The primary and secondary schools systems are selecting a specific device and the books are content to go on that device. In this case, the system purchases the devices and the content and then delivers that to the student. So who is the consumer in this case? Setting aside for the moment the argument that the taxpayer is always the consumer, let’s focus on whether the consumer is the school district or the student. We can all agree that there are many stakeholders in this arrangement: the school board, parents, teachers, students, taxpayers, and I’m sure many others. But when I consider the consumer, I am considering their role in consumer plays in shaping the marketplace. In this case, while the students consumed the content, the school board by virtue of the purse string is the consumer. We can hope they are making wise decisions as they select the best combination of hardware, software, and support infrastructure.

Given this scenario the selection of a specific hardware platform makes sense. As a consumer the school district is selecting an all encompassing solution for all to use. This approach will undoubtedly balance the educational needs with the technological abilities, and of course the fiscal reality is the school board faces. The district will be able to leverage their scarce taxpayer dollars to get the best benefit possible. Are there limitations to this approach? Perhaps. There might be better solutions that only run on a different platform. But those are the tradeoffs one makes when one selects a technological platform on which to base decisions. We must satisfice.

Not consider the higher education model. As professors and students alike start to look towards digital textbooks as a valuable and viable alternative to the costly new-used-new book cycle we find a new challenge. In the old paper based book paradigm each professor selected the content and the medium for delivery of the material for their class. As I wrote previously this whole paradigm the content and the medium are inextricably entwined. Each selection of a book was in and of itself the selection of the ecosystem combining the technology (paper) and the content, and quite frankly the support infrastructure. Digital course content (textbooks) separate those.

In the old paradigm the student as consumer handbook three choices. They could buy the book new, they could buy the book old were used, or quite frankly they could choose not to buy the book. They controlled the purchasing decisions and there were really no other considerations of value for them or their professor since all books were delivered in the same – way as complete units. Now, we have some separation between the content and the media.

So who is the consumer and how does that shape the market? Following the old model the professor will select the textbook and the student will be expected to buy that content. If we allow the old system to continue unchanged the faculty member may continue to select what they feel to be the best possible text for the class without regard to the delivery media they will be forcing upon the student. Of course, they are decision may well be driven by the technology they happen to own and not the technology the students own. A professor with an android tablet may well selected android specific text applications while another faculty member with an iPad may well selects iPad content applications. This becomes especially problematic when faculty are selecting multimedia are rich content that may only work in one operating system and not the other.

Purchasing decisions than shift from the student who controls their own purse strings and now can fall on the faculty member who is on constrained by the fiscal realities their students face. It is quite possible for students to need three separate portable digital devices to support three or more classes. The student, by my definition earlier, is the consumer who must make the purchasing decision but that decision has been taken from them.

Once again, we see the value of interface and interoperability standards that cross the various platform divides. Rather than develop operating system specific applications, textbook publishers should work to ensure that their content can be delivered across the wide spectrum of portable devices available. Certainly Amazon has provided that ability through their multiple instances of the kindle application. If a professor assigns a Kindle book a student can easily select that content to view on nearly any device. With the maturation of HTML5 hopefully we will see more and more experience-based course content available and not tide to specific platforms were operating systems.

This will then returned the student to the role of consumer allowing them to make the decision about which media device best fits their needs and wants, while allowing the faculty member to select the content that they believe best fits their course requirements.

I would love to learn your thoughts on the role of consumer in education, and not just in relation to textbooks but who the consumer really as in both primary and secondary education as well as higher education.

Tweak me @SCMprofessor with your thoughts or share them here.

For centuries our ability to gather content and disseminated wirh tide is not just to the content but to the media and the physical media that was used for delivery. If you wanted to read a book you would buy both the content and the delivery media simultaneously. The words in the paper on which they were printed or written were forever enmeshed. Even in recent decades with books on CD or tape you were still purchasing both the delivery media and the content as an inseparable unit.

We have an opportunity to day with the development of digital content and robust data exchange standards to forever separate the content from the media, or at least that will we use to receive the content. We’re at a crossroads. We can choose to follow the path of standards allowing users to decide on the delivery mechanism they prefer, or we can continue to develop content for delivery in specific devices and tools.

We’re currently entering a world where we have a wide variety of choices for the personal technology we use to access media. For instance, we have both been nearly ubiquitous iPad and now more and more android tablets on the market. We’re also seeing the early stages of windows eight tablets being previewed. If we take a device centric approach content will be developed and delivered as operating system specific applications. This will enable content creators to leverage the unique creative aspects of each of the operating systems and the devices. But it will limit the flexibility of the user and potentially limit the consumer base. Imagine if there is compelling content available for an android, and different yet equally compelling content available on the iPad. If you would like to consume the content available on both devices you’ll have to make an investment in each of the devices. If however the content creator focused on developing inside of existing content delivery standards the user will be free to choose the marriage of device and content that works best for them.

In the early days of conversations about developig media rich textbook on tablets, the discussions centered around the iPad and how to make compelling applications for that device. Once the android operating system began to get traction however the discussion we found devices competing not only for consumer selection but for the ability to consume content. This opens up a whole new avenue for the consumer where they get to choose both the delivery tool and the content that they to consume.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s the content standards movement focused on Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) as a platform and application agnostic means of sharing and transferring content. This then evolved into the heart of the world wide web with the transformation into HTML.  Now, some browser developers added unique features to their implementation of HTML but over time they all seem to have come to the realization that standardized interfaces and interactions are better for all. This has now evolved into HTML5 and the integration of multimedia and interactive content into the markup language.

So here is the call—content creators and publishers need to focus on platform and application agnostic means of delivering their content. If they have a creative and innovative multimedia presentation they wish to provide they would do well to follow the lead of Amazon and other eBook resellers and develop their content for delivery using HTML5.  There are significant benefits to the publisher and content creator to this approach. First, the creators and publishers will not need to develop separate approaches for each and every device available to consumers. They will be able to create once and distribute to many. In addition, by following this open approach to content delivery they will please their consumer by allowing their consumer to choose the tool that works best for them while opening the door to significant increases in sales by offering their content to the widest selection of consumers available.

One final note: there are other benefits as well including the encouragement of design innovation in the devices separate from the need to maintain compatibility with specific applications running an existing hardware and software designs.

Win. Win. Win.

To hear more on this topic, listen to our discussion on the upcoming Episode 97 of Real Tech for Real People.

While perusing Gina Trapani’s blog from Smarterware.org, I saw she too struggles with sharing her varied, yet often inter-related, interests.

She writes:

It’s a tough question to answer, especially when you’re not working on a single thing. Last weekend at Foo Camp I failed miserably at explaining myself and my slash careers and how they all intersect. But at that same conference, I had the pleasure of attending a session by David Eaves, who eloquently explained that his goal is to apply his experience and training in negotiation skills to open source community management. On his site, he published a map of his past, current, and future work, and how those activities all interrelated. Cool!

When I read this I had one of those “DUH!” moments. It’s a brilliantly simple idea.  I like the way it forces some things into reductionism (you have to determine a fixed set of spheres–how many do you REALLY have?).  In addition, this approach can even help one find relationships between work that seemed “intuitively” there, but were never explicitly stated, even to oneself.  And finally, the approach David and Gina have both taken is to show how they are seeking the “greater good” (or a “Better world”) through their work.

The Venn Diagram David Eaves created is below.  To see the one Gina put together about her interests and work, go visit the link (really–you should!)  To see mine…. well, that may take a while longer.

Feel free to share yours here, or just put a link to yours in the comments!

We don’t like PowerPoint and we don’t like presentations.  But as much as we want to blame the tool we find we cannot leave this crutch behind.  Perhaps it is because we do not see it as a tool that assists in our delivering content but rather as a surrogate, a stand-in,  so that we aren’t the ones being observed, but rather it is our slides.  Too often we expect (or are required) to have our presentations “stand alone” or worse “speak for themselves” (I say worse, because when given this mission it rarely actually means including the voice of the presenter, but rather that the written words must contain all the thoughts.)  Yes, we cannot leave the world of wordy slides.

Chris Brogan at the time reminded us of the importance of “big pictures” (real images) that convey the emotion, or the sense of the topic discussed, but that we as the speaker should deliver the content.  He also shared that we should remember that presentations are about the audience and our connecting with the audience.  If we are to connect, we cannot have them getting lost in reading the words (the many, many, often forced to be tiny, words…) on the screen.

Here is another take on just that very thing:

So my question for you is this:  What sort of presentation do you prefer? Do you want all the information laid out before you in verbose slides, ensuring you have all the information at your fingertips for later, or are you instead a person who learns best by listening and asborbing?

Leave your comments, or tweet me @SCMProfessor

I have been assigning blogs for my “Service Operations” class for several years now.  The purpose of the blog is to have the MBA students reflect on a service experience they have recently had and then directly analyze the experience in light of the topics recently covered in the course.  The challenge is quite like the one my brother pointed out–the writing dropped off when they began to feel that no one (least of all, the professor–me) was reading.  My first response was to mandate commenting, similar to what he  mentioned–a sort of stick to the carrot.   Of course, that is difficult to enforce, and leads too often to a quick “nice blog–thanks.” type of analysis.

I have attacked that in four specific ways this semester.

First, I have created a Google Reader bundle which I distributed to the class (and now to you! )  This addresses the issue of me not getting to all of the blogs–I simply work down the full list every week and find some amazing blog entries! In addition, by giving them the bundle, I have directly connected the students with one another and their writings.  That has led to more direct initial engagement. But I suspect that this will not be the “fix” that I hope it to be if there is no way to encourage engagement.

Second, I have used Google Forms to allow students to evaluate their team members’ blogs. I have given them criteria on which to evaluate the blogs of their team-mates, and;

Third, while I treat the responses as confidential information, I share the summary information with the class regularly.  In this way I remind them that others are reading their blogs.  For instance, one of the questions is whether the blog entry covered a positive or a negative service experience.  I used this as a question specifically to encourage a more reasonable balance in the class, since we are more likely to remember (and write about) negative experiences.  As you can see, the balance, at least so far, has shifted to positive experiences. ¹

Finally, I directly reference their blogs in class, asking the author to perhaps lend more backstory, and then weave their narrative and lessons learned into the content of the course.  This works even better when other students are encouraged to share their views on what they took away from reading that blog.

Have any of you found ways to encourage commenting and engagement on blogs? Share it here (seems sort of META doesn’t it?)

Sure, I know some will say “But it’s WIKI… it’s not to be used for academics! It’s not reliable!”  To that I respond–then take the time, as an expert in your field, to clean up what you think is incorrect–it is, after all, editable by us. Make your contribution to the greater good.

Now, the video:

I found the post to be an interesting read but there exists one GLARING problem:  they misuse statistics and probabilities, and reach erroneous (though perhaps accidentally correct) conclusions.

They are acting as if previous numbers/ratios of hardcover to paperback books remain UNCHANGED with the introduction of digital books.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the split has been 77/23 paperback to hardcover. To come in and say that ebooks are 29% which is more than Hardcovers, but not more than the 77% paperback percentage is, well, silly. That would then result in 129% of sales.

Here’s what the author(s) wrote:

“…But then I discovered a business analyst who’d found an even bigger problem with Amazon’s statistic. According to the Nielsen Bookscan service,hardcover books accounted for just 23% of all books sold in the previous year.

So what happens if you ask how many “printed books” Amazon sold, instead of using the smaller number of “hardcover books”? Following the same ratio, Amazon would be selling approximately 334 paperbacks for every 100 hardcover books — or a total of 434 printed books for every 180 ebooks. That would mean over 70% of the books Amazon sells are still printed books — 180 out of 614 — with ebooks accounting for just 29.3% of all the books that Amazon sells.

I do have to insert one quick correction to their comment: the analyst actually wrote that hardcover books account for “23% of total dead-tree book sales”  and that’s important.

Okay, in reality here is what they did:

They read that 23% of all books sold are hardcover. That works out to about 4.3478 books for each percent. They then multiplied that number by 77% to get the magical number of softcover books sold: 334.78 softcover books. They then add those (read: 100%) and compare that to the number of ebooks sold (180).

Hopefully, at this point, the problem is becoming clear: Are ebooks additive–that is, people are buying ebooks above beyond the numbers of hard/soft cover books they always bought? If that is the case, then So while it wouldn’t be 140% it would result in a larger pie, meaning that ebooks went from ZERO to 29% (the number they mention in the post). Not bad for eBooks. If only every new “business model” could garner 23% of a market, while not touching the rest.

But I suspect there is a shift here–people are buying either an ebook, or a paper book. Thus the “old school” ratio doesn’t hold true anymore. it’s not 23% hardcover, 77% softcover, and 29% ebooks (note: 129%). The 29% have come from somewhere–most likely eating out of some mix of hard/soft cover sales.

The authors believe (yes, believe) that there is “no evidence” that Amazon is selling more eBooks than printed books. True-they simply argued that they sold more hardcover books. But the evidence they overlooked, through flawed math, tells a very interesting, and different, story.

At least not until now!

Now, if you find a wiki page, or pages, that you would like to read you can now save the page, or pages, as a “book.” On the left hand side of the screen you will see “print/export” as an option. If you click on that, you can enable “book creator” and start adding pages to your “book.”

You can add pages as you find them, and then move them around to get them in the sequence that makes the most sense for you.  In addition, you can create “Chapters” that will help you, and others, understand the structure of your document and provide a sense of direction and flow.

Once you have added pages, sorted them, and added chapter headings you can then save the collection as a “PDF” book, or an Open Document format perfect for editing using the Open Office Writer tool.  I have created a mini-textbook dealing with Supply Chain Management.  I created this so that I could share this information in an accessible and structured way for my students in the Collaborative Supply Chain Management class.

In addition, you can print the collection of “pages” as a real paper book.  Wikipedia makes this possible through PediaPress with prices starting at $7.90.  They explain it this way:

PediaPress offers high-quality printed books based on wiki content and is an official partner of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Clicking the Order book from PediaPress button, will take you to the website of PediaPress. Once there you’ll get a quote for your individual printed book and see a preview how it would look like.

The price depends on the number of pages, starting with US$ 7.90 for books up to 100 pages. 10% of the gross sales price goes to the Wikimedia Foundation.

Books are perfect bound, printed in the dimensions 8.5 inch x 5.5 inch (216 mm x 140 mm) and contain a table of contents, your chapters and articles, licensing information next to an index.

More information on printed books can be found in the FAQ.

One more thing:  If you have a Wikipedia account, and if you have made at  least 10 “contributions” to the Wiki (including additions, changes, deletions or corrections) you can and share your book with others.  Very useful if you want to maintain the “digital, cloud-based” feel of the wiki but provide a guided experience for your friends, or students.

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.

Yesterday President Obama made a rare selection for the Supreme Court choosing someone who has not sat on the bench. ¹  In the past few decades concomitant with the selection of a nominee we have heard the hue and cry from both sides of the abortion debate.  So far there has been little discussion on this issue. ²   The Washington Post today suggests today that part of the silence is due to the economic issues of the past few years, but hints that the lack of a record on the part of Elena Kagan will cause many to dig back through what record there is.  This in itself could be cause for silence.

