US Universities making software for themselves

I mentioned in earlier blogs the ability of universities to manage their own software environments, from administration of services to full software development. This may seem like pie in the sky to most commentators but the reality is quite different. We are aware of open source content management systems and learning environments (e.g.Joomla, Sakai); but what about software than assists on the operational side of things? Check out this web site for a project with solid Ivy League backing http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/07/06/kuali. Big university names working together to build university software solutions that are open source and therefore adaptable to individual universities. This is an excellent concept and something universities around the world should benefit from in the future.

Lancaster Centre for e-Science now on Twitter

Follow the Lancaster Centre for e-Science on Twitter. You can find us at http://twitter.com/Lancs_eScience.

The Lancaster Centre for e-Science is working with the Northwest Regional Development Agency LEAD project that aims to provide leadership training to owners of small businesses in the region. The LEAD programme has been very successful (see http://www.businesslinknw.co.uk/Beagoodleader/LEAD/Pages/default.aspx) and was originally conceived by the Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development (IEED) at Lancaster University Management School to provide owners an opportunity to meet other business owners in a mix of seminar and online interactions. Research on past participants on the programme indicates that those which participate are likely to increase sales turnover by approximately 15%; participants also highlight this additional growth is significantly influenced by their learnings during LEAD . Over the coming 3 years the programme, across 15 institutions in the region, will impact around 1250 business owners hopefully yielding sizable increases in north west economic growth.

The question to pose at this stage is how can we keep busy business people online once their LEAD programmes complete? It would be incredibly useful to have a large, easily accessible group of business people. For instance, at the beginning of the recession information on the impact of the recession at the small business level was scarce. Typically, knowledge of impacts has to wait until the dust settles and aggregate statistics come out of the Office of National Statistics. If we engage with business people electronically, in a trust based environment it could provide us real-time information on events. The Sakai portal technology we produce and provide as a service has capabilities as a e-community building device. It contains the usual tools, probably the most popular are forums. e-Facilitators (people that maintain electronic communication) are able to develop trust in in their LEAD communities allowing them to ask fairly confidential information to delegates. Responses to trusted e-facilitators are usually rapid and from multiple sources. Responses form very useful qualitative insights into problems. Additionally to forums, delegates are highly likely to response to online surveys that can be posted via the portal. For instance, we gather survey data from delegates as part of the evaluation of the programme; we have no problem getting to 100% response rates which is incredibly high. The evidence does suggest a high value should be placed in developing and maintaining groups of business owners online.

Collaborative Research in Business

Research has begun that evaluates the knowledge exchange interface between public sector and enterprise. The project, funded by JISC, evaluates how varieties of staff at universities communicate with business people as part of their job. The final ambition of the survey looks at how web based technologies can be used to improve 2-way knowledge exchange between these groups. Based on the Sakai portal framework, we will embed semantic search tools that will allow people to search for documentation and other people within a secure cloud environment. Importantly, once people have found what they are looking for, it will provide them the ability to link up with people using secure worksites allowing easy access to communication tools and information.

To begin the process we are currently surveying all university staff at Lancaster University that communicate with business in any way (e.g. consultancy, advice, research, teaching, student projects). Want to participate in the survey or want to learn more about the research? Click on the following link or cut and paste it into your browser to take part.


http://www.ictresearch.org/crib/crib.htm

When innovation stalls.....

Software evolves at an alarming rate; canny providers add functionality without changing users work practice excessively. What do I mean by this? Up until very recently, most word processors looked very similar. Most had similar rows of buttons, in the same place, that do the same thing. Then...enter Microsoft Office 2007! I produce documents approximately 50% of my work time. I began word processing about 14 years ago and have become very used to the familiar layout of the Office tool. Now I find that I need to re-learn how to use the Office tools that I once took for granted. Since a recent upgrade to Office 2007 my productive rate has almost halved due to the process of having to re-learn adding/making diagrams, finding hidden components that were once visible and updating diagrams that no longer work in the new format. Is it acceptable for large scale organisations (i.e. Microsoft) for force changes in practice in this way? We have undergone a change in work practice without consultation and without discussion of the implication of the change. We now live in a world where we fully understand that the free market can and does fail consumers (i.e. the credit crunch). As it presently stands organisations like Microsoft have full veto to produce software as they see fit based on (presumably) their market research findings. What this implies is that software is less likely to be focused around 'the need', more likely around the 'profit'. I make the assumption that Microsoft felt the need to differentiate its product in a remarkable way. Office 2003, looks like OpenOffice (a free opensource office package) which in turn looks like Google Docs. For businesses the central need is to maintain profitability; this isn’t fundamentally wrong but in key economic areas it is questionable whether we want ‘for profit’ agencies to have full control of developmental resources. The question I raise is whether these changes in practice are acceptable, and whether greater central control would be beneficial for key computer technologies like operating systems and productive software like word processors. Surely, change would then come about because it is needed rather than to maintain profitability for private shareholders? After all, there doesn't appear to be much new functionality in Office 2007. This concept probably sounds very left wing, but it isn't for this reason. At the Lancaster Centre for e-Science, and it is the same for many software producing academic departments around the world, our ideas are vetted centrally via a peer review process that assesses the need for the ideas we propose. Initially we have an idea, say, to produce a new software tool based on a perceived need. We gather support from potentially interested organisations then form a consortium that would form the project team should the funding be awarded. We gain support from local organisations (e.g. regional agencies, business etc) then submit the bid to a central government funding agency. It is then reviewed anonymously by experts in the field. If they see that our argument contains flaws, or that the work is not sufficiently novel (e.g. new look, not new functionality), then they would reasonably reject our proposal. This process is not perfect but it works reasonably well. Surely we now understand the absolute need of computers in our society sufficiently NOT to let major players force technologies upon us that really don't do anything more than earlier versions yet change work practice significantly? For example, would the review process I highlight have allowed Microsoft to launch the Vista operating system as early as it did? Microsoft, by its own admission, launched a product that didn't do much more than XP, yet, it required new machines to be purchased as it was terribly memory hungry; a clear cost to society. Maybe I am wrong! Maybe this process we observe is that of the incumbent firm finally entering the final phase of its ultimate demise. As Rome and IBM fell from their respective pedestals’ surely will Microsoft. Maybe this is the process that will allow newer, absolutely novel approaches in computing to take over (Schumpeterian logic?). It would be crucial therefore, not to embrace Microsoft too tightly, and seek something a little more innovative. If Microsoft’s innovation cycle is almost finished, surely those that use its technologies will be less able to innovate also.

