The Professor's Notes

The connectedness of… a newly selected nominee to the US Supreme Court, the abortion issue… Arizona immigration law… and a Pennsylvania tax amnesty commercial?

Privacy.  PRIVACY.  The RIGHT to PRIVACY.  Do you believe we should have a right to privacy?  Should we expect that our government will allow us to live our lives without surveillance, free from the need to check, to constantly look over our shoulders to see who from the government is watching?

As always the world is full of events occupying our time and driving the news.  And, as is usually the case, each story is presented in isolation.  Rarely does anyone discuss the connectedness of the stories or their implications.  Often, that means little, but occasionally the disconnectedness points to the dissonance in government when agencies pursue their agendas.  Once in a while the opportunity arises from this to view the conflict in “generalizable principles” that drive our government’s behavior. Read the rest of this entry »

As you may know, I am looking forward to the day when our “textbooks” will be digital and students can purchase them at a fraction of what they pay now.  Of course, additional savings would be physical (lighter books–in one reader) and the “Green” impact of removing all the wastes and costs of production and delivery.

One author, however, worries that if we view the iPad as the path that Apple would rise up and exert censorship over the content, giving us the Jobs view of the world (much as many criticize Disney for giving us Walt’s sanitized view of how the world is.)  I could see  Apple doing that not only to sanitize content, but also to further whatever political agendas they may have given their apparent arbitrary, capricious and vindictive approaches to what is and isn’t approved.  (political in this sense in the larger meaning, not simply political as in government affairs.)

I mentioned this is an email, and in reply, I was told that we shouldn’t worry about that.  That Apple has demonstrated a willingness to not interfere in educational issues as shown through iTunesU and that Apple would probably never get enough market share for that to happen.

Perhaps.  But that led me to ponder further what really would it take to get digital texts  (or as my brother calls them “educational applications” to move from obscurity to ubiquity–and will proprietary get in the way?

First I wanted to address the interesting  notion that  iTunesU is the model of an Open Apple.  That might be true, but the textbook/educational applications that we are seeing discussed are positioned to be sold through the AppStore model, and  the App Store is a model of a closed Apple.  At times, a VERY closed Apple.   Recently we have seeen Apple exerting control not only on content but the tools to be used in developing that content.But let’s set aside for a moment the problems of if Apple were to control the market, and look at what it would take to get there.
Perhaps my correspondent is correct that Apple cannot garner enough market share to make them (and their iPad) a viable contender and competitor in the textbook space, but then we are left wondering:

• If Apple doesn’t control a significant share of the textbook “space” then what are the options for students?
• What incentive will students have to drop $500+ on a device that only a small fraction of faculty will have as the platform for their texts/instructional materials?

Will Apple work towards open standards so that the books/media will be able to be hosted on a wide range of platforms, or will Apple insist on a proprietary standard, working towards exclusivity for the instructional material they “host” on their platform.  This isn’t simply a red herring tossed out to direct attention from some “Greater Good.”  The fact is that right now students are able to choose from a variety of sources to purchase their texts (and thus a wide range of service/price combinations) and even between new and used books.  Faculty can choose between various textbook publishers/providers, which allows the professor to not only choose the best content, but the best value package for the students.

All that can disappear if one source controls the access to the media, and if there exist competing exclusive and proprietary sources for access to media, then students will be required to purchase not one, but several expensive readers/devices depending on the choices of the faculty member.  Or, alternatively the faculty will be hamstrung, “encouraged” by students or administration to only focus on those source-materials available and the dominant device.

So here we go–what is the decision making process that leads a faculty member to assign a “multi-media resource” as the course “text” rather than a regular textbook? What do you when the students are told that for my ONE class the book is no longer that big expense at $100-200 but rather the iPad becomes the big expense–costing 2-5 times that amount. AND there is no guarantee that any other faculty members will commit to a similar path? And of course the publishers don’t want to reduce the price of the “text” below 50% of the current price AND don’t want to make the “book” available permanently. And don’t forget, most technology has a life of 2-3 years when used regularly. Heavy use, along with ever increasing complexity of the applications/software, may well shorten the lifespan of the product that students must purchase, shifting them from a 1 time outlay to 2, or 3 times in the span of a college career–assuming of course that enough faculty adopt these “books” to make it worth their while.