As the Post points out the issue of concern to many is her views on the “right to privacy.”  Interestingly, this is the “right” that has been cited as the underpinnings of a woman’s right to choose.  Also, interestingly, opponents point out the glaring absence of the “right” to privacy in the constitution. ³

The Washington Post may be correct–this may well be the sleeper issue of the summer. ⁴

So the right to privacy has been a major underpinning of the “pro-choice” movement.  And so far the government has held that there is a “right to privacy.” The question now is–is that a special right, or a general right?  That is, does this “right to privacy exist only for the arguments surrounding and defending abortion, or is it a fundamental right that is applied to everyone in every walk of life, every day?

Think long and hard about this.  What is the heart of the debate concerning immigration in Arizona?  Is it really racism? Or is it about the right to live a private life, without the intrusion of the government into your private life without cause?  After removing the words “Racism” and “racist” from the discussion, the most vocal arguments so far against the new immigration law in Arizona have centered around the stopping of individuals that law enforcement might believe are here illegally based solely on “their perceived ethnic origin.” So the question really is one of privacy.

Now let’s take that next step–the government actually implying that they are using the tools of high-tech espionage to track down citizens–not for terrorism, or murder, or violent crimes, but for failing to pay $4000 in taxes. ⁵  (See the video below)

Of course, we all know that the state of Pennsylvania doesn’t actually use satellite surveillance and listening devices, and gps tracking to monitor their citizens.⁶  It’s just a commercial. It’s not meant to REALLY intimidate anyone.  It’s just meant to be cute.

Right?  RIGHT?

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?

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?

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. Students would be able to learn at their own pace, seeking out knowledge to help them with their problems while simultaneously lifting some of the administrative burden that faculty like least–the grading of homework.  ¹  In the presentation, I was shown how students could not only work through their homework problems, but also click a link to take them directly to the section of the textbook that discusses the approaches needed to solve the homework problem.

While all these solutions are browser based and would work on a wide range of netbook, notebook and desktop computers (Mac, Windows and presumably LINUX based) I was beginning to see just how a digital device such as the Apple iPad could be perfect for such a solution.  The iPad could easily contain all the textbooks a student would have in a semester, could then also assist in the completion not only of the homework but could be instrumental in integrating their understanding of the material with their communications with their classmates and their professor and, given the right writing tools, could be the hub for their homework, email and writing assignments.

Then my thoughts came to a screeching halt when the representative started to talk about prices.

*SIGH*

Access to the homework tool (included in the purchase of a NEW textbook) would cost students $10 if they chose to instead by a book used.  Of course, that would only give them access to the homework assignments.  There was an additional fee ($30 I believe) if they wanted to have the “PLUS” features, including the hyperlinking to the appropriate section of the text.  Of course students could simply purchase the complete digital version, integrating the textbook with the online supplemental materials, and read the books on their computer ²

As I listened, I started hearing the dollar signs tally up quite quickly–and all because of decisions I would make concerning the structure of my class.  Would I require students to complete their homework online?  Would I choose to be considerate of their purse-strings and instead make the online homework an option–requiring me as a faculty member to not only NOT see a time savings but now instead have to manage two separate streams of assignment turn-ins, along with separate grading schema as well?

And what about the students who feel they learn best when they can sit, with a pencil and piece of paper, textbook open before them and their trusty calculator by their side, plugging and chugging their way through to the solutions each problem challenging, then leading to the epiphany they so richly enjoy?

So now I sit here, faced with the interesting challenge–Do I push forward into the technology of pedagogy, and require students to spend more money for digital learning, or do I resist, ironically clinging to paper texts with the twisted ideal of helping students more frugally achieve their learning objective?  Or do I try to chart a course, mandating neither, and potentially creating chaos in the wake? ³

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?

=====

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. And through the efforts of Project Gutenberg many of the classics through the ages are now available to the masses. People with internet access can now enjoy the thoughts of the ages, wherever they can reach the internet. And with the One Laptop per Child initiative, children in developing nations can be exposed to ideas global in scope, and timeless as the ages. And finally, whether one can actually read, or not, the proliferation and easy transportability of digital audio files has opened literature to everyone.

Alas, this great awakening may yet be returned to slumber. In the great confluence of enlightened self-interest we find that several challenges remain for making this the greatest literate population ever.

First, it is possible that, when provided with ample reasons to not learn to read, the population reverts once again to an “oral” tradition. Admittedly this is a different oral tradition. In this “new” tradition, the stories are told, and frozen, and remain accessible to those that can’t read. But in this “new” oral tradition the strengths of the oral tradition, the committing the stories to personal memory, embedding them deep in the social soul, is replaced by committing them to digital memory. The stories are retold, but not necessarily embraced. And perhaps worse, these stories then are so easily accessible as to render the impetus to read almost impotent. ¹

The second great challenge is the rush to protect the “digital rights.” Cory Doctorow, in a This Week in Tech podcast, (42 minutes, 50 seconds in) points out that Audible books, and other electronic book distributors, will not allow for the distribution of digital rights free books. Cory Doctorow actually insisted that his books be distributed without DRM, and audible refused.

So why is this the “second great challenge?” Perhaps the best way to explain the impact of DRM is to ask this set of questions: Have you ever given away a book? Loaned a book? Borrowed one from the library? The way digital rights are currently implemented, you cannot loan out a book that you have already read. You can’t say, as so many of us have, “this is a great book–I will give it to you when I am done.” In fact, the terms of service are such for the Kindle that you can’t sell, it loan it or give it away! If we are to experience the benefits of this greatest age of literacy, we need to allow for information to be shared. I honestly understand the concept of intellectual property (what professor doesn’t?) but I also understand that once we share an idea (and perhaps, get paid for it) the idea not only can enter the mainstream, we should hope that it does!

¹ In fact, this is one area in which I struggle with podcasting for courses. If I make my lectures, notes and answers available as audio podcasts have I disconnected the students even further from the richness that is “the text?”

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.

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?

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!

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.

As you should know, I am a child of the space age, and a fan of space anythings for a long time.  Heck, my research areas have included Space Logistics, and Interplanetary Supply Chain Management.  So this REALLY caught my eye!

This website gives you plans to build your own paper model of the Space Shuttle!

From their site:

If you are a Space Shuttle model builder, this site is for you. Build a 1:144 scale Space Shuttle papermodel in several versions: Full Stack version with External tank and boosters or a single Orbiter with either a closed or open payload bay, for FREE! Also, Shuttle Payloads for every mission are available via PAYPAL. Check this site for new models every month.

Check it out–and if you make any of these, send me a picture that I can upload to the blog to share!

My brother has extended the ongoing discussion about anonymous and pseudonymous blogging yet again in his recent blog entry.

His conclusion got me thinking that perhaps there is more here than simply academics hiding behind anonymity or pseudonimity.  He wrote:

This is leading me to the growing conviction that academics should not blog anonymously. If we truly believe in the dissemination and  examination of ideas then we should also be willing to own up to our ideas. There is some risk, but we are living in an age and country² with tremendous protections. To you believe what you are saying? Then say it clearly and be willing to defend your views in the light of day.

As Chris mentions, as academics we are about the dissemination and examination of ideas.  This brings me back to the notion of the “double blind peer review.” The double blind process is in place to ensure that our ideas aren’t accepted, or rejected, out of hand simply by the history of the author, but rather measured by our adherence to rigorous methodologies and that our conclusions are supported by the literature, the data and the proper analysis. Through this “blind review” process we attempt to avoid both the Halo and the Horns effect. (see the great repository of knowledge, Wikipedia) Of course, once accepted for publication, the anonymity is removed, and we are allowed to heap praise, or criticism, on the person(s) who wrote the brilliance/drivel.

Perhaps a greater criticism of academics blogging is that, in addition to the anonymity, we tend to also stop writing as academics. Blogging seems to be a place where writers go to bloviate (to borrow from Bill O’Reilly) but not to provide much in the way of supporting documentation.

When academics blog, we tend to stop conducting and reporting on the review of extant literature. We stop providing supporting citations. (despite the ease with which we can do that in html.) We don’t discuss and defend our methodologies. And worst of all, we get defensive when our (often unsupported) ideas are challenged.

In short–we stop being academics.

Your thoughts?

“But if scientific achievements can be judged only after the event and if there is no abstract way of ensuring success beforehand, then there exists no special way of weighting scientific promises either–scientists are not better off than anybody else in these matters, they only know more details.  This means that the public can participate in the discussion without disturbing existing roads to success (there are no such roads).  In cases where the scientists’ work affects the public it even should participate:  first, because it is a concerned party (many scientific decisions affect public life); secondly, because such participation is the best scientific education the public can get–a full democratization of science (which includes the protection of minorities such as scientists) is not in conflict with science.  It is in conflict with a philosophy, often called “Rationalism,” that uses a frozen image of science to terrorize people unfamiliar with its practice.”  (emphasis his)

If you can take a few moments, read through this a few times, and think through what it is saying.

• The role of the public in Science, as many view the “public” as being too poorly educated as to be able to fully grasp science (Some have heatedly called the recent political era the “era of anti-intellectualism”)
• Perhaps think about it in the context of the discussions concerning stem cell research and the “promises” made by scientists concerning the cures that will come.
• Consider the discussions about the origins of man in the context of his point of the “philosophy … called ‘Rationalism’” and what appeals are made to authority on the various sides.

How do you view science and the nature of discovery?

Part of my argument hinged on the elimination of the resale market in large part due to the robust DRM (copy protection) afforded by the digital books.  Unfortunately, when I presented this argument a few weeks ago, someone pointed me to a site that shared the (convoluted) steps necessary to break the DRM on the Kindle.  So much for secure. ¹

This forced me to think a bit further.

In this post, I hope to make a case for reasonably priced digital textbooks in an era of “cracked DRM” that can still result in a win-win.

If students can copy textbooks and share them, will they?  Perhaps I have a more optimistic view of the world, but I think that, when given a choice to do the right thing, students will.  That is, if they think they are being treated as adults, and not being unjustly charged.  Let me explain.

I believe that students will buy the textbooks rather than steal them, if the books are affordable.  and by affordable I mean, as one student put it when asked on Twitter “@ steep discount.”  Probably $30 for a textbook that in print sells for $150.  Remember from my previous post that publishers aren’t selling to every student as it is.  Capturing a significantly larger piece of the market, semester over semester, will result in significant revenue increases–without any additional overhead or variable costs.

I also believe that students will buy a reasonably priced textbook if, along with the book, they receive other types of “digital” support.  That support will be available, but may require them to have a “licensed” copy of the book.  Simple enough.  Your digital reader has a serial number/PID, so the licensed copy can access additional licensed material.   The additional materials could include podcasts, video lectures, or video/audio tutorials on working through homework problems.

I also believe students will pay for books, because the system supports the buying of books.  Loans cover tuition and expenses, to include books. Parents buy books.  My students have reminded me that there is a significant amount of “outside” money that comes their way for book purchases.  But that alone won’t be enough to get them to buy the books. What will?

How about providing a way for students to continue to “resell” their books?  Another common criticism from students is that they get pennies on the dollar when they go back to resell the book.  They are more incensed when they see the mark-up the bookstore then places on the book they sold back!² Students currently fight back by selling (and buying) their used books on sites such as half.com, a used book online marketplace.

I think that a technological solution to book resales, that allows the students to transfer digital ownership to another student, will result in more students buying legitimate copies.  Why? In the paragraph above I mention that students get “outside” money for book purchases.  More than a few students pointed out to me that, at the end of the semester, they sell those book back and that money then becomes “theirs.”  A few call it “Beer money” but I am sure there are other uses as well.  Given that this is digital, this doesn’t have to be seen as a competitor to the publisher, but rather as another opportunity for the publisher to “add value.”

Imagine this:  the publisher, who controls the DRM accounts, sets up a clearing house where the student who purchased the book can make the book (and the license to read/use that book) available for resale, setting the sale price themselves.  At the end of the sale, the seller essentially will turn over the digital rights to the book to the new purchaser.  This is half.com made simpler.  There are no shipping costs.  The transfer can be automatic and nearly instantaneous.  And if the publisher manages the site, the publisher can charge a “reasonable” handling fee, just like half.com.  And we know students are willing to pay it–because they already do!

So, in summary, the hacking of the DRM doesn’t have to spell the doom of affordable digital textbooks.  Despite what RIAA and the MPAA may say, we aren’t all criminals.  When provided with affordable content, and a reasonable way to re-sell the content when the semester is over, students will continue to buy books from the publishers, and the publishers can continue to make revenue–even in the resale market!

Win! Win! Win!

¹ For the record, I tried it, and it works.  I broke the protection of a book I bought, and read it in another device that I own. After that, I deleted them.

² (For example, a $180 book was “bought back” at $15. Resold at $80. Yes, that is an extreme example, but it is a true one!)

• Text books have a limited audience, resulting in smaller volumes of sales and prin runs (10′s not 100s, of thousands).  Limited runs mean that the overhead and setup costs of printing a run are spread across a fewer number of books. Historically to make a book cheaper they either had to reduce the quality of the materials, automate the process, or produce larger production runs hoping to sell more of the books.
• The costs associated with distributing books are high (packaging, warehousing, and shipping to name a few key ones)
• The inability to accurately forecast demand for “new” editions at locations, because of the…
• Strong used  book market that publishers compete against

My support for digital textbooks has emphasized that digital textbooks drive out  out the costs associated with physical books, and thus allow for both a reduction in price, and an increased margin for the publisher.  This can be seen because:

1.  Publishers no longer need the overhead necessary to design the packaging (including the covers), presses to print the books, warehouses to store the books, or distribution systems to ship the books.   Oh, and they don’t need the management to manage all of that.  This drives costs out of the process. (hint–what could this do for prices?)

2.  Because the books are delivered, directly to the student through digital means, there is no need to keep safety stocks of book inventories to cover the sales of the books.  No physical inventory drives costs out because it means there is:

• No capital outlay for bookstores to buy a “forecasted” amount of books
• No shelves required for the books
• No possibility of stockouts (I had a class where there were only enough books for 10% of my students well into the second week of class!)
• No need to ship back the unsold books, because the forecast was “wrong” (due to used book sales, borrowed books, or just students “dropping” the class.)

3.  The digital rights management (DRM, or “copy protection”) of digital books appears to be rock solid, so students are not likely to “give” copies to their friends.  Publishers would be guaranteed sales², allowing them to lower prices. This would mean that:

• Publishers don’t compete with a ‘re-sale’ market. Think about this.  Part of the reason the costs are so high for the textbooks is that the publishers know that they will only “fully” sell out in the first semester the book is available.  Every semester after that they are competing with a (rather robust) resale market.
• Publishers won’t have to release new editions every two years “simply” to refresh the sales.  With strong DRM publishers can expect to make sales to nearly every student, every semester.
• New editions will be developed for the right reasons–new, improved content and new knowledge.