Synchronous communication in e-Research

A day of navel gazing, that is blog writing, helps reflection on specific issues of the day. My earlier blogs have explored the necessity of bringing together e-learning and e-research under one roof. The reason for this is quite clear. The process of learning and research are not that different as its all about discovery, hence software tools required to conduct these activities are likely to be similar, to a point at least. This week saw members of the Lancaster Centre for e-Science revisiting a tool set that we created some years back but due to funding constraints, was placed on the back burner. Agora (see http://agora.lancs.ac.uk) brings synchronous, or real-time, communication into the Sakai collaboration and learning environment. As with most virtual research environments (uPortal, Sakai) or learning environments (Sakai, Moodle) communication occurs in text format via forums, chat rooms or announcements. Agora brings voice, video and real time data share into the equation by providing researchers and learners access to cloud based web conferencing. This technology is about 12 months away from deployment within the Sakai portal and should unleash a new level of learning/research ability. All users need to access this technology is a web connected computer, microphone and web cam, and the web cam is optional for pure VoIP communication. As with all of our technology, no software needs to be installed on the computer itself. The question we are now focusing on is what functionality, based around the Agora tool set, should now be developed? Lancaster e-Science has a sizable user base, and this resource is used to guide technology development. To understand user needs we regularly poll our user base on what the technology should do from their perspective. For instance, we developed a new Sakai forum tool, and its creator (Adrian Fish) regularly meets with users to look at extensions to its functionality; this way of working has been very successful. Our position is that too much 'navel gazing' fails to meet the need of users. Developers, and this is not a criticism as it's the way keen minded individuals work, will always produce what they see as a need yet the final user, with much lower ICT knowledge may need a complete redesign of the final tool if they are to use it successfully. To overcome this issue, my role is to formally evaluate the interface of the technology in various situations (e.g. the business/university interface) and how it should be developed to enhance knowledge exchange activities based on user evaluations. We are now starting a project to look at the Agora web conferencing facility in this way. Yesterday, I met with people at the Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development (IEED). This organisation conducts research on enterprise development and provides courses to enterprise and business professionals to enhance business activity (Google LEAD Programme Lancaster). Impacting around 1300 enterprises it faces a very typical problem, how to engage with enterprise and maintain 2 way communication (i.e. the interface)? The IEED uses the Sakai portal to leverage communication. I asked how valuable would the web conferencing tool be in this environment? The response was fairly clear, in a world where green issues are becoming 'the issue' web conferencing is a natural next step; particularly so if integrated into an existing framework (i.e. Sakai). Now that the Agora web tool exists, it can be regenerated for different uses. For example, would it be useful to have a video blog? A tool where you can record a 2 minute snippet of footage via your webcam, it is then automatically stored online and published as you need. It isn't a major step for the Agora tool to be redeveloped in this way. And what of additional functionality? Hmmm.... we have plans but you'll need to keep and eye on us for the results of the research.

The dangers of Web 2.0 for business?

It is hardly surprising that many businesses struggle to make effective use of the internet. The article on the beeb about the World Economic Forum below highlights some key aspects of their inability to do so.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/davos/7861090.stm

I'm not certain using Web 2.0 technologies is really the right platform for, say, strategic business planning or idea generation and I hope this isn't what Davos people describe as 'businesses struggling with the web'. It is far too easy to have critical secrets whizzing about strangers screens in an uncontrolled way. I understand from Wikinomics that this is "a" new way forward (i.e. social networking for business activity), but it seems to me to be far too chaotic to be healthy as long term and secure business activity. Sure, to have an online place for customers to discuss products is a good thing (BT are quite advanced in this respect). If managed correctly it becomes a source of nearly free market research. BUT in the more chaotic WWW, what if an organisation becomes a target of subversive activity? Much like a denial of service limits connectivity of customers to a firms website, the targeted provision of mis-information could be just as damaging. I have no evidence of this occuring presently, but I can vision it happening.