At a time when the pressures from students AND the federal government is to lower the costs of education (and specifically texts) what professor wants to be the one to step up and insist that students get a high priced device that is designed for obsolescence?

So we are faced with an interesting challenge.  At a time when technology is holding out such promise we find at least one company who has the technical ability to break down the cost walls while simultaneously catapulting the technology of learning well beyond anything we have experienced.  And we find that the same company is tighting the grips on their “ecosystem” arguing that they can control their own little corner of the world.

This is one of those pivotal moments–we can see proprietary walls go up, and little gardens of creative learning spread slowly.  Or we can encourage open architectures that will enable creativity and learning to spread quickly, and widely.

Ubiquity? Or Proprietary? Which way do you think things will go?

I have written extensively ¹ about the possible move to digital textbooks, and how an aggressive move to lower pricing could work to benefit the publishers and the students.

NOTE:  Please, after reading through here, share your thoughts to my question that I ask at the end of the post. I crave your inputs and your ideas on this topic of great significance to students, and parents, who buy textbooks)

Underlying my view on digital textbooks is the idea that publishing through a digital medium removes the costs of production, shipping, and other supply chain costs, and thus could significantly reduce the costs of the  texts, resulting in the possibility of a substantial reduction in price to the students.  In addition, I argue that by making the textbooks very reasonably priced students would be more likely to simply “buy new” rather than seek out ways to hack the protections and “steal” books.

Unfortunately it seems the publishers are seeking to do everything they can to dissuade students from making the shift to digital books while appearing to be progressive.

Let me explain:

I have a textbook that I use for my Introduction to Supply Chain and Production Operations course.  The text is Operations Management (10th Edition) by Jay Heizer and Barry Render.  According to Amazon, the text lists new for $198.67 but is available through Amazon for 162.98.  Amazon points out that this is a savings of 18%.  ²

So what would you expect the price to be for a digital version?  $30? $50?  $75?

Try $99.35 — and this isn’t a copy you OWN!  You are essentially leasing it (subscribing to it) for 6 months!

Don’t believe me?  Visit the link, and also check the graphic below (click to see larger image.)

This is just one example of the pricing schema.

So let me ask you this:

• Do you believe a 50% discount off the list price is enough to get you to “purchase” a digital 6 month subscription rather than purchase the text?
• What are your thoughts on the subscription idea versus owning an actual copy of the text?
• What would it take to move YOU to a digital textbook?

In my last post, I wrote that I measure the success of technology infusion not in the numbers of students that adopt the technology but in the outcomes that they achieve.  When we are considering technologies that are making resources available to students leveraging tools already available and in their toolbox, then I think we can use these measures, but what if students are faced with the daunting challenge of having to acquire new technology to use a technologically delivered resource?

And what if that resource is required?

I had the privilege to speak with a representative from a textbook publisher about their new technological advance, designed to help students learn better, and even more, help faculty by automating the grading and evaluation process.  At first blush I was convinced we had a win-win here. Read the rest of this entry »

Those that read regularly, or listen to our podcast, will know that I love technology, and that I also spend a good bit of time cogitating on how we can best use technology in higher education. As part of another paper I wrote I proposed three “rules of thumb” to guide us when we infuse technology into education.  Specifically I ask does the technology:

How do we know if it is working?

I have had a simple measure:  Do some (or even any) students use the tools, and when they use them do they feel that they are grasping the material better?

My thought has been that numbers don’t matter as much as outcomes for individuals and if some students find value then these approaches are worth continuing.

What are your thoughts?  Must we have numbers to be considered successful?

OKAY… I talked about this is today’s podcast at http://Getthenext.com. I have been sitting on this for two years now, thinking it wasn’t “ready” but I wanted to get it out, so read on!