Given the above, my argument really focused on the need for publishers to pass on the savings to the consumer (the student) making textbook pricing reasonable again.   The major criticism of students (the high prices of textbooks) could all but disappear.

Affordable textbooks for students, and increased (and guaranteed) revenue for publishers!

One of the key points in my argument had been (yes, had) that the DRM on the Kindle and Sony readers was secure, and thus students wouldn’t hack the books and “share” (illegally give copies) to other students.  That is essential to keeping the revenue model moving forward for publishers and is why the RIAA and MPAA are working so hard to protect their intellectual property.  But alas, sometimes things change, and we know that if anyone can hack a DRM it will most likely be motivated college students.

Thus, I have been spending time thinking about how we can still achieve a win-win, even if students “crack” the DRM market.

Stay tuned! More on this to come!

¹ Unfortunately, there will be near term losers, including the people working at the printing presses, the local bookstores, and the supply chain partners that normally deliver, store, and reship textbooks. More on these folks later.

² Think about it. In a class of 30 students, in the first semester a new book is offered, all the students will buy the book. Let’s say the book costs $100. That is $3000 in sales for the publisher. (Not profit. Remember the high costs of physical books.) Now let’s assume that half of the students with new books decide to resell their books each semester. If in the next semester half of the next class purchases “used: books that reduces the revenue for the publisher to just $1500. If we follow this through, then the 3rd semester, 3/4^ths of the books in the class are used books cutting revenue to $750. by the end of the second academic year the publishers revenue is cut to about $400. In two years, with 120 students going through the class, the publisher would make $5650. If there was no used book market, the publisher could make the same revenue selling the books at $47/book. And that is assuming there was no savings in costs by shipping digitally!

My good friend and Colleague Dr Swartz has since asked the age old question–”What were the results!?”

Well, I am here to tell you (and I will be assisted by the rather cool graphics generated by Google as part of their Google Forms functionality.)

As of this date, we have had 100 responses.  When asked if they watched Hulu 65% said yes, while 35% have not.

When asked the “demographic” questions, we learned picked up some other interesting “tid bits.”

For instance when asked , “Are you a student” we learned that:

And that the respondents came from all the areas where we “advertised” the survey:

But here is where it gets interesting.  When we started looking at correlation between questions, it became apparent that the majority of Hulu watchers are students (both grad and undergrad) but what was really interesting is that nearly 100% of the “non-students” who went to the survey from Facebook did NOT watch Hulu (and from the comments it appears most had not heard of Hulu.) I suspect (but can’t prove, since we didn’t ask many more questions) that those people who are out of college, and away from convenient access to high speed internet, are less likely to know about, and use, these sorts of tools.  In addition, and this is important, I suspect that it is NOT a function of simply “age” since grad students do watch Hulu when they have time, but is rather a function of ready access.  Remember, these are people we “know” and thus the non-students are most likely our peers, people our age who are no longer tied to the University networks.

I suspect that it is NOT a function of simply “age”

I am curious if we were to ask people of all ages, and all walks of life, if we would see an “age” split or if the suspicion that it is related to access would hold.  It is this sort of “digging” just below the surface that I really found interesting.  It might even be worth further study as we continue to have discussions about who uses technology.

Anyway, here’s the results–let me know what YOU think of the outcomes.  And if you decide to conduct any surveys let us know, we will gladly help get the work out!

In reading her post, however, I find that while I agree that when it comes to “how” content is delivered a “professor is a scribe” may be correct, I believe that is unfortunately a rather narrow view of the role of the professor.

Back when the printing presses were gaining ascendancy, they replaced the scribe, because they were doing what the scribe was doing–copying someone’s words for others to read.  Scribes had to be worried, since printing presses ostensibly would make fewer *random* errors than scribes would. (That said, the printing presses could easily replicate the same error by the hundreds, and now millions.)

The people who at the time should have (and probably were) most excited by this revolution were the authors.  Those people who spent time thinking, researching, and writing the texts that were now being made available at a far faster rate.

Professors are not mere scribes.  Professors are experts in their field of study, who are contributing to that body of knowledge through that research, and then share that “research informed knowledge” with the world.  One way they share that knowledge is through publications, another through presentations and talks, and finally (and perhaps most importantly) professors share it by educating the next generation.

So professors are not scribes.

Who should be worried that they can be considered scribes?  Instructors.  Those people hired to teach materials developed by someone else, without having a rigorous, peer reviewed research stream of their own.  They are simply vessels through which others speak.  THAT can be easily replaced by well-designed technology.

That said, professors are certainly worried.  Rightly so.  Not that they will be replaced, but that people seem to think they can be.

As I have written before, I thoroughly enjoyed reading Andrew Keen‘s book “Cult of the Amateur.”  He argues that experts are essentially being pushed out of the arena and replaced by those whom I will call the “dabblers.”  These are people that some would say “know enough to be dangerous” but are not well-versed in the detailed specifics to be experts, and therefore unable to deal with the nuances.  In fact professors, as an integral part of their earning their terminal degree, learn the research methods necessary to truly understand the data they are viewing.  Regardless of whether one is a Hebrew Literature scholar or a theoretical physicist, the opinions of the Professor are informed by their understanding of how to interpret their data. Without such a background all interpretations are considered valid, and truth becomes subjective.

I am anything but a technophobe, but I am concerned that, as we start touting the role of youtube, facebook, twitter, and Wikipedia as ways for students to share their knowledge about materials, we fail the students.  We allow them to elevate their views, their perspectives, and their understanding of the material while simultaneously dev0lving the role of professor as mentor, guide and expert.

Let’s all work to enable better ways of helping students grasp material, but please, let’s not make the mistake of thinking that professors are “just scribes.”

Yesterday many apparently acknowledged their own inability to do anything significant by jointly doing something silly–turning off all their lights for an hour, during “Earth Hour.” I made a few comments about it last night to family, and was told that it was all fodder for my blog.  In fact, these actions (designed to be done at night, so presumably everyone else can see what good citizens we are) remind me of the Pharisee and the tax collector (Luke 18:9-14).

Let’s, for a moment, consider the value in simply helping those in need.  We can wait for the government to institute a program, identify people that have a need, hope those people will learn about the program, seek help, and receive it in a timely manner.

Or–we can act, and help our brother and sister in need, when in need, directly. And even better, we can do it anonymously so that no one need feel awkward or indebted to a friend, colleague, boss or employee.

There is a new website that helps facilitate just this very thing.  Giving Anonymously has as it’s mission the task of enabling people helping people.

As they say on their site:

We are a non-profit organization facilitating generosity between people.

We are not the ‘charity’ you are! Look around your community, your neighbors, friends and family. Do you see anyone in need? If so, give to them. You can give anonymously. We’ll send them a check, and you’ll get an email with a voice file of them thanking you. But they won’t know who you are! How cool is this!

The Goal

Our goal is to enable and encourage you to be your own charity, and for you to give anonymously to those around you in need.

Sure, you could give money to us and expect us to find those in need. But then your neighbor, Bill, who had to quit his job because he’s sick and now can’t pay the bills or adequately feed his family, will not be helped.

Do you know people who could use a helping hand, and you would like to help, but don’t want, or need, the credit?  Do you have a friend that:

• Had their work hours cut, and they can’t make ends meet?
• Is struggling with chemotherapy for cancer and perhaps simply needs a manicure/pedicure to feel good about themselves?
• Has a child with an illness and cannot deal with the mounting medical bills?
• You would just like to give a hand to?

If so this is the site for you!

They will charge a $2.50 and additional 2.5% handling fee, but considering they will be handling the delivery, and even accepting, on your behalf, an audio thank-you note, it’s a small price (and hey, it keeps others employed in this tough time!)

I commend the site to you, and encourage all of us to take actions that are substantive and meaningful–and perhaps actually make a real, immediate difference in people’s lives.

DISCLAIMER:  As of this writing, I have not yet used this service, and cannot vouch that it isn’t simply a scam.  If anyone knows anything more about the service, please contact me. –Steve

I broke the presentation into three areas of collaboration:
1.  Data gathering (del.icio.us)
2.  Structuring of the research (wiki)
3.  Writing (Google Docs, Microsoft Live Mesh)

(note:  I say in the presentation that Live Mesh is Windows only.  Turns out I was a few versions wrong. It is now available for Mac OSX as well.)

Much of these tools allow us to work asynchronously, sharing information as we find it, and learning what our team has discovered as we have the time.  That said, I also talk about using communication tools such as Skype and Google Talk to work synchronously with your team when geographically separated.  I briefly referred to Twitter, but unfortunately, as much as I love Twitter (and you can find me on Twitter as @SCMProfessor) I don’t see it as a real engine to facilitate collaboration in conducting research.)

I also identified a few things that collaboration in research does:

1.  Fosters cooperation rather than competition
2.  Enables other researchers to share in the research (long discussion about what is and isn’t the outcome of our research).
3.  Speeds the cycle time of research (idea-data-analysis-draft-publication)

Finally, we discussed that the tools should:

1.  Be freely available
2.  Easily understandable audit trail
3.  Provide some levels of security

In the presentation I refer to a few documents (as Google Docs) that I have built to help my students collaborate in their research and project efforts.  First, I have the “Tools and Tutorials” document, where I provide links to not only the tools listed above, but links to helper sites for using these tools, as well as links to “really cool stuff.”

I also mentioned the document I give my students to guide them in the development of their podcast projects.  I even have a 12 step program for them!

So go, listen to the podcast, and please–come back and let me know how YOU are using Web 2.0 to work more closely with your colleagues.

I wanted to take a few minutes to write about ways to address the challenges of these three points.

I have commented on twitter (@SCMProfessor) that I don’t like the push to be “followed” but not to follow back.  Leo LaPorte, and many others, talk in their podcasts about how many people follow them, and either in jest or with serious intent, talk about wanting more followers.  There I find myself usually asking “why?”

Of course, people like Barack Obama, @LeoLaPorte, and my two personal favorites @BrentSpiner  and @bobbyll (two of the best TV androids around!) serve a role as thought leaders.  But what about the rest of  us? Should we want to be folllowed by millions and not follow back?

I admit, I enjoy watching the following numbers go up.  It is in some sense a boost to the ego.  But I also feel it is important to follow back.  If we are to be part of a “community” then that community should encourage discourse and exchange.  We should want to follow the people that follow us, so that we can learn from them.  @TheRealDvorak (John C Dvorak) actually was doing this.  He would follow back.  He would engage.  Of course, leading the way in following back is Scoble (@thescobleizer) who follows 70K people, and is followed by 65K.  He engages!

Here’s my suggestions for engagement on Twitter.

1. First, when someone follows you (and they aren’t a scam-bot) follow back.
2. Don’t block people you disagree with–engage, and learn.  Neither of you will likely change, but both can grow.
3. Seek out experts in your field on Twitter, and acknoweldge them
4. Ask questions!  A true community should be willing to help one another, which leads to;
5. Answer questions!  When someone asks for help, and if you are qualified, respond, and finally;
6. Engage people at the personal level.

I have tried, in thinking through these suggestions, to address Keen’s legitimate concerns regarding Web 2.0.

First and foremost if we make this conversational and if we are willing to follow and engage with people whom we disagree, we may find that while ideologies separate us, we can be friends.  And through it all we may learn that the “I” is not as important as the “we.”

Second, by seeking out, and acknowledging, experts in a our fields, we help to quell the cacaophony of amateurs, and reinforce the importance of depth.  This approach also helps build sub-communities in Twitter where practitioners (for instance in my fields of education, and supply chain) can grow and share and learn.

Finally, by engaging in these social networking communities of practice we open doors for further growth and development of knowledge.  The professional benefit of Twitter can be that it answers questions to immediate needs, and opens doors for further (monetarily rewarding)

Take a minutes, and contribute to the community. Leave a comment, and if you are on Twitter, leave your twitter info!

This conversation started over at Twitter (follow me– @SCMProfessor) as an outgrowth of reading and thinking about a survey conducted at Penn State as part of their Rock Ethics Institute.  Students at one of the Penn State campuses were asked several questions.  Each question presented a situation, and they were asked if that situation was “cheating” or “not cheating.”

As I said, we have had some good discussions over on Twitter (in 140 characters or less!).  Let’s see what others think.

I will share the results in a coming post.

Thanks!

So-go to the comments, and let us know your story!

I welcome any thoughts you might have on how we can better use technology in business education, and specifically how we can better prepare students to use technology in the “real world” when they graduate.

To read, just visit my published document on Google Docs.

I welcome any and all additions to this document, and I certainly will give credit to the finder!

Tell me what tools or tutorials you have found!

Seth Godin has a reputation among marketing circles (new and old media types) for shaking things up and helping us see the world “different.”

He has written some amazing books that challenge our thinking (my favorite “All Marketers Are Liars: The Power of Telling Authentic Stories in a Low-Trust World.”)  But I think this one just about takes it.  He is offering a few, select people, a chance to work with him for 6 months.  Unpaid. And I think it is worth it!

In his words:

If you’re stuck in a dead end job in publishing, or if you made a not-so-great choice in getting your career started, or if you thought Wall Street would be a different place, or if you just got laid off, or if you’re not crazy about fretting away the next six months waiting to get fired and you’re not quite ready to start your own gig… this might be the turbolift you were hoping for. Yes, it’s free.

It’s a chance to get off that track and onto a new track, faster and cheaper than most of the alternatives. And it might even be fun.

[The rest of this page has various details about the program, so I don't have to answer the same questions again and again. It also has a bit of encouragement to it, since I realize it's a very big deal for you to drop everything to do this. It's also a big deal on my end, so hopefully it'll all work out.]

Read more about it here.

Brief and quick thoughts about Kindle and higher education.

Like you I see the Kindle as a ‘killer device’ in higher education.
Just as I saw the mobile phone/smartphone in 2002. Colleges & Universities were motivated by finances to devise a way to recapture the income lost to dorm phones on traditional landlines. 6 years later and few schools have been able to construct a means to generate revenue from mobile student based mobile technology. A segment of the faculty don’t want mobile devices in their class. Some faculty adopt the technology to aid learning (interactive, polling, twitter, etc.). The administration can’t figure them out.
They got sidetracked with the cell phone as an emergency notification device.
Where is the $$$$?

So, how to motivate higher ed leadership to adopt the Kindle as an instructional tool integral to learning? The answer may be in the money stream.

Your suggestion of self-publishing or co-publishing with commercial publishers has merit.
The landscape is strewn with disjointed efforts to self-publish. Use of learning management systems, faculty blogs, twitter, course/faculty facebook accounts, iTunes University, faculty generated web pages, etc. etc.
The challenge here is to provide a platform to aggregate ‘published’ works across diverse platforms.
How to get all these self-published works loaded onto the Kindle?

There is the green consideration. As more faculty select e-texts for their courses students inevitably will print pages/chapter(s)/books at college provided printers or printers in their dorms. Defeats the inherent value of e-texts: lower unit cost, ease of transport, bookstore floor space & inventory management, etc.
Interesting side note. I use an e-text for my digital photography course. The primary rationale is the text is updated more frequently than publishers can print new version. The main argument from students is they are restricted to read the text while at a computer. Can’t time-shift reading assignments, read on the train/bus/standing in line. Annotate, highlight, dog ear pages, etc. And there are the inherent challenges of laptop technology.

