Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Agility


While Agility was originally based in software and application development, it is beginning to find its way out in many different directions including higher education. One of the primary examples has been SUNY Delhi who in applying agility to its IT practices can document $425,000 in cost savings to 30 projects that used an agile methodology--the CIO who designed the system is an ESC graduate student. (Educause 2010). In an Educause statement on agility, they note: “Universities need tools to be able to respond quickly to emerging needs and challenges. In this environment, agile may be precisely the kind of approach that is needed to unlock the solutions that will lead to progress—faster, with more flexibility, with improved collaboration, and at less cost.   One can also argue that the agile ethos is well matched for a world in which change is a constant and the pace of change seems to be accelerating. Agile's principles and processes may well be suited for this era of higher education, in which institutions are being asked to do more, faster, with less.” (2010)

The agile ethos, as the name applies, also places a great value on speed—an ideal which higher education seems averse to.  There is a belief that slow equals quality.[1]

In a similar vein, Anderson, Augustine, Avery, Cockburn, Cohn, DeCarlo, Fitzgerald, Highsmith, Jepsen, Lindstrom, Little, McDonald, Pixton, Smith, and Wysocki (2005) published a text called “The Declaration of Independence” in which they as project leaders claim that agility provided many benefits which could also benefit higher education, and their applications reach to post-secondary as well. They claim that agility leads to a constant stream of value; when too much emphasis is placed on the planning stage, value is lost at that front end. Second, agility delivers reliable results because the customers, in higher education's case, students and other stake-holders, are engaged in frequent interactions. If a new degree program spends two years being planned and approved, delaying the offering, students have no opportunity to have feedback; nor do faculty have the opportunity to better their courses or continue in their own lifelong learning through interaction with their students. Third, those who subscribe to agility expect uncertainty and are prepared to make the necessary changes. As the half-life of knowledge continues to accelerate downward and the world in which our students live continues to change, all programs and courses of study need to be able to evolve. Likewise, we as an institution also exist in a budgetary, regulatory, and economic environment in constant flux. As a result, an institution must be agile not only for itself but to benefit its students. Fourth, Anderson, et al., note: “We unleash creativity and innovation by recognizing that individuals are the ultimate source of value, and creating an environment where they can make a difference.” An agile graduate school supports its faculty in their endeavors and allows them the flexibility to better meet the needs of their students and to develop their own academic careers. Fifth, performance is boosted through group accountability; an agile organization quickly establishes teams and think tanks to complete tasks and to conceive new ones. It shuns committees as committees are designed to maintain a status quo (Clougherty 2007); in a rapidly changing world, status quo and change are no longer binary antitheses; the reply to such a statement need be “which status quo?” Finally, they argue that agility improves effectiveness and reliability. because each action can be adapted to meet specific needs and requires specific strategies and practices; more effective work can be done than an environment that assumes all should be followed equally.

In an environment which is open and agile work environment, all individuals have not only the right it participate, but the responsibility to. Julie Greenwald, Chairwoman and Chief Operating Officer of the Atlantic Records Group noted in an interview with the New York Times: “ I constantly talk about how we have to be vulnerable, and that it's not fair for some people in meetings to just sit or stand along he wall and not participate. If you're not going to participate, then that means you're just sponging off the rest of us” (Bryant 2011).

As an open university is decentralized into what John Kao calls a “decentralized cyber-nervous system” (node theory?) it depends on each node being active and participatory. Like the synapses of the brain, the strength of the brain/network comes not from the connections, but from their use. Thus, active participation of all is required.

This activity, however, must also generate results.  Dave Rodenbaugh (2010) summarizes Daniel Pink’s 2009 TED presentation when he notes that the “results-oriented work environment (ROWE)…focuses on three important ideas, which developers already love and embrace: autonomy, mastery, and purpose.” (apply Wergin)  In defining mastery, Rodenbaugh defines it as where the individual “wants to get better at what they do.”


[1] Of course, Sun Tzu, in The Art of War (II.5) notes that “cleverness has never been associated with long delays.” (2003).

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Crowd Accelerated Innovation (CAI)


One of the great advantages of open resources and public learning spaces is that it not only serves as an end point, but it also serves as a starting point.  The learning not only builds, but it builds quickly at a pace which accelerates over time.  This fits into a model of Crowd Accelerated Innovation.  Chris Anderson (2011), TED coordinator, introduced the concept of Crowd Accelerated Innovation (innovation which is sped up by community sharing), and notes how the use of internet video leads to an instantaneous sharing of best practice, ranging from dance companies to TED presentations. All innovation, according to Anderson, is the result of ideas being spawned from the ideas of others; he notes: “Crowd Accelerated Innovation isn't new. In one sense, it's the only kind of innovation there's ever been. What is new is that the Internet—and specifically online video—has cranked it up to a spectacular degree” (115).  Anderson argues that there are three factors which effect Crowd Accelerated Innovation: Crowd, Light, and Desire. These same factors, as Anderson defines them, all fit within the model of Active Learning, and they are homologous with the practices of an Open University.

A crowd, according to Anderson is simply a community; in the instance of an Open University, the learners—faculty, students, alumni, partners—form this community. In a broader sense, it is what Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002) define as a community of practice: “groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis.[1]”  In short, what every class and learning community should be. 

Light is the visibility of the learning product where innovation can occur. In an Open University (similar to the references of Open Science), the public sharing of knowledge contributes to innovation and the advancement of the knowledge base within public discourse. The use of Open Educational Resources (as most Internet video is) and repositories (where a crowd can contribute) are major factors in light, and this same light, conversely, benefits the Open University as people know to turn to that University as a source of knowledge and innovation. The desire is that of recognition, as with any form of open learning or open source work, an individual seeks the opportunity to put their name forward to the innovation. This is true of any university and its community. The difference with an Open University is that it achieves these goals by being open rather than closed. The key to success of an Open University is participation, and participation is the key to success in an Open University.  The great model of openness has always been the development of Linux—the ultimate model not only of CAI, but of openness, agility, and all of the best practices which an open university seeks to emphasize.  The development of crowds also contributes to the institutions growth and evolution.  As Howard Gardner notes in 5 Minds of the Future (2008), the “wisdom of crowds” becomes a great source of creativity.

The desire is quite simply the motivation for entering a learning environment in the first place.

Crowd sourcing does, undoubtedly threaten the nature of traditional higher education.  As Cathy Davidson (2011) notes: “the fundamental principle of crowd sourcing is that difference and diversity—not expertise and uniformity—solve problems.”  In short, as she notes later in her work: “…the crowd is smarter than any individual.” 


[1] For an extended and brilliant discussion and definition of this concept, please see Wenger, McDermott and Snyder, pp.4-5.  While I would certainly hope you would read the entire book, if for some reason you cannot, these two pages are a MUST.