frustrated by rushing students "through their Algebra I textbooks only to spend the first few months of Algebra II relearning everything they forgot or failed to grasp the first time."

They rewrote the curriculum to focus on fewer topics at greater depth in Algebra I, thus better preparing students for the more advanced concepts and eliminating much of the review time in Algebra II (which could now be spent learning concepts that were cut from Algebra I).

The results?

"...school officials say their less-is-more approach has already resulted in less review in math classes, higher standardized test scores and more students taking advanced math classes."

The costs?

...they spent about $70,000 to develop the new math curriculum...[and] the district will soon save at least $25,000 a year on textbooks.

That's interesting.

Not only did they seem to come up with a more effective approach to learning, but they're going to save money.

Two days ago, BBC News published the article, Online Push in California Schools.

"From the beginning of the next school year in August, math and science students in California's high schools will have access to online texts that have passed an academic standards review."

Questioning the true motivation for the change, the BBC News article noted that "Last year California spent $350m on textbooks and can no longer afford it."

Today David Worlock, Chief Research Fellow at Outsell, published The Online Cost of Education is "Cheaper" (Insights subscription required).

As David observes, "School infrastructure in the developed world has now reached the point where the implementation of a fully digital curriculum is very possible...even if the real underlying reasons have more to do with budget cuts than education." 

Could technological advances, changing learning habits, the growing irrelevance of current curriculum, and financial woes finally add up to a wholesale movement of education toward more online learning options?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Schwarzenegger's book ban hits Pearson (telegraph.co.uk)

Publishing, Nautilus, and Networks

Image by mindseyeimagery via Flickr

The other day I got a LinkedIn group alert from Andrew Spong linking to an article in The Journal of Electronic Publishing entitled Open Access 2.0: Access to Scholarly Publications Moves to a New Phase, by Joseph J. Esposito.

His "Nautilus Model of Scholarly Communications" was a brilliant way to provide a foundation for discussion.  The model is illustrated in the article cited above, but he introduced it in Open Access 2.0 published in The Scientist.

At the "innermost spiral of the shell of a nautilus, where a particular researcher wishes to communicate with a handful of intimates and researchers working in precisely the same area" is where he proposes Open Access is most viable.   He goes on to posit that at "each step away from the center, the role of the publisher grows and the merits of open access diminish."

At the core of the model is the degree to which the participants in the particular ring of the spiral are known to each other.  At the center, they know each other quite well.  As we move out, they do not and "...the publisher's brand is a form of insurance" to the consumer, insurance against wasting time (and, potentially, money).  

Thinking about the widening rings of the nautilus shell as decreasing degrees of familiarity, it seems as though this model is useful to consider more broadly.

• What kinds of products are valuable to [small] networks whose members are very familiar with one another?
• What kinds of products are valuable to networks whose members are NOT familiar with one another?
• What kinds of supporting services are needed in each type of network?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Framing the Open Access Debate (scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org)

The Evolution of Content

Take a look at this video created by Mark Logic.

It's a fabulous summary of where we've been and the challenges and opportunities facing us in media and publishing.

Look out Rosetta, I’m Hooked on LiveMocha!

I’ve wanted to learn Spanish most of my life, but I’ve never gotten passed a couple of classes in high school and college.

I tried again a few years ago.  Even after spending a few hundred dollars on Rosetta Stone, I stopped using it after a couple of weeks.

That’s about to change thanks to LiveMocha, a social networking site focused on language learning. 

LiveMocha offers me something I was missing, community.  

 

Taking Lessons
Every lesson has four required sections (Learn, Review, Write, Speak) and optional exercises.

The software grades the Learn and Review sections and the optional exercises. The community evaluates the Write and Speak sections.

 

Feedback
One of the most satisfying features of Live Mocha is helping others in the community learn English.  Reviewing submissions is addictive!

In offering feedback, members of the community can type comments and record responses.  The recorded responses are terrific.  They allow the learner to hear the nuances of native pronunciation and sentence formation, much like what we’d hear in a public setting.

As you review exercises and others review your submissions, you start build your personal network. 

I’ve found myself committed to certain connections.  As soon as I see an email (delivered both to my LiveMocha and external email inboxes), I attempt to offer feedback as soon as possible. 