There is the possibility of providing all incoming freshmen with a Kindle: included in the tuition. This is no different than colleges that require the purchase of a laptop. In fact it is better, IMHO. A joint effort with Amazon would seal the deal. As would a partner relationship between Amazon and publishers.

In any case it seems Amazon has given this some measure of consideration. Where do they go from here?

How quickly can those of us who have a shared vision for e-readers like the Kindle advance this technology along the Rodgers innovation adoption curve?

Dominic Salvucci and Jimbo Lamb both thought it was a good idea, and we set a time, and the podcast proceeded from there!

It turns into a discussion about technology in the classroom, and we are setting stage for further discussions on technology, and how we introduce and allow students to use technology.

Let us know what you think in the comments here, and if you want to join us in a podcast, let us know!

-S

The premise of the book is that life is “random” or at least in large partt driven by likelihoods and probabilities.  Those of you that actually know me, know that I appreciate the random nature of life, and that I believe no outcome is “certain.”  Even knowing that, intellectually, I find myself reflecting on the various lessons in this book, particularly after my recent automobile accident.  In that accident, I started second guessing my decisions.  What if I had gone to Home Depot first?  What if I had decided to go back to the main road to get between stores?  What if I had waited a few seconds before leaving Lowe’s?  What if I hadn’t asked for help, and had left Lowe’s 2 minutes earlier?

The timing of receiving the book (and reading it) helped my put all this in perspective.  All those decision points, and actions arising from those points, are what quatum physicists would call “alternative realities” (and some would tell you they all occured, in parallel universes!)  But there is little one can do to control the outcome.

According to this book (at least, up to my current point in reading it) we see patterns in most things, after the fact.  We play an elaborate game of connect the dots, to make “sense” out of what happened.  We ignore the role of chance, the importance of sheer “randomness” in the events.  The author writes:

Past events will always look less random than they  were (it is called the hindsight bias). I would listen to  someone’s discussion of his own past realizing that  much of what he was saying was just backfit  explanations concocted ex post by his deluded mind.

I realize that, in some way, (perhaps some warped way) I am taking solice in the fact that the accident was just a statistical probability that for some reason, on Thursday, decided to “realize” itself on the side of my car. BAM!

Now, that said, the book also plays a role in explaining the importance of “managing” randomness.  In the book, the author discusses a man, Nero who, as a trader in Chicago, learned early on to play the “game” of moderation.  Nero (being a statistician by education) understood the role of probability even in the market, and understood even better the impact of the “statistically rare event” or what the author calls “The Black Swan.” (He then later writes a longer book on this topic “The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable — This one is on my shelf and will be next in my reading queue).

According to Taleb, Nero chose to limit his gains by not seeking the high rewards, because those carry with them the greatest risk, in the event of the “statistically unlikely” black swan. In my accident, Honda helped moderate the risks by providing side curtain and seat-embedded airbags.  We were t-boned, but my wife (sitting on the side that got hit) doesn’t have a single scratch and given the extent of the damage to the door, we believe the airbags protected her.

These are the sorts of things that we teach our students in decision analysis.  Assess the probable outcomes, and the likelihood of the event.  Understand the possible gains and losses.  Then make your decisions based not on the certainty of your ability (flawed) but on your knowledge of the impact of randomness.

This book arrives at just the right time to console me, to remind me that sometimes “stuff happens” and it’s just random.  Accept it, acknowledge it, and plan as best you can.  It’s a great read, and I highly recommend it to all.  But it leaves me with this question:  If it’s arrival was truly at “just the right time” –

Was it’s arrival… Random?

There are some remarkable success stories, but there doesn’t seem to be a groundswell of adoption for much of the technological opportunities the are proposed.  I suspect that there is a disconnect between the “art of the possible” and the wants, desires, and needs of the faculty.

Perhaps the most successful tech solution has been the Course Management System (ANGEL here at Penn State.)  This is a system that allows faculty to communicate electronically with students, make slides and readings available, and even host synchronous and asychronous discussions.  I suspect, through anecdotal evidence, the most used features are the delivery of documents, and the least used are the more interactive features of discussion groups and chat.

In addition, we have blog initiatives, podcasts, and wiki initiatives ongoing at the University. All great stuff, and “spaces” in which I also play.  But each of these comes at a cost. (And often several costs.)

So what keeps faculty from using these technologies?  Are most faculty simply “Luddites” unwilling to step into the 21st Century?  Or is there something else at work here? I suspect that, while some faculty are reluctant to move outside their technological comfort zones, there is something else at play here.

I posit that there are three forces at work here.  Time, ownership, and uncertainty.

I believe that faculty are focused on their disciplines, and pursuing the development of knowledge in those areas, and view these not as technological “solutions” but rather as “technological distractions” that would steal time away from their other honorable pursuits.  TIme is a precious commodity for us all, and for newly hired faculty seeking tenure, nothing is more critical than publishing scholarly research as we “build our bones” and work towards tenure.  This often means that as faculty, when faced with the trade-off of innovating in the course-ware or conducting research, we make the understandable personal choice to maximize our long-term standing with the University (and improve our income earning potential) by focusing on the publishing aspect of academia.

The second issue is just as inward focused, but understandable as well.  As faculty members, we do spend time developing our course content.  That content is derived from our expert knowledge of our field of study, and the materials reflect both our time-commitment, and our intellectual property.  Making that material available in easily-shared media (podcasts, images/videos on flickr.com and elsewhere, lectures written in blogs) leaves the faculty with the sense that others can “steal” their work.  Even before the advent of all this “tech” faculty members were often incensed over the downtown businesses that would publish notes taken by the “good” students.  Why? Because that was publishing their materials without permision!

Finally, faculty members (rightly, or wrongly) believe that making the materials available to students outside the classroom will result in rampant absenteeism.  In this case, faculty members often believe that part of the learning experience is derived from the personal interactions one gets in the classroom, and that learning goes both ways (well, actually many ways).

• The students have a more direct opportunity to question the faculty member, and explore more fullly thoughts and ideas in a socratic give-and-take.  And while we can argue that such exchanges can take place in discussion boards and chats, I think we all must agree that only the most advanced typist can type as fast as we speak, and think.
• Other students learn from the exchanges mentioned above.  In fact, some of my most interesting “Aha!” moments came as a result of pursuing thoughts generated by classmates.  These thoughts often result in follow-up questions, but also in discussions amongst students as they leave the lecture hall, go to lunch, and so forth.
• In addition, the faculty member learns from the students.  More than once I have found (and seen other faculty who also have found) that a question posed by a student opened up a thought-process not yet explored. In fact, those questions often lead to new and potentially exciting research opportunities.

So, faculty members are reluctant to provide any excuse for students to “leave” the classroom, and instead get most of the materials through digital and technical means.  That said, I personally have found no drop in attendance in my classes even when using podcasts, and other technology, but I certainly understand the fear from the faculty in this regard.

The question is now, how can one make an argument to faculty members, a “business case” if you will, that addresses these needs, and concerns?  Certainly one could present research showing that students retain more information when bombarded (oops, exposed) to multiple media.  But we are left with a disconnect between the current system that rewards research and publication while expecting “adequate” teaching, and one that focuses on improving the quality of instruction while sacrificing (at least in the faculy members’ eyes) the research.

So, short of changing the reward system to place less emphasis on research, how can we convince faculty that it is in their interest as academics to integrate more technology into their instruction? (And remember, this is to be a persuasive argument–that is, one that is persuasive to the faculty, so must appeal to their wants/needs/desires)

That is the question I toss open for discussion.

So, when I wrote that that the babyboomers were the ones “who argued to ‘never trust anyone over 30.’ Seems they now are being asked to ‘eat their own dogfood’” I may have been mistaken. You see, Dean Dad was essentially arguing that the current crop of Adminstrators need to move along (ref his first line “Reason #456 we need to hire the next generation of administrators”). Thus I felt that asking them (the boomers) to move along and get out of the way, was essentially reminding them not to trust anyone their own age.
But the question I have is whether it is “eating your own dog food.” It certainly is “having to take your own medicine.” And perhaps it is asking for one to “follow one’s own advice.” But is it the same as using your own product?

I argue that in this context it is. You see, Dean Dad is talking about how a service organization is run. Services are different from “goods” in that there is no tangible asset, nothing to, well, eat. So one must stretch the metaphor a bit. But in this case, I believe it works, since one is being asked to follow the management principles they at one time preached. To continue down the road of “old saws” one could say for the Boomers their “Chickens have come home to roost.”

Perhaps it is time for Boomers to acknowledge that they were wrong about something. And for the Gen X’ers to realize that their parents aren’t always wrong–and perhaps should be allowed to continue to work, and lead.

The first that comes to mind is their GPA. Unfortunately, this is, while certainly a “quantitative” measure, it is not “objective.” It fails in at least two ways. First, it fails to consider that variations in content covered (pace, depth, breadth, etc) and also cannot account for the subjectivity and variability of the grading process itself. At best it doesn’t allow for cross set comparison (comparing students from different schools), and at worst, it fails to accurately provide any useful information.

In a selection process, one needs to be able to compare, say, Chris to Drew. If I only have one slot left, how do I determine which of the two are more likely to succeed? Let’s say for the sake of argument that both have identical GPA’s, but are from two different schools. Are both schools the same? Did they cover the same material? Did the teachers evaluate the students in the same way, asking the same questions, and grading the exams and other work in a similar, and consistent, manner? This of course, gets more complicated if, say, one of you has a slightly higher GPA. Does that indicate anything in the cross-set comparison?

As I mentioned, at worst we get very little useful information about the student. Without an in-depth knowledge of the school from which they come, and ideally the specific instructors/teachers they had, we cannot infer much by their grades. Did one instructor grade harshly, while another applied mis-directed compassion? Perhaps there was pressure from an administration to increase “graduation rates” at their school, or conversely it is possible one school had a more restrictive grading scale. It’s fairly common for one HS to grade 80-89 as a B, while another grades a B as 86-93.

I am not arguing that the SATs (or GRE, or GMAT, or MSAT, etc.) are perfect. They are not. But they at least provide some common ground upon which we can evaluate a student’s knowledge (what they have been able to learn) and assess a student’s potential (their ability to learn.)

So–barring a nation-wide attempt to standardize instruction, or even more challenging, document the experience in every classroom in the nation, how does a school effectively make useful quantitative (i.e. measurable) and objective comparisons and assessments of ability and performance?

Anyone?

You can listen to the presentation at the official TLT Symposium 2008 site, or listen to it right here.

Well–you decide.

A blog entry about my presentation was posted quickly, and it is a fair summary.  They recorded it, and I will make it available on here as a podcast for those interested.

My brother and I also did a video interview, but that hasn’t shown up online yet, but when it does, I am sure we both will cross-post that as well.

Let me know what you think!

I don’t know about you, but I think this was a bit inconsiderate. It’s one thing to put everyone out and call a (trivial, no more than 3 day) strike. But it’s another to, at the 11th hour, cancel the strike, and tell everyone that they are expected to report “as normal” the next day.

One would think that they would have the courtesy to at least “let them off” for a day.

So a revision of winners and losers.  The BIG LOSERS here are the students, and the parents.  But then again, we knew that one going in.

Do you think the teachers will be lenient if homework isn’t done?

If this were a real  strike, then they would emerge the winner. But with a 3 day strike cap, there are only losers.

I say “if this were a real strike” because since the  state has apparently put a 3 day time limit on the strike, the teachers have simply extended the school year.  Barring a “work slow-down/stoppage” or a “sick-out” by the teachers, there will be no real impact other than extending the school year.

Knowing that the strike will end in three days, the school board must simply wait.  At the end of three days, I can imagine the school board starting the next meeting with “Did you enjoy your vacation? Do you have anything else? Are you willing to accept our contract now?”

And before I wrap up, I wanted to remind everyone that the biggest losers are the parents, and students.  The local media has been reporting many “personal impact” stories. Parents are upset because they have had to scramble for childcare.  In the local paper, the Patriot-News, one mother is quoted as saying

“I’m angry about the strike,” said Amy Lavarto, whose three children go to Sporting Hill Elementary School. “I only make minimum wage, and I have to work. I will have to find day care for my children, which is an expense I don’t need.”

While more poignantly, a father expresses his distress over the crisis exacerbated by the teachers’ strike

Jim Perry is to drive his wife to a Philadelphia hospital for brain surgery Thursday morning.

He couldn’t care less about the contract fight between the Cumberland Valley teachers and school board. He doesn’t have time to read their proposals. He doesn’t have the luxury of considering whether Thursday’s planned teachers strike seems justified.

Whatever. Perry said he just needs school to stay open.

“The timing is horrible for me all the way around,” said Perry, whose sons attend Silver Spring Elementary and Eagle View Middle schools.

So, we have parents as losers.

As you all probably know, the Cumberland Valley Education Association was forced to initiate a teacher strike.  It is with great disappointment that I have to announce that I can not work with our outstanding children until a contract has been accepted.  To the best of my efforts I encourage all our young student-athletes to fight for what is right and fair.  That is simply all that I am currently attempting and asking for.

Regardless of my opinion concerning the merits of the strike, I am concerned at the tone put forward in the email.  There is a complete lack of acceptance of responsibility for the actions of the teachers, coming from a teacher!  The CVEA (union) was not “forced” to initiate the strike.  The union chose to reject the latest offer.  Perhaps a correct decision, but a decision on their part.  The union then chose to strike.

Also, since it is up to the coaches and advisors to decide whether or not to continue with their sporting activities, The coach could work with the players.  The school board in the “media alert” specifically wrote “Continuance of athletic events and extracurricular activities are at the discretion of coaches and advisors.” He chooses not to, instead choosing to honor the strike and the picket line.

I understand supporting one’s union.  I really do.  I just ask that we all accept that our actions are a result of our choices that we make.

Stand up.

Take ownership of your own decisions.

THAT is perhaps the best lesson we can teach our kids during times like these.

What have the teachers offered as compromise? From all reports, the teachers’ union has simply dug in their heels, and tried to convince the populace that the school board is failing to give them a pay raise.

Who wins, and who loses on a strike?

THE WINNERS:

Teachers think they will win, obviously. They have nothing to lose. They strike, they come back and teach, and even if they now accept the latest offer they get their full 9 months of pay (with a bonus check–remember the retroactive bit?)

The school board may or may not meet the (un-reported) demands of the teacher’s union. But regardless, the school board doesn’t “lose” anything.

THE LOSERS:

The students. They lose, because they have a loss of continuity in their education plan. They lose because for months now, teachers have been fostering a “hostile learning environment” keeping the students (and parents) wondering if, in 48 hours, there would be a strike. On top of that, at least one teacher told his students that, if there was a strike, he would be sending a “work packet” home for them to complete during the strike. In addition, they lose because any plans they may have had for a summer (including summer jobs, to help them earn money for, among other things, college) have to be adjusted.