=====

Books are wonderful things. Millenia ago, our predecessors shared their histories, and explained the world around them, through an oral tradition, passing stories down from one generation to another. Over time, these stories were written down, essentially “locking” the stories down on paper. Ever since, books have been a way to disseminate information for thousands of years, and with the advent of the printing press, to do so quickly, and broadly. We can partake in the imaginations of a Tolkien, a Lewis, a Shakespeare, or a Plato. We can read the political thoughts of Aristotle, Marx, and Obama, or the theological insights of Paul, Aquinas and Spong. We can even allow our minds to drift as we read romance novels through the ages, or the horror stories from Beowolf, to Frankenstein, to any Stephen King novel. Each book brings new thoughts, new images, and new imaginings.

In the 21st century we have even more ways to disseminate, and enjoy, the works and thoughts of others. Just as the printing press made paper books available to the masses, we have digital ebooks to take dozens of books with us, to read anywhere. We now also have stepped beyond “books on tape” to truly digital audio books that, when combined with personal media players such as the iPod, enable even those who cannot read to enjoy the panoply of thoughts.

If the printing press was the first revolution, sharing ideas with the literate masses, it was limited in the very requirement for literacy. In order to read, one must be able to read. Thus is its limitation it provided the impetus for literacy as more people sought to embrace the ideas made possible through literature.

This latest revolution both extends and hinders the reach of literature. Certainly, if one defines ‘educated’ and ‘literate’ as being exposed to ideas, then we can see how a more informed, and thus more literate, populace will result from such broad access to reading. Read the rest of this entry »

In the last post I wrote about the perversions of incentives that cause the problems in the health care system.  Let me point out that it’s not that we are behaving irrationally.  We are behaving completely rationally–given the situation we face.  It’s that the situation (the “help” we are getting) encourages bad decisions that drive up costs.

So now we face  the BIG PROBLEM.

By shifting to a policy where everyone is now to be insured, we open the floodgates of demand (okay, a bit much. But we certainly will allow millions more in.) Demand for services will increase. So it would make sense that prices would increase to balance out the demand (remember Econ 101, all else equal, in the near term an increase in demand will result in an increase in price. In the long term it should result in an increase in supply, as the market responds to the increased demand for the product).

Will we see prices increase? Not for the consumer–they are capped at the Co-pay. And now we are seeing pressures to not raise prices from the supply side (and the insurance companies will be SHOT if they raise rates significantly).

So what happens now? If prices cannot go up, then demand will remain (unrealisticly) high. Unrealistic in that demand is acting free of the market place.

With demand high, and the inability to increase prices we will see no real “benefit” to more providers entering the marketplace.

More to the point, even if we could see more providers enter the market there are significant barriers to entry. Consider the medical field:

1. Doctors must go through extensive training, and then licensing (not to mention the fact that they never really get it right–so must keep “practicing”)

2. medicines must be approved after rigorous testing, and their labs must be approved, and so forth.

3. Various other licensing and authorizing are in place for therapists, assistants, nurses, and the like.

Supply cannot respond quickly, and with a rising demand and supply unable to keep up, and with no pricing mechanism to regulate the demand we will face:

Shortages of service resulting in long waiting lines/delays.

And how do you deal with shortages? Since the market forces are not allowed to work, we are left with the government stepping in, once again, to fix the mess of it’s own making. They will have to “ration” care.

Sorry–it’s a fact. In every nation that has shifted to “socialized” they have faced shortages, lines and rationing.

It’s not something we can “do better.”

It’s economics.

Writing as an academic, I desperately want to get my hands on (the demand data for) the iPad.  Specifically,  I wonder about the “pre-order” demands that have been placed.

I am not writing this as a “hater” or critic of the iPad.  I just would love to see if the demand spiked on the first day and dropped precipitously, or whether the demand over the 21 days prior to shipping stayed relatively constant, or even ramped up as we approached the 3rd of April.