Why It Might Work

• A human connection.
• A large and growing community.  Even without connections, submissions are reviewed relatively quickly.
• Mutual benefit.  Many of my connections are native Spanish speakers learning English. 
• Notifications to external email. Having emails delivered to my inbox has helped me stay engaged.  This is especially true because the emails are from people that need their work reviewed, not marketing copy from a faceless company.
• Free and paid options. There are tutors, exportable content, and other options available to premium subscribers.

It's been almost four weeks now. 

I may not be as far as I’d like, but I’m still engaged.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Livemocha and Pearson Announce Partnership for Online Language Learning (personanondata.blogspot.com)

Communication is Key

We hear it all the time.

Without effective communication every interpersonal relationship, every goal, every strategy, every organization, is at risk.

Misunderstandings, poor morale, and ineffective relationships rooted in poor communication are commonplace.

Effective communication is hard.  It can be uncomfortable.  It can make people angry with you.

But, it's the only way to solve problems.

When times are difficult and emotions are running high, how can we be sure we're communicating effectively (and respectfully)?

It's time to get back to basics. 

Listen to what others are saying.  Adjust your style to try and connect with them effectively where they are. 

Don't think it's the other person's job to communicate with you no matter where you are on the organizational chart.

Remove yourself emotionally from difficult conversations, at first.  Listen. Ask questions. Stick to the cold, hard facts when assessing a situation. 

However, when it comes time to implement a decision it's time to let emotions back into the picture.  

If you find that a conversation or a topic is annoying you in some way, get another person's perspective.

Effective communication is like exercise.  We all know how to do it.  We all know that we should do it. Yet it's often neglected.

Are We Strangling Innovation or Strengthening It?

Lately, the economy is all we hear about in the news.  It seems as though there are constantly more layoffs, more programs being cut, and more industries asking for help from the government.

When so many individuals, companies, and industries are worried about their survival, what happens to innovation?

Is opportunity a side effect of our pitiful economy? 

Some might argue, as Guy Kawasaki did in 2006, that limited resources aren't the worst thing that could happen to an entrepreneur.

What are your thoughts?

Communication: Know What You Know

Image by maveric2003 via Flickr

Not everyone in a company hears the same thing at the same time.

Everyone hasn’t gone to the same meetings, had the same hallway conversations, seen the same PowerPoint decks, read the same emails, or had the same amount of time to digest the information.

This impacts change initiatives, including “restructuring efforts”, in several ways.

We can’t expect people to understand actions for which they have no context.

We can’t get frustrated when someone asks us questions about something we feel pressured to accomplish quickly.  We certainly can't get defensive.

We can’t keep information about changes from the people they impact and then expect them to jump off a cliff with us with confidence in the depth of the waters below - especially when, if we're honest, we don't know how deep they are either.

Times are tough and there are difficult decisions to be made, but people can support decisions they understand, and to which they've had some input, even when they don't like them.

When you've been included early in the communication chain, and understand the context of the message, it’s hard to be patient with those just hearing about it.

What can we do?

Include people at different stages of the thought process to properly assess the impact of the change, worry about accuracy more than secrecy.

When it comes time to spread the word more broadly, take a deep breath and remember the thought that went into defining the action. 

Remember what you know and the process your team went through to come the decision, and try to give your colleagues, audience, staff, the context they need to understand the change in front of them.

Innovation, Change, and Talent

Florence Foster Jenkins

Florence Foster Jenkins was a singer in the early 1900's who "became famous for her complete lack of rhythm, pitch, tone, and overall singing ability."

What's interesting about Florence, is that she seemed to have no clue that she had no talent.

Florence makes me wonder.

It's easy to listen to her and know she can't sing.  But why didn't she hear that herself?  Was she physically unable (tone deaf, perhaps)?  Was she psychologically unable?

Or, did she know she was "different" and consider herself innovative or ground breaking?

Another case in point, The Shaggs.

"There's an innocence to these songs and their performances that's both charming and unsettling. Hacked-at drumbeats, whacked-around chords, songs that seem to have little or no meter to them ... being played on out-of-tune, pawn-shop-quality guitars all converge, creating dissonance and beauty, chaos and tranquility, causing any listener coming to this music to rearrange any pre-existing notions about the relationships between talent, originality, and ability. There is no album you might own that sounds remotely like this one." (Review of Philosophy of Life written by Cub Koda on allmusic.com)

Who ultimately decides what's innovative and what's just plain bad?

(Full disclosure, I kind of like The Shaggs.)