The parents: For those parents of young children that work, there will be an increased cost either through lost wages, or increased childcare costs. What about those parents that can’t afford the additional costs of childcare? Well–they can just stay home from work, right? So for a few, the choice is either pay for more childcare, or lose income. Additionally, parents may have had plans for summer “break.” Imagine a job where you have to request time off for vacation, and schedule it in advance. You know those jobs–the ones where you work 12 months a year?

The taxpayers: Regardless of the final outcome, it is guaranteed that taxpayers will be paying teachers more money to teach. This is a burden that taxpayers are willing to reasonably carry to provide a good education for the children in the community. I suspect though that taxpayers are keenly aware of what is reasonable, and what is unreasonable. It would seem to me at least that unreasonable is a teachers’ union that fails to negotiate. Of course, a “double whammy” exists for the parents, here. They have the burden of increased child-care costs, only to be rewarded with an (undoubtedly) increased tax burden.

One final thought: The teachers don’t “lose” anything here. There is no cost to them for striking. In most strikes, the unions have to balance the near-term lost wages with the long term gains. They must also consider the lost good-will with their customers who may well choose to go elsewhere with their shopping dollars. In this case, students are required, by law, to attend school. The teachers will come back and teach the remaining class days–and get paid for a full year (did I mention the “bonus check” due to retroactive pay?) The teachers essentially get to hold everyone (especially students) hostage–to achieve not a “fair” contract, but one that is “over the top.”

The Teachers Union. Unreasonable. Uncompromising. Unsupportable.

Let’s start with the credibility.  I wondered about the credibility of the author of the article. So I read the credentials listed at the end of the article “Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com” He lives in Washington STATE! Yes–of course, How could I miss that credential! I should listen/pay attention to him. (And does anyone else find it, um… odd, that Mike’s email address is “FERGIE?”)

Now, I would like to take a brief moment to encourage everyone to do something called “research.” You may recall, as regular readers to this site, that I often encourage one to practice academic and intellectual honesty. Stop. Check the data. Question the sources. Challenge the techniques.

First, and most simply, I found that clicking on the source link for the article (http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney/02222008.html) results in a “connection timed out” error. (as of 2/25/08, 1118hr EST) That could mean that everyone is going there and resulted in the site being overloaded, or it could mean that the article on the site has been “pulled.” Either way, the credibility of the source is now questioned. Especially since the main site, Counterpunch.org is also returning a “connection has timed out” error.

Second: There are statements that should be easily verifiable in the article. For instance, the author (Mike? Fergie?) writes: “The $330 billion ARS market has dried up overnight pushing up rates as high as 20 per cent on some bonds…” which is quite a bit of news! Did anyone see this high bond rate reported? Can anyone find a news source that reported this? I would think that, if Fergie/Mike was able to find the information, then it should be “findable” right? I am not saying that the information isn’t there–but I am wondering why sources aren’t given.

Now, actually, it wasn’t that hard to do. I did find this snippet:

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, for instance, is paying $390,000 in interest this week on one $100 million bond that cost just over $83,000 last week, before a failed auction pushed the rate on the bonds to 20 percent from 4.2 percent.

Now, I also found numerous other sites that actually state, verbatim, what Mike/Fergie wrote. For instance, the Free Market News reports:

The credit storm which began in July when two Bear Stearns hedge funds were forced to liquidate, has continued to intensify. Last week the noose tightened around auction-rate securities, a little-known part of the market that requires short-term funding to set rates for long-term municipal bonds. The $330 billion ARS market has dried up overnight pushing up rates as high as 20 per cent on some bonds — a new benchmark for short term debt.

That should count, right? Well, one might think so, except it really is a summary of the article written by Mike/Fergie, and points back to the (unavailable) site. Move along. Nothing to see here.

And, while I could continue, I will end with this: given that the document written by Mike/Fergie is posted on a website, and created for electronic distribution, he/she should have taken the time to provide links to the actual sources for his/her information. “Good” bloggers at least hold themselves to that standard. Heck, even bad/poor bloggers (like good ol’ Eric over at A Liberal Dose) link to sources where they get the information they then distort. This may well be a maelstrom that consumes all in the fiery demise of the world economy. But then again, without sources (reputable or otherwise) this is simply another pundit, among the many, touting gloom and doom.

Academics of all people should remember that the plural of anecdote is not data.

I find this to be a humorous, and in some way, interesting quote. I also find myself “engaging” with the quote in ways that I didn’t expect. This statement challenges really two fundamental concepts–that of anecdote, and of data. When does a collection of anecdotes step out of a collection of “stories” and actually add up to real, actionable data?

Data is, at the most broad, a collection of anecdotal evidence that builds a case over time. In fact, case-study analysis is simply a rigorous approach to gathering anecdotal evidence. Yes, you are limited in the amount of pure statistical analysis that can be accomplished through the gathering of anecdotal evidence, but anecdotes bring a richness to the data that one cannot get through simple “number crunching.”

In addition, an anecdote could be considered a data point of one. And sometimes “one” is all you need. How many times should a car not start before you suspect a problem? How many space shuttles do we need to blow up before we learn about O-rings? If one is seeking to improve service, enhance quality, or improve a reputation, then every negative “anecdote” is a story of failure–failure that must be controlled, corrected, and eliminated.

On the other hand, anecdotes of success should be plentiful, and instructive, if they help one overcome the failures in the other negative anecdotes. Anecdotes about repeated success help in that they demonstrate that success can be achieved, and perhaps can be “replicated” with appropriate processes.

Let’s look at one example. In a blog written by one of my students, he struggles with poor customer service from (stand by for stereotype) “the cable guy.” At the end of the day, the cable guy dragged mud over the carpets, cut two holes in the wall (only needing one) and then had to leave so couldn’t repair the damage to the wall.

The best part about the entire story was, the installer had to be at another appointment and couldn’t fix the hole in my wall. I asked what he was going to do about the wall and he gave me some putty and a sponge and explained how to fix it. He then gave me my $80 installation bill and was on his merry way.

Is it any wonder this customer was upset?

Comcast (as Wesley points out) “wants to be perceived as the leader in cable services.” If one seeks to deliver a high quality service, error free, on-time, every time, then a single story of failure is a failure. In fact, what the Comcast blog posting points out is that a service provider, Comcast, is failing in key aspects of the delivery of that service.

The Fitzsimmons’ write, in their book Service Management that reputation is often a key dimension to the provision of a service. They write:

The uncertainty that is associated with the selection of a service provider often is resolved by talking with others about their experiences before a decision is made. Unlike a product, a poor service experience cannot be exchanged or returned for a different model.

So the “take away” here is that for an individual about to make a decision an anecdote is “data.” And as negative experiences begin to collect, the weight of these anecdotes can tarnish (perhaps irretrievably) the reputation of an organization, or a person.

So, does the simple statement “the plural of anecdote is not data” hold true? I think not. Cute, but alas, wrong.

In reading through the comments, one thing has struck me. Many accuse the evangelicals of “brain washing” these kids, and the old canard makes its way back once again with a few arguing that children should not be exposed to religion until they are old enough to think for themselves. Ahhh, yes. And at what age do we believe that to be?

I am not being flippant here. The question that comes to mind, for me, is when do we stop teaching our children only how to read, write, and do math, and instead instill in them the tools necessary for critical thinking?

Is that at age 3, when they start asking the “why” questions? Is that not their first attempts at seeking to critically explain the world around them?

Is it at age 8, when they have started school, and are now beginning to see that not everyone looks the same, dresses the same, or likes the same foods?

Is it at age 12, as they enter puberty, and notice that boys and girls are different? As they begin to grapple with the changes in their bodies (or wonder why their’s hasn’t changed yet?)

Perhaps it is 16, when we tell them they are now old enough to drive a car, or 18 when they can vote and join the military, or 21 when society says we can now trust you with alcohol?

Perhaps it is not so far fetched to assume that religion can play a role in all aspects of growth. That it isn’t a bad thing for children to grow up with the sense of worth that comes from knowing that you were created, and that God loves you in a perfect way that your imperfect parents cannot.

Perhaps it is not a bad thing for children, at all ages, to question, and challenge, the accepted views of the world, to say “maybe evolution isn’t the best explanation for the world around me.”

Maybe we should focus more on instilling and developing critical thinking skills in our children and less time “protecting” them from having to think critically.

First off, it’s a free service offered by Google!

Grand Central simply makes your telephonic life simpler. They will provide you with a phone number, and then allow you to enter all your various phone numbers into their system. Home… Cellphone… work… vacation home… neighbors…Why do this? Well, when someone calls that “one number” Grand Central will then ring all the phone that you have entered and selected. (yes, you can turn them on and off.) When your phone rings, you answer it, and a polite recorded voice tells you that you have a call, and all you have to do is press 1 to accept the call. You could choose to not accept the call at that time, and it will go to the Grand Central voice mail system. In addition, you can listen while the voice mail is being recorded, and decide whether you need to pick up the call.

And of course, you can also press 4 during the call, and record both sides of the conversation–just be sure to check the laws in your state!

How do I see using this? It is certainly a great way to let students contact me, without giving them 4 or 5 different numbers to call.

Additionally, it is a boon when working as a consultant, or traveling. Just give your clients and colleagues one number, and they can reach you at any time–and you can get to your voice mail from any computer with internet connection.

I have only scratched the surface of Grand Central–visit the website and see what else this service can do for you!

Oh–did I mention it was free?Let me know what you think, and how you envision using it–or already are!

From the paper:

“Podcasting” has taken the technological and hobbyist worlds by storm, allowing for the creation of highly specialized audio (and now video) productions for delivery over the internet. This sort of capability has found its way into the classroom and into courseware, allowing professors to deliver a wide range of content to their students. (King, et al., 2006) This paper discusses the background of podcasting, the technology that enabled it, and how podcasting can be used to enhance supply chain courses with a “blended” or hybrid learning experience.

In addition to the podcast recording of the presentation, I am including the pdf of the paper, as well as the PowerPoint slides from the presentation.

Let me know what you think of it, and as always, leave comments, or send me a voice mail at the number listed in the contact section!

But that’s not what this post is about. The other blog that I frequent in the one written by the Community College Dean. He posts nearly every weekday, and while I have often found myself quite frustrated by his own admittedly liberal bias, I still read on. Which brings me to a regular topic of discussion on his blog–the role of adjuncts at Universities, Colleges, and Community Colleges.

In the most recent post Dean Dad (his psuedonym) discusses the possible states of nature that could arise if adjuncts form unions and enter in to collective bargaining agreements. He has regularly bought in to the notion that adjuncts aren’t paid enough, and that it is unfair to adjuncts that they cannot earn a living wage in that role. In addition, many of his readers talk about adjunct positions as a sort of training ground. He wrote back in May 2007 comparing AAA Baseball and students, and faculty. It is a good read, and I commend it to you. In that article, he writes that in baseball AAA teams are a place to learn one’s trade before moving on to the “big league.” He then notes that this analogy is a good one for students wrapping up their 2 years at the community college, but that he “loathe it applied to faculty.” He points out (rightly) that graduate school is, in itself, the minor leagues. (I would argue that so is the tenure process.) He writes that “To add the expectation of years of adjuncting and chair-pleasing before even getting a shot at a full-time job – effectively, yet another level of apprenticeship — strikes me as adding insult to injury.”

Ahh, what about the fact that the analogy is flawed on its face? AAA ball *is* about development. Adjuncting isn’t. As I have written here before, an ‘adjunct’ should be serving the college/university as an additional job to that which they already have. They aren’t there as some sort of “developmental pool.” It is this trend away from adjuncts working a fulltime outside job, and bringing that experience into the classroom, that I personally believe has cheapened the role of adjunct.

I am not sure if there is an appropriate sporting analogy. I mean, softball leagues would be my first thought. You aren’t doing “ball” as your job, but you do it because you love it (or you love beer.) Of course, you don’t bring all that professional “cred” that adjuncts bring to the classroom. Perhaps the best analogy is that of swim coach. Most often the coach was a good to great swimmer themselves when they were younger. They have been there. They have done that. They have the “Cred” that the young swimmers need. They almost all have full time jobs, though (and in my experience almost all have been teachers.) Only a few, the truly “gifted,” go on to be those swim coaches that get to coach full time, for college or national teams. Do you hear Swim Coaches complain that they have to coach for 3 or 4 different teams, and never get that shot at being the “big team” coach? Nope. They know–they UNDERSTAND– that their role is different. Yup. I like this analogy.

*note: editorial changes/additions since first posted 10 Oct 07

Thankfully, others have taken on this task.  Specifically, Seth Godin (you know, the “All Marketers are Liars” author! and blog) has identified several ways that Apple could have differentiated their product, making people “happy” to have paid 33% more for the same product.  As he puts it, “The key is to not give price protection to early buyers (that’s unsustainable as a business model) but to make them feel more exclusive, not less.”

Godin’s ideas include:

• Free exclusive ringtones, commissioned from Bob Dylan and U2, only available to the people who already had a phone. (This is my favorite because it announces to your friends–every time the phone rings–that you got in early).
• Free pass to get to the head of the line next time a new hot product comes out.
• Ability to buy a specially colored iPod, or an iPod with limited edition music that no one else can buy.

Neat–and as he points out, they wouldn’t have cost Apple $20 Million in profit.

I think it is time for another look at that old friend of Economists and students in Econ 101, the “Demand Curve” and the slightly more complex notion of “Price Discrimination.”

To catch up, you undoubtedly recall that the demand curve essentially shows that, as prices decrease, demand will increase for a product. This is shown in the following graph:

Thus we can expect Steve Jobs is correct in saying that they did this to increase sales before the Christmas season. In fact, lowering the price should increase the sales, assuming that there is elasticity in the pricing and demand curve. Remember, elasticity is the degree to which quantity changes with a change in price. The more elastic, the greater the change (steeper the slope of the curve.)

Now, there is this other notion of “price discrimination.” Price discrimination, or “Yield Management,” is the practice of charging different customers a different price for the same product. The notion is really quite simple. As we saw in the Demand Curve, a few people are willing to pay a high price for a product. A few more would be willing to be a lower price, and so on. In the charts that follow, one can see how, by targeting different customers at different prices points, one can increase total revenue.

The first chart shows the revenue generated if one were to charge a single price. You can see that above the “box” is the revenue that is essentially lost due to customers getting a “good deal.” They would have paid more, but are most likely happy that they were able to pay less. Of course, to the right of the “box” is revenue lost because customers felt the price was not at a point where they could make a purchase.

This next chart shows, notionally, what would happen to revenue if a business were able to successfully segment the market, and provide 6 different price-points. As you can see a far greater area under the curve is colored in, showing a significantly greater amount of revenue.

By identifying these customers, and finding ways to segment the market, a business can capture more revenue by charging higher prices to those willing to pay those prices. Ideally, businesses would like to charge a different price for every customer, targeting the maximum price they are willing to pay. That level of price discrimination would ensure that every customer felt they were receiving a “fair” deal, while removing even the smallest gaps between revenue and the demand curve. This is rare, although an argument could be made that we see this in online auctions and in car sales with negotiations.