Here’s what I wonder:  people who are early adopters, and the first to get in line and wait for days for a new product, are by all anecdotal evidence I have heard the ones who pre-order, and pre-ordered on the first day they could.  And in the case of my brother, ordered it as soon as the Apple Store made it available.

If my supposition is true, then the demand for pre-ordered items would have been heavily front-loaded.  Conversely,  I would find it quite interesting if demand for the iPad through pre-ordering had any sort of ramping to the demand pattern.  If the demand was increasing, then the big question of the day would be:  Why?

The next question is are the people who would normally stand in line to get the next “really cool product” the same who would want to pre-order right away (and thus reduce or eliminate lines at the stores) or is the psychology of waiting in line for a “cool new product” palpably different from the psychology of “getting” it?

Anyone have any thoughts or insights into this?

(I am currently teaching a Service Operations Management course for our MBA program, and part of the requirements for the course is for students to blog weekly on service experiences they have had, and relate and assess that experience as it directly relates to the recent chapters covered in class.  In that spirit, I am offering some of my recent service experiences on my blog.)

My wife is an insulin dependent diabetic, and has been using the Medtronic “pump” for several years now.  In addition, she has the “continuous glucose monitoring” (CGM) sensors, that talk with the pump, and allow her to get information far more quickly about changes in her glucose levels.  ¹

As part of that treatment regimen she has to order supplies on a regular basis.  Of course, these supplies are only available from the manufacturer.   Our insurance company picks up the tab for much of the supply cost, and as part of the typical healthcare regimen, we pay our portion of the bill as well.  I typically call  Medtronic, or at least their billing contractor, and make the payment over the phone with a credit card.

In December I called, and quickly dispatched with the task, paying the balance owed on the bill, and writing down the confirmation number.  Then, in January, we received another bill, for the next set of supplies received, and I called back.  This time, they told me I owed for the new supplies, and that I still owed the (now late) payment for the prior supplies.

Here is where things could have gone terribly wrong, with accusations, recriminations, and the like being passed back and forth.  But instead, things went terribly RIGHT. (um… is that possible?)

I dug around, and found my copy of the previous bill, with the confirmation number written on there (in traditional, Air Force “Memo for Record” fashion.  Old habits die hard.)  I read the customer service representative the number, and she looked it up.  And then she gasped! “I was the person who took the payment!”

She immediately sprang into action, verifying that they had, indeed, taken my call on that day, and that I had indeed paid my bill.  She went to her supervisor whom I was told was “as we speak” taking the paperwork to the accounting office to straighten them out.  We then proceeded to take care of the rest of the business, and process the payment for the balance owed.

At the end of the call, I asked if she wouldn’t mind sharing her name with me, just in case I had any other issues.  She was very gracious and agreed to that.

So, Esther, thank you for your gracious and attentive support to your customers.  It is very appreciated!

This post is from my “Archives of Incomplete Thoughts” but I wanted to share them with you all…

I have been pondering for a while the use of the eBooks (and specifically the Kindle) in Academia.  Ever since I considered purchasing my first eReader (the Sony eReader 505) I have found the convenience of having several books at my finger tips, without weighing me down, to be the most obvious benefit.  That said, I believe there are many others, and some which can result in the elusive “win-win” situations for producers and consumers alike.

• Affordability of textbooks
• Desk Reference/Review copies
• Physical size/weight relief
• notetaking and highlighting

Need to rethink old views:

• why see “a page”?
• how do I “flip” through a book?
• what is the focus/purpose of an “illustration”?
• are there other ways to “illustrate”?
• How do we do “citations?”

Challenges:

• How to compare two separated pages (i.e., pages 57, and 106) (side by side?)

Issues I want to see if they have added/changed:

• Highlighting:  does the menu appear next to where I clicked? How is that interface changed?
• can we move/sync highlights/notes between devices?

Have you given much thought to the changes we can see with Digital Textbooks?  What are your thoughts? Please share them in the comments.