Realistically, we do see price discrimination in our daily lives. Customers can find the “same” available for different prices, simply by shopping at different stores. What makes people pay more? A sense that they are receiving something additional for the increased costs. We are perhaps most familiar with this practice in the airline industry, where yield management has gone from art to science. We pay more for a first class ticket (obvious difference in treatment, although you still arrive at the same destination.) But customers also pay a higher price for the privilege of changing travel arrangements, or for the ability to purchase tickets at the last minute. Alternatively, the airlines are able to ensure full planes by offering a select (and scientifically computed) number of seats at lower prices. Travelers must purchase these tickets within certain guidelines, but more tickets are sold (and seats filled), because they are able to capture those people who could otherwise (perhaps) not afford to travel.

If you look around, you can find other instances as well. Coffee is more expensive depending on whether a coffee shop has the right “feel.” Clothing is more expensive when purchased at “higher end” stores.

What is critical here is the ability to segment your customers, and by doing so, create barriers to transfer. This can be accomplished in many ways to include rules ( in the airline and cellphone industries), controlling information (automobile industry), perception of enhanced service (coffee shops and boutiques) and through geography (different shopping “districts.”)

So what does all this have to do with Apple?

I am glad you asked. I believe Apple made a “good call.” They sought to capture as many people in the high end of the Demand Curve as possible. The problem (if you believe that sales may have been trailing off in August) is that the demographic may have been smaller than they anticipated, or they all reacted more quickly purchasing en masse early on. This then left a potentially large amount of sales untapped. This is essentially what Steve Jobs was talking about when he kept referring to capturing the holiday sales. They want to increase sales and to do that, they must change the price point. This slides them down and to the right along the demand curve.

I suggest that Apple was trying to practice what I will call “temporal price discrimination.” They were hoping to capture the “big spenders” early, and then move down the curve, capturing sales from those who could not, or would not, spend at the higher price points. Unfortunately Steve Jobs misjudged the timing. The group that purchased the iPhones at the higher prices were not satisfied to say that 30 to 60 days of use of an iPhone was sufficient differentiation in their minds to have paid a higher price. For many, one could argue it wasn’t worth $100 to $200 per month to have a cool phone.

So, Apple failed to take the necessary steps to successfully practice price discrimination. They failed to differentiate and segment their customers in a significant and substantial way. They did try to create barriers. They were going to limit the number of people that could “switch”¹ to the lower price by putting a time window on when you could get your money back. But customers, apparently in droves, pressured Apple early and often. Jobs responded within 36 hours, offering in store credit (among other reported compensations.)

All in all, I think this has been an interesting time. I have only given a cursory look at the economics involved, and there are far more details I left out (did I forget to mention marginal costs?)  Also, I am sure there are many other factors and pressures that influenced Apple’s initial decision, and some may even include a pending shift in the demand curve itself. (If new technology makes customers feel this iPhone Gen 1 is “obsolete” then the whole demand curve might shift to the left…) Perhaps we shall revisit this topic…

¹ Ironic that, eh? Apple trying to stop people from switching?

We talk about Chris’ social media group, Grasshoppers that is there to answer the question “How can I be helpful?”

How can podcasting be useful for students, or educators? We talk about that as well.

What is TalkShoe? Enables anyone to create, join or listen to LIVE, Interactive, podcasts… (and is a local Pittsburgh PA Company!) For those that listen to the most popular podcaster today (Leo Laporte) he uses this for many of his podcasts, most noteably, Net@Night with Amber McArthur.

• Podcast
• live audio streaming
• live chat
• takes CALLS

Who is using TalkShoe? Talkcasters. I mentioned Leo and Net@Night (id 3185), but also

• Geeza (live commentary DVD viewing… Wow!) (talkshoe ID 8230)
• Scott and Kris – The Power Hour, they are comics writers (talkshoe id 5809)
• Bill Alexander – The NETIO Show (id 1832) He broadcasted last night at the restaurant!
• Cliff Ravenscraft – GSPN.tv (is 5138)
• Adam Christianson – The Maccast (id 17436)
• The Grasshoppers (id 43023) Chris Brogan runs this one! People helping people! How cool!)
• Tech Podcasts Roundtable (id 3254)

So why do TalkShoe he asks?

• Connect with audience
• Format change
• meet people with common interests (miniatures? Doll Houses?)
• form friendships
• content that lasts
• build communities
• have fun!

HOW do we do this?

• Sign up (user ID, Pin, and install the software)
• Click “Create” button…
• Call In to the show…
  • With Skype (using skypeOut)
  • VOIP (SJ Phone, Gizmo Project)
  • ShoePhone (Talkshoe’s built in VOIP)
  • POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service!)
• Click on Record.

It’s that simple.

How much does it cost?

$0.00 (And that is in Canadian dollars… the conversion to Euros is… 0.00)

In FACT they PAY you–$50 for the first 10 episodes, and pay per download after that. How cool is THAT?

NEXT RELEASE: Codename: “Tokyo” ETA 10 Sept 07

===================================

How cool is this? My son and I are thinking it might be a great way to make our football conversations a bit more interactive, and get more people involved. Really helps us connect with the audience. That CAN’T be a bad thing!

How can I use this in education? Imagine a “virtual study group” hosted through podcast–where students can call in and ask questions, and the professor can answer.

How about a call in show to leaders in Supply Chain? Wouldn’t you love a chance to pick the brains of the movers in logistics and supply chain?

Again, how cool…

Now, without any further ado, the excerpt:

Q: Very good. (It didn’t fit the rhythm, and anyway they get the picture.) How would you react to the idea that a psychological trait, one intimately linked to the higher mental functions, is highly heritable?

A: With suspicion and unease, naturally.

Q: It’s strongly correlated with educational achievement, class and race.

A: Worse and worse.

Q: Basically nothing that happens after early adolescence makes an impact on it; before that it’s also correlated with diet.

A: Do you work at the Heritage Foundation? Such things cannot be.

Q: What if I told you the trait was accent?

A: I’m sorry?

Q (in a transparently fake California accent): When you, like, say words differently than other people? who speak, like, the same language? because that’s how you, you know, learned to say them from people around you?

A: Do you have a point to make, or are you just yanking my chain?

Q: Would you agree that accent has all the characteristics I just described?

A: Higher cognitive functions — heritable — class and race — not plastic after adolesence — correlation with diet, hah! — I guess I must.

Q: But would you say that there is any genetic or even congenital component to accent?

A: Not really. Obviously, some congenital conditions, like deafness or defects of the vocal chords, make it hard to impossible to acquire any accent. And I can imagine, though I don’t know of anything, that there might be very specific mutations which make it hard to hear a distinction between a given pair of sounds, or easier to learn a specific distinction. But, in general, no, there is no non-trivial genetic component to accent.

Q: Then why were you worried that I was about to start channeling Arthur Jensen?

A: Because those are the sorts of claims usually trotted out by people who want to claim that something is innate, un-plastic, and usually invidiously distributed; sometimes there is a “sadly” to the claims of group inferiority, and sometimes, I think, that “sadly” is even genuine.

“When you make the finding yourself – even if you’re the last person on Earth to see the light – you’ll never forget it.” Carl Sagan

As if you needed any more reasons to not fly US Airways, this report comes from my wife on her trip back home.

We left on different flights heading back East. She took off on time from San Francisco, but unfortunately, her flight apparently had slower engines than mine, and she arrived 30 minutes later than scheduled. This is, of course, a problem when you only have 40 minutes scheduled between flights, and your flights are in two different terminals. She talked to the flight attendant on board her first flight, and advised them of the situation. The response was actually classic US Airways: 1. You aren’t alone, there are many others who are in the same situation. 2. I am sure they know you are coming, so don’t worry about it.

Why do I call this a classic US Airways response? First, they inevitably tell you that you aren’t alone with this problem. I am not sure why they do that, but I think it is to make you feel small–like somehow you have no “real” gripe because you aren’t really unique, or special. My response has been typically “Well, if so many people are having these problems, perhaps you should be doing something to fix your airline–don’t you agree?” The second ‘typical’ response is to tell you that it will all be taken care of later, by someone else. The classic buck-passer. That’s the story I heard, time and again, from everyone I met who entered the realm of “customer service” with USAirways. Inevitably, and I do mean inevitably, the buck passer mis-spoke, mislead or just didn’t want to do something.

So that brings me back to my wife’s story. She gets off the plane, and starts hurrying through the airport. She sees one of those motorized carts, and asks for a ride, telling them what time her flight is leaving. They graciously take her to the gate (but warn her she most likely will have already missed the flight–USAirways doesn’t wait!). And sure enough, they were closing the door to the plane. “They” let her onboard, only to find out that the Gate Attendant had already given her seat assignment to someone else!

Now, why would an airline, knowing that the person they were missing was an inbound on another flight, and making a connection, do such a thing? There are two “things” that USAirways did here. First, they were going to leave a passenger who’s flight had landed, simply to make their “on time departure” metric. Second, they gave a seat away that was for a customer who was making a connecting flight. The first is an unfortunate “unintended consequence” of metrics. If you measure me on the percentage of on time take offs, and not reducing the number of stranded customers, then US Airways (and all other airlines) will continue to care more about the “push back from the gate” than having happy customers. The second “thing” is a bit more difficult to understand. I mean, giving her seat away? Perhaps one could chalk it up to the need to generate revenue (so much of what they do is meant to nickel and dime their customers) except, and here is the weird thing, they still had seats on the plane. They were able to give my wife a new seat assignment right away.

So what lessons do we learn about US Airways here?

1. Trivialize the customer’s complaint
2. Pass the buck to someone later in the process
3. When you do get “Later in the process” deny that they can do what you were promised earlier
4. Focus on metrics that don’t involve the customer
5. Focus on revenue generation to the detriment of customer service

Yup. US Airways is not a winner, at least not in my book.
2.

I am intrigued by this phrase, the “digital Native.” It implies somehow that these youth are themselves involved with the “digital” nature of things. Honestly, I don’t think people realize what it means anymore to be “digital.” For instance, one blog author recently wrote:

“I killed the CD collection years ago and have been living in a digital music ecosystem since my iPods’ storage capacities started to match my old analog collection.”

Does anyone else see that there is no distinction between “CD Collection” and being “digital?” I, for one, made the switch to digital coding and storage of my music when I made the switch to CDs. They are digital. I still listen to my music in analog however. Whether on an iPod, CD, or “digital XM radio.” In fact, we have seen in the past 40 years a move from talking to computers in a “digital” fashion through programming in “machine code” to first creating computer “languages” that move more to human language and thought (Fortran, C++, etc), and now to developing interfaces for computers such as WordPress, iTunes, and others than make the computer more “human friendly” rather than making us more “digital.”

And here lies my point: This generation isn’t any more “digital” than any other. Humanity is inherently “analog.” We see things in analog, we hear in analog, and despite efforts to compare our brains to computers, we apparently think in analog. This “digital generation” is still engaged in all the things that youth of every generation have found to occupy their time.

One of the thoughts defining how the world has changed is that youth today are able to interact in “social computing spaces” such as MySpace and FaceBook. Is that really different from past generations? Some seem to think that, because teens are now relating from a keyboard, that this is somehow “different” and imbues these youth with something perhaps even “magical” that we have to learn to tap.

I would argue that teens, being human, are social animals. Today they use Web 2.0 tools. In the 90′s it was AOL Chat rooms (digital, I realize). Before that teens hung out at the mall (70′s and 80′s), Soda Shops (50′s) and Ice Cream Parlours (20′s and 30′s). Prior to that, despite long distances that separated the youth in our agrarian societies, they found time for “barn dances” and other social events. People of all ages and through all ages have wanted to be “together” and socialize with other people. That hasn’t changed.

“But wait” you may say, “now the youth are sharing and communicating in a very global way with people they have never met.” Yes, that is true. Of course, back in the days of what I call “web 0.0″ people did the same with pen-pals and the use of postal services. People even solicited inputs from strangers by putting messages in bottles, attaching cards to balloon launches, and perhaps dozens of other creative ways of reaching out in very tactile ways to a world one didn’t even know.

But are our youth any more “global” than they were before? While Lee Rainie and Bryan Alexander talked about the global nature of this new communication, Lee did point out that most of the communication today is between small groups.  In response to a question I posed from the floor he pointed out that most “content creators” create for a small group, and believe that their work will only be viewed by a select few.  Some even control that group by limiting access to their “friends.”

So here is my bottom line :

Kids today aren’t any different than we were, or our parents were.  Technology is more pervasive simply because smart people have made digital into a more “analog” experience.  Perhaps we need to stop emoting over the technology, and focus again on people rather than process.

One major input: The students like the professor “facing” the students. Additional: They like the use of colors to highlight information.

What strikes me here, along with much of the conference, is how we are discussing ways of moving what we do, and making ourselves “more productive” with new technologies but not necessarily doing “new things.”

The faculty have made good use of the existing software to deliver their content. For instance, they don’t have any fancy “education software” to present the information, but rather have used Windows Journal to combine (pre) written text with charts diagrams, and “spontaneous” hand written notes to step through the lectures.

Back in “the day” I had professors that would essentially do the same thing. They would write out their notes, then scan them as PDFs , and either email or post them to a website.

The Mech Engineer professor has found that class attendance has dropped significantly. He suspects that it is because he posts the completed documents to the course website after the lectures. To me that is a “significant” finding since I haven’t seen a drop in attendance in my classes even though I post the PowerPoint slides, and record and post my lectures as podcasts.

The final professor with a presentation actually says he “records” his presentations, so that he can make it available for downloads. He uses a software package called “Centra” and records everything as he works through the lecture with the students in the classroom.

Interestingly, he has put forward that he would like to see all the students have tablets as well, so they can all begin to work in the classroom collaboratively.

I do have a few comments about Web 2.0 and the Symposium, but I will post those “later.”

Bolting the Tablet to the Podium??  Believe it or not, there actually are people in favor of this sort of thing.  It is the classic conflict between the institution’s desire to protect assets and the faculty desire to have mobility in the classroom.

Let me explain. I see the Wiki as traditionally viewed, that is many contribute their bits of knowledge, allowing for the aggregation of knowledge (and the self-correction as required), with a limited impact on any individual as that knowledge is created. I contribute that which I feel most comfortable contributing, and hopefully take the time to provide correction when I believe something has been less than helpful, or downright incorrect. BOTTOM LINE: Big gains in accessibility to knowledge, with limited impact on any one person’s time to develop.

If we were to view this as the ideal for a course, developing a base of knowledge for a course of instruction, then I suspect we have actually just provided the faculty member with another way of putting their content forward, but not necessarily made it any simpler for the faculty member, and perhaps in fact have increased their workload if only by adding another learning curve. This is not to say that students couldn’t be used to help develop the content, but their inputs will be widely varied in content and quality, depending on their previous knowledge of the materials, their experience base, and the like. In upper level graduate courses, where students are drawing on a wealth of past educational and work experiences, then perhaps they have much to contribute and share, but can we expect that level of contribution from undergrads?

I have looked at a few of the examples of PB Wiki, and the camping trip, and I find them to be interesting ways of accomplishing what we have had other tools to do before, namely, allow for an online space for the aggregation of information. As an open forum, allowing for the development of information, perhaps this makes sense, but what if your school already has a course management system, such as Blackboard, WebCT, or Angel? Do Wikis provide a new capability, or a duplication of existing capabilities with minor tweaks and changes?

So, my question about the use of Wiki in this way (and my perspective as one faculty member) is: how does it a) make the educational content better, b) make the educator’s life easier freeing us up to focus on content rather than process, or c) enable students to grasp the information in a better/faster/cheaper way?

Ideas?

First, I have to say I admire the creativity involved, and the artistic ability of the professor, Dr Phillips. The graphics are, to my mind, superb, and reflect the hand of a highly skilled artisan. Check out this explanation of grading. Lovely work!

Second, I believe creativity in and out of the classroom helps the students better grasp the material, and stay engaged. I don’t know about you, but when I find something to be interesting I usually stay with it longer than I do with something boring, tedious, or just down-right painful.

Alas, the point: I found it difficult to actually make heads-or-tails out of the syllabus. Perhaps I am just too comfortable with structure. Perhaps I am too captive to the traditional language of the syllabus. But I couldn’t figure out at times what the specific requirements are for the course. In the graphic above, as a student I will know how points are earned, but I have no idea how many points are required for a given grade.

Sometimes things are even more vague. For instance:

In this clip (perhaps not too readable—sorry about that!) for week nine the syllabus suggests we “ask the owl” about whether a paper is due. Hmmmm… Is that clear and concise?

Now, lest I rush hastily to judgment, I thought perhaps this ol’ guy should check with a younger, more hip crowd. So I did. I asked my daughter’s boyfriend who is not only a college student, but a huge cartoon/comic fan, what he thought of the comic syllabus. I even handed it to him (printed out) with great enthusiasm, saying something like “hey, check out this cool syllabus! Whatcha think?”

His comments were similar to mine, with just a few added points.

1. “So, what do I have to DO in this class?”

2. “What do I have to do to get an A? B? I don’t see that listed anywhere?”

(and my favorite!)

3. “I hope he (the professor -ed) printed these out and handed them out in class. I would sure hate to waste all my ink on this.”

So there ya have it. Innovation is cute, but not necessarily effective. I am curious what other innovative things you, dear readers, have come across. Let me know, either in comments, or by email!
CAVEAT: We all understood that his syllabus is unique to his class, and perhaps at his school they all understand what expectations are for grades.

I will (loosely) categorize this one as “education.”

In his post at Inside Home Recording, he writes:

I suspect this is more about the iPod than the TuneTalk, but it’s worth knowing how to stop your recordings from skipping. In summary, defragmenting your iPod by restoring it to factory settings, or otherwise freeing contiguous hard disk space, may help it work better.

Well, I have to agree with his first bit “it’s more about the iPod” since I don’t have the Griffin TuneTalk but rather have the iTalk from Griffin. (Although it is disconcerting that they both come from the same manufacturer…)

Assuming Derek is correct, and the flash memory is only used to buffer replay and not recording, then It certainly makes sense that, if the hard drive is having to work harder, it will “miss” things. Of course, I do find it difficult to believe that it would result in such significant losses. But, hey, it could happen.
Derek’s solution was to run the iPod “restore” feature, and then reformat the Hard Drive. He then only put podcasts on his iPod instead of music, to keep the disk from getting too fragmented. One person in the comments section tried only the “restore” feature (which some sources say also defragments the hard drive) but that person found that did not work.

Unfortunately, reformatting, or defragging, the hard disk on the iPod is not something that Apple recommends doing. I am not sure about the impact of doing that. Additionally, as I give it more thought, once the music is on the hard drive, it shouldn’t contribute to fragmentation since it is essentially locked in place. Only podcasts, which are recorded, deleted, recorded, deleted, and so on, would result in a fragmented hard drive. It’s the constant writing and deleting and then writing to whatever free space is available, that causes fragmentation.

Now, will this work for me? Perhaps–although as I hinted at above, I am reluctant to try this based on my comment above of defragmenting. Actually, I don’t think this will solve my problem, based on the following:

• The skipping was not “linear” (it stores different parts of the lecture out of sequence) which leads me to conclude it has more to do with the way the file is stored/read, and not with a problem in the buffer.
• I had deleted a large number of podcasts off the iPod between when it occured last week, and the recordings this week. That should have freed up very large contiguous segments of hard drive space.

I would love to read what others of you are thinking on this subject. Please, if you have any thoughts, or similar experiences, let me know.

I am quite curious to learn if this is a problem with the latest video ipods as well. This could bode quite ill for the iPod as a lecture recording solution. Professors need something that can record with a very high level of reliability, and when it fails, the solution needs to be nearly immediate.

– The Professor

I recorded the class, as usual. No problem there. At the end of class it said it recorded 1 hour and 4 minutes. About right. I get home, and move the files over, and BAM! the file is completely dorked up. It starts fine (Sort of) but then starts jumping all around the lecture. When I open the file in Audacity and look at the waveform display, it shows long periods of silence, and when I do play the sections that actually have soundwaves, it has my sentences all jumbled up. (in image, audio on left, and the silence is on the right… and definitely not how the lecture was!)

So I am now left with it being a problem with the iTalk, or a problem with the iPod. Unfortunately, I don’t have another iPod photo that I can use to continue the trouble shooting. I have checked online and haven’t seen anything that would lead me to conclude that it is a problem with the iTalk. Given that it seems to be a problem with the way the data is stored, I am left with the conclusion that it is the iPod.

I welcome any other ideas, or suggestions. I really have enjoyed this technology working, and would hate to lose this capability.

The Professor

In addition, I have been taking the time to record the solutions to the homework questions as tutorials. Once the homework is turned in, I make available an online “screencast”, or video, that not only gives the students the answers to the homework, but explains how the answer is determined. I hope to solve a couple problems with this. First, by providing yet another avenue for the students to learn the material, I am hoping that the information, the “learnings,” that they get will stay with them a bit longer. But also, I am hoping this meets the needs of the students to understand what they might have done wrong, and still free up class time to move forward. I suspect we have all experienced that time in class when we didn’t quite get an answer, and we ask to go over something, and we are the only one who didn’t “get” it. Often, these questions can be answered through the screen-cast. The bottom line is I want to make the material available to those who need it, when they need it, and free up the time for other activities for those who don’t.

So far this has been working out well for me. I have run into a few glitches, however. I have been recording my classes using my 60 gb iPod Photo, a Griffin iTalk, and a lapel microphone purchased at Radio Shack. Overall, it has worked well. I have found that the recording has a bit of background noise, and is a bit faint, so in my audio editing program (I use Adobe Audition) I increase the amplitude of the file, and perform some simple noise reduction. These are fairly simple tasks, and I hope some day to spend the time to see if I can make a simple script to do this “pre-processing” for me. Occasionally I have had a software glitch that seems to create a repeating loop. I haven’t been able to isolate the problem, but it seems that it is introduced with some of the processing. I have been able to work around this, and usually have clean audio.

The latest problem is a bit more disturbing. I recorded my lectures on Monday, for both of my classes. When I went to listen and edit my audio, I found that there were serious defects in the files. I am thinking it may be a result of my battery dying in the lapel microphone, but that is what has me concerned. There is no indicator to to tip me off as to when the battery is “too low.” Thankfully, I process these files the day after my lectures (usually) so I can catch any problems soon after they occur, but fot those students that have come to rely on the recorded lectures to re-enforce the learning, losing the lecture can be quite disconcerting. Obviously, I need to set up a regular routine for replacing the batteries. (Assuming my initial assumption is correct–otherwise, I have a more serious hardware issue!)

The Inventory and Supply Chain guy in me though is asking the other questions: When is the appropriate time to replace the battery? I don’t want to replace them too early, since that means I have essentially wasted the capacity of the battery, and have wasted money. On the other hand, I want to eliminate the problem of losing whole lectures because of technology failures.

Perhaps, if anyone is interested in reading more about what I am trying to do with podcasts, I will write more. Let me know what you think. Would you like to be able to listen to the lectures on your own time? Would it be helpful to have on-demand tutorials explaining what the correct answers were to homework problems? More importantly, what other ways would you like to see this sort of technology used to enhance your education?

The Prof…

One of the things I like about the site is that it lets you choose the format(s) for the book that best suits you. Certainly I went for the pdf file, but you can also get it as:

• PDF
• PDF Large Format (I am getting older, perhaps I should get that format?)
• eReader
• Rocketbook
• NewtonBook (Hey, if you listened to the podcast, you know my brother and I both had Newtons too!)
• Mobipocket
• (and others!)

If you like to read, and you always wanted to catch up on the world of books, check this site out. It is well worth the time.

Come back here, and leave a comment, telling all of us what books you chose to download. In fact, if enough of you are interested, I will open up a page simply for book reviews and discussions. What better way to learn than through books, and sharing.

–The Professor

I hope you enjoy the podcast, and remember, you can always get this podcast through an iTunes subscription by going to The Podcast Link.

I would also recommend you visit some of the other site we talk about.

• twit.tv
• Revision3.com
• segway.com
• The Newton Source – The essential Newton Reference
• TUAW – The Unofficial Apple Weblog
• Steve Kemper, author of “Code Named Ginger”

Let us know what you think, and how far YOU made it through the podcast before you quit.

I talk about a few of my favorite podcasts:

Several from http://twit.tv

• This week in Tech
• Inside the Net

And several others:

• The Diva Cast (http://thedivacast.com)
• NPR’s Science Friday
• New Scientist Podcast

I would recommend you explore the many podcasts available. Remember, you don’t have to have an iPod, or even iTunes, to listen to podcasts. You just need to have a computer or an MP3 player. go look at what is available at places like http://podcastalley.com, http://podshow.com or even in the iTunes store.

After reading many of the other comments, I find that the readership over there is quite a creative bunch! I enjoyed much of what they wrote, but the discussion reminded me of something else I have noticed of late. Syllabus Creep.

It seems as professors and instructors face the wide range of situations students present, we have added more and more to our syllabi. No, not content about the course–that would be reasonable. We are adding more and more about expectations of behavior, how not to cheat, when to attend class, what you will have to do if you don’t attend class, and the like. Lately, I have gone for the more minimalist approach: DON’T CHEAT, OR YOU WILL BE CAUGHT.

I had read a syllabus where there was not only a list of items to bring for an exam, but an extremely long list of what not to bring. No hats. No music players. No scarves. If one could write on it, one couldn’t bring it.

I have gone a slightly different route: I now allow the students to bring any personal music device that they wish. iPod, CD Player, Radio (with headset.) Whatever helps get them through the exam. Why? I know many people focus better with some “controlled distraction” rather than the random noises of other test-takers, and the opportunity to listen to something familiar may help overcome test anxiety.

I know what you’re thinking. “What if they cheat? What if they dictate notes into the MP3 player? What if they include text?” Hmmm… interesting. I almost hope they do. Why? Because they had to actually read/review the material to put it into their device. Learning occurs, if only through repetition.

“Ahhh,” you may ask “but what if one person does it, and then gives it to the others?” Another interesting question. The way I see it, you need to be fairly familiar with the material to be able to move quickly and accurately to the material covered in the question. Students never quite realize just how difficult an open book exam can be if you don’t already know the material well enough to quickly/efficiently move through the chapters to find the answers. Those that have understood the material best are those that are best able to find the relevant information.

My goal in my classes are to encourage students to learn the material. I think this helps get there.

Okay, so I had to. After so many blogs where I talk about integrity in one’s writing, how could I not address the accusation that Ann Coulter is a plagiarist. I found it interesting when I first heard about it, and intriguing when I read the posting at the Language Log (you all DO still go there, right?)

What most intrigues me though is the sense that the Left felt it somehow necessary to go after Coulter. Apparently the self induced blindness of the Bashists is not limited to the Administration. Bashists must nuw blame conservatives for such things as plagiarism. And, as is so often the case when the Bashists write before thinking, they are brought low by the facts.

There is a good analysis of the articles in question at RedState (tip of hat to Language Log). I have to agree–when the content in question turns out to be quotes, one can’t help but think the Bashists have either no sense of reason left, of they simply hope that the vast majority of people will never actually go check their claims.

Faulty survey data takes many forms. Sometimes the questions are loaded, as with a survey about online gambling I wrote about in April. Other surveys have very low response rates, like a poll about the value of mothers’ work; or pollsters don’t disclose all of their questions nor results, raising fears they’ve cherry-picked those responses that reflect best on the polls’ sponsors. Also, many polls you may read about have been conducted online, usually among a panel of volunteers lured by online ads — considered a less-representative sample by most pollsters than respondents who are found by random-digit telephone dialing.

and:

Polls with pitfalls shouldn’t be discarded automatically. But often they are accepted automatically by the press and rendered indistinguishable from polls conducted by more standard means.

So there you have it. More criticisms of bad polling, bad data, and blind acceptance. And from a reputable source, to boot!
The Prof
1. And most recently in a fit of “hyper-’bowl’-e” misrepresenting students’ putting marijuana in muffins as “spiking a punch bowl,” two very different things, to be sure!

Imagine my joy when I saw that one of my favorites blogs, the Language Log, decided to tackle another mis-reported survey. Of course, this one is particularly juicy since the log-ers are chastising the press for getting it wrong in reporting about how stupid the American people are. Perhaps the best point made is after listing the question asking people essentially to name the freedoms of the first amendment. In critiquing the analysis they write: “If you’re hip to the rhetoric of survey spin, you’ll guess at this point that the survey asked people to enumerate first-amendment rights by free recall.”
Yup, they could stop there, but they don’t! They then go on to mention how challenging that sort of question is. Asking someone to list off something very specific without any hints is quite difficult. Remember essay questions in school? The dreaded “What are 3 of the freedoms identified in the First Amendment, and explain the circumstances that caused their specific addition to the Bill of Rights?” (Actually, when you think about it, this particular essay question is replete with hints!)

Cheers for the Language Log!
Now, for what for me was truly ironic. Many of you remember the gracious treatment I received from the (apparent) owner of the A Liberal Dose blog (go back if you wish and read his witty comments, if your foul language detector is appropriately in place!) Well, not only is the author of that blog a great distorter of facts (or perhaps, just a tremendous prevaricator) he is a great distorter of images. To see what I am writing about, just go see the posting for Memorial Day weekend. As they say, context is everything. In this instance, we are provided a caption, and a picture of the President smiling. Of course, we are to quickly conclude the President may well have expressed deep remorse but by his smile, he must not have “meant it.” Hmmmm… Was the picture taken at the same time as the statement? (or even within seconds, or a minute?) Was the picture taken before the speech began? Who was the President looking at while smiling? (In the interest of fairness, this is the same sort of gross mis-representation that Rush Limbaugh did with the video of President Clinton laughing when leaving following the funeral of his former Secretary of Transportation. Of course, in THAT case the clip showed Clinton crying, laughing and then crying again, in the span of 10 seconds…)
As you can see, the picture doesn’t actually convey anything other than a man who can, at times, be quite “warm” most likely to a person in the crowd. It is mis-representations like this that lead one to conclude that “A Liberal Dose” is a person with an agenda, and perhaps not much else.
But that’s alright.
To steal from an old “Greyhound Busline” commercial “Just relax, and leave the thinking to us!”
The Prof

Those who know me, know my record with plagiarists. I post this link to the Language Log, in an attempt to warn all, students and others, about the problems of plagiarism, and most importantly, about the broader impact it has, beyond the classroom.

The Pro

The above quote comes out of a very lengthy thread on the Community College Dean’s blog. There are many tangents that have come out of that thread, and this is the first one I have chosen to discuss.

This is not the first time I have heard the argument that “education is not a business.” I would have to agree. Educators have a responsibility to provide an education, to convey material to learners in an environment, and with pedagogical approaches, that enhance the opportunity for the learners to actually grasp and internalize the material. I would then also argue that McDonalds (or, Lone Star Steak House, or any other restaurant), Barnes and Noble (and other perveyors of books), Bloomingdales… none of these are businesses either. They exist to meet a requirement, or satisfy a want, for people that have a need or want. In tfact, they too actually want people to “grasp” and (in the case of restaurants literally, and bookstores not so… ) internalize the materials.

In all these cases the contact person–the educator, the bookstore clerk, the customer specialist, or the counter-kid at McDonalds, needs to focus not on the business aspect of the firm, but on the customer’s satisfaction. The “best” businesses do that–focus on the customer, understanding that the rest will follow.

Specifically, and this is the most critical point, if people see value in what they receive they will pay for it as they are able. If they don’t–they won’t!

Education, and other not-for-profit endeavours are a bit different, in that schools and public broadcasting, and often hospitals, are able to get people in general to see the benefit, and pay for services they themselves might not directly receive, but they do it because the see, and wish to encourage, the product to continue to be provided. (I wish it were possible to go to Barnes and Noble and have someone offer to subsidize my book purchases, but alas, that doesn’t happen.)

So what wordplay am I conducting here? Well, business is, according to lawyerintl.com is “A continuous and regular activity that has income or profit as its primary purpose.” Hmmm… so perhaps, either I am just creating a smoke-screen to obfuscate the point about education, or education has as its primary purpose making money. Or perhaps their is another option–the ‘legal’ definition of a business doesn’t actually fit what we in business actually do.

Businesses most often are in the business of generating revenue. Without revenue no operation can continue. Be it public radio and televion, or the local university, or the local McDonalds, all need revenue to survive. But by the same token all businesses understand that they exist to satisfy some perceived want or need, and that they can only survive through providing that.

Here’s the bottom line: yes, educators, you are not “business people.” Your charter is to serve your institution by delivering the best educational experience possible to the students in your care, and doing all you can to ensure they grasp the material and are hopefully changed by it. That is just like a counter-kid at McDonalds has as their mission to keep the customer “lovin’ it.” It’s the role of the administration, and the management, to ensure the revenue keeps coming in, and that the books either remain “balanced” (not for profits) or stay positive to satisfy the stakeholders.

So if it appears that a conflict exists, then I suggest you ask these simple questions:

1. Does the actions of the administration take the school/college/university away from it’s mission of education?

(critical point here: do not ask yourself if it takes away specific areas of education, such as medieval studies, but rather if it has changed the mission–say to providing conferences and hotel space, without an educational element.)

2. Does the administration make clear the long-term strategic direction for this change?
(perhaps outlining either a) the fiscal need that perhaps ensures survival, such as at Tulane, or b) reaches an as yet untapped clientele with the educational mission, as the discussion at the Dean’s blog has as its base.)

These are only two questions. Perhaps you have more.

I welcome a lengthy discussion here, as well.

The Professor

“Among the troops, a flood of desertions (thanks in no small part to the efforts of GI Rights Online) is indicative of the growing unpopularity of the occupation — fully 72% of American troops in Iraq support ending it this year.”

Here we go. “flood of desertions” this blogger claims. This particular blog reminds me of some of the worst writings I have seen in class. Students will do anything to get a point across in their papers, and will cite things that don’t actually argue what the student portrays it to be arguing. Unfortunately, I have actually seen articles submitted by academics for peer reviewed journals, where the authors misrepresent the argument put forward in a cited work.

This is a classic point in case. According to this blog, one would think that we are losing soldiers, sailors, airman and marines at a phenomenal rate–perhaps even greater than ever before. Wow! I was surprised enough to go check his source. Much to my surprise I saw in the graphic the heading “Desertions drop.” Hhmmmmm flood? The article goes on to point out that desertions have continued to drop since 9/11/01, and in fact “Desertions in 2005 represent 0.24% of the 1.4 million U.S. forces.”

Two points strike me here. First, the numbers are not only lower than they were in 2001, but they are also lower than they were in 2000–while that “other guy” was still in the White House! Second, most desertions happen stateside, are early in an enlistment, and more often than not are based on personal issues (failure to adapt to the military lifestyle, personal issues back home) than they are a protesting of a war the nation was engaged in at the time of the enlistment!

In the same blog entry, further down, the blogger makes the rather simple mistake of referring to election fraud in the 2004 election, when the article again and again states it was the 2002 election. Why is this a big deal, and not just a simple error? Because we are all told by the left how corrupt the ’04 election was, but not the ’02 one.

So here we are. This blogger has become so blinded by his political ideology that either he can no longer read things carefully, or he chooses to distort the sources.

I had actually commented on his blog, providing a correction, but it seems that, while he shows that comments are allowed, but moderated, he actually doesn’t put comments up for view. Hmmmm… I must admit, because of the errors on this one page, and how easy it is for someone to quickly check the facts by actually reading the sources cited, I found myself wondering if this blogger is actually a conservative make a veiled attempt at making liberals look stupid. Hey, it’s either that, or…

So students, learn a valuable lesson. Before you cite something, read it. Make sure that the document you cite actually buttresses the argument you are using it to make, or at least that you represent their argument accurately.

The Prof

Last posting, I put a story up about SAP releasing V 5 of their SCM software. I commented there on the need for software to support supply chain collaboration, among other things. It was pointed out to me by a colleague that the book, “Why ERP” presents an implementation of an SAP ERP system that failed. I have yet to read the book, but it is now high on my reading list (and I encourage those of you interested in these things to do as well.)

Hey, I make it easy for you–I am linking this posting to the Amazon site for this book. But not to get you to buy it, because if that was my goal I would have figured out a way to get a kickback. I wanted to actually link to the comments reviewing the book, like the one quoted above. It appears that this book is fairly common required reading, and that students don’t like it. Don’t believe me? Go read the comments!

This was doubly interesting to me, since it combined the ERP discussion with a discussion on evaluations by students. Over at the blog “Confessions of a Community College Dean” the Dean is trying to figure out ways to evaluate his faculty. This is often stymied by the fact that students’ evaluations are, well, sometimes less than constructive. Note, I say sometimes.

In these reviews of the book you will find there to be constructive critiques. These critiques say things like:

“Do not read this book if you are an expert on SAP or very familiar with ERP systems. This is little more than a text book put in the form of one large example.” (Hmmm one CASE example can be quite rich in individual exmplars used for discussion and study. But still, good critique.)

CAUTION: This book (actually a novel) is good only for those who do not know anything about ERP. Finish this quickly and move on to more detailed stuff like MISSION CRITICAL by Thomas Davenport. (again, the usefulness is challenged, but at least the commentator provides an alternative.)

and, Perhaps the best review:

This actually is a good read. It kept my interest for a full 2 hours, which is what is took to read it. The case study is real and on the mark. It illustrates that even if SAP is being widely adopted in your industry (in this case furniture), it may not be the right solution for you. In this instance, SAP (or the SAP implementation approach) was wrong because the company, whose business model was “make to order”, tried to cut time and costs by directly implementing a configuration which worked well for a company that has a very limited (few part numbers with minimal change) product line.

The author also did a realistic job in presenting the politics of the situation. The company president wanted an easy integration under a tight deadline. The IT geek wasn’t interested in the business model and wanted a showcase quick installation. The marketing guy wasn’t interested in the details and wanted to showcase the installation. The book’s hero is a healthy skeptic, who is trying to understand ERP, its benefits, and how it fit his company’s business.

Based the book’s title, I thought I was picking up another SAP marketing book. But it is not that at all. It’s objective and deals with business issues. No ABAP, idocs, and organization elements here.

My recommendations for anyone writing a review or a critique, including critiquing a course or an instructor? They are quite simple really:

1. Provide positive feedback if at all possible. What did you like, and why? The why is important because it helps to know how to develop future information in a way that worked well previously. Criticism need not be negative, or even pointing out weaknesses. Sometimes people need to be told the good things.

2. Be critical, with a positive attitude. Say things like “While I appreciate XXX, it didn’t work well, because…” Again, the because, or the why, is critical to helping the professor or author provide a fix for things later.

3. Understand the purpose of what you are critiquing. If you are critiquing a course, and the course is on advanced astrophysics, don’t criticize the lack of creative writing assignments. Alternatively, if you are in an MBA program, regardless of the quantitative rigour of the individual course, you should have an expectation that students will be expected to communicate clearly–after all, you are there to be better managers.

So, remember: criticism should be given with the intent of improvement, and while it may have been cathartic for the reviewer to write: “I wouldn’t even make paper airplanes with this book – because they would suck too. When millions of books were burned in WWII, why did they miss this one?” they certainly provided nothing to the discussion.

The Prof

Postscript: (In fact, the paper airplane comment was followed by a recommendation to read “The Goal” by Goldratt. An excellent book, but with a completely different message/intent. This reviewer apparently missed point number three.)

“With the package’s new tools, the company said, retailers can strike a better balance between increased customer service levels and lowered merchandise inventory, SAP said. They can replenish products with long lead times and at the same time handle seasonal products and introduce new products with short product-lifecycles using historical information on similar products to forecast demand.”

This is, perhaps, the state of the art in true Supply Chain Management software. I would recommend anyone interested in SCM that they start looking at this sort of software for managing their chain. I find perhaps the most interesting line in here is the one about managing long lead times, and seasonal products.

I am curious myself to get my hands on this. I fervently believe that for a software package to truly support SCM, they need to incorporate not only a good information system for the sharing of information, but it also needs to in some way provide a way to encourage shared decision making.

The infusion of collaboration in the supply chain will of course be THE way firms are able to be fully empowered and can reach nirvana, satisfying customers and have very low inventories.

Perhaps SAP is willing to let this professor of SCM play with the software a bit…

I have talked, since 1996, about the parallels between transportation networks, and information (Computer) networks. Both networks move items of value (cargo, or data) from point to point, and even use much of the same language. I have even posited that computer networks (read: Internet) is actually a sixth mode of transportation–a concept I am now beginning to see in print.

Part of any good logistics system is an efficient transportation network. An efficient network not only moves “things” (beit cargo, or people) at the lowest cost and in a timely manner, but does so to ensure the effectiveness of the delivery (arrives on-time, and in proper condition, and so forth.)

This website takes efficient and effective transportation the next step, ensuring that, literally, the “last mile” is covered. This system, though, is designed to ensure that the people get to where they are going–taking them from their cars to their offices, offices to meetings, and the like, quickly, efficiently, and, if you ask me, in HIGH style!

What for me is important to note is that they are using the language of the internet in describing this personal transportation network. It’s a “packet switched” carrier. It “connects a single campus bus stop to 30,000 desks.”

Perhaps we are seeing the convergence of IT and TT (Info tech and Trans Tech) in this new and innovative proposal!

At first I thought this was a well-thought-out joke (a “packet switched people network?”), or perhaps class project, but after visiting the website, I am thinking perhaps this is a serious proposal. Either way, it is quite cool!

The Prof

P.S. — Be sure to check out the marketing video as well!

I also found a discussion about bias in academia to be interesting as well. It seems that academics do not believe that there is a liberal bias in academia. Now, one could comment about fish not perceiving water, pigs and mud, etc (the implication being, you do not notice that which surrounds you as being somehow “different.”) I, though, was struck by the similarity between the liberal argument, and the conservatives they argue about.

So, without any further ado, here is my comment and the others, regarding stereotyping by liberals.

Kimmitt:

Do you not notice the stereotyping and bias you yourself introduce? By writing “the conservative movement as a whole has a very strong “know-nothing” component which is inimical to the very concept of education.” you judge a whole group based on a pre-conception (and I doubt you can show research to support your view–besides anecdote.) Given this, you dismiss as “the exception” the few conservatives who point out they are in favor of critical thinking.

This really does sound as offensive to me as “well, you may be a smart woman, but most women…” or perhaps some other stereotype.

It is perhaps in our desire to descriminate, (sic) and stereotype, based on differences, that conservatives and liberals, pin-heads and enlightened, find their true common ground.

This is why my preference for “diversity” in education is not race or gender, or even age based–it’s *idea* based. I want to encourage a diverse idea base, so that ideas can be freely exchanged, and debate encouraged, without stereotyping and dismissing from any group.

Just a thought.

This is very interesting–Apple supporting the podcasting of lectures. Forget for a brief moment that removing the students from the classroom removes the interactivity between the prof and the class, and between each other, that often leads to serendipitous learning. Additionally, ignore for the moment that this might result in the prof actually talking to a COMPLETELY empty room (and how motivated a speaker can you be with that?).

Ignoring all that, this might be a very neat idea. Several years ago, MIT started the open university project (or whatever they called it) making the materials for their classes available online. Their logic? The course materials are not the reason MIT is so good. MIT is an outstanding university because of the interactions, and the faculty. This goes that next step, and brings the faculty–at least in a one way transmission–to the viewer/listener. (MIT, to its credit, will still have an edge, since so much of their educational experience is hands-on learning.) Perhaps this is another way of extending the distance education approach, that started with mail-order classes, has recently moved to the web-based courses, and now, is supported by your little iPod.

I am curious about this, though. Do you, dear class, believe that students today are, as the story says, “digital natives”? Are they so wired in, that this is not only a good way to reach them, but perhaps, the ONLY way to reach them?

What do you think the net effect on the education of these students will be? Will they be better educated, since they can learn where and when they want, or perhaps lose out because of the lack of interaction?

Let me know!

The Prof

(Oh, and visit The Lobby–for all my wranglings with that site, I do believe it is a fun site to read, and honestly, worth anyone’s time!)

I was sent a link to this page by one of my students currently conducting research. I have many on-going discussions about qualitative vs quantitative research, and my student thought this discussion was something in which I might have an interest. Obviously–I do!

First, let me say, I find it interesting that we even have a struggle between “quant” and “qual” or between “hard sciences” and the “soft sciences.” It certainly strikes me as arrogance that one group of academics feel they can claim to be “true researchers” and thus limit the contributions of others through a claim of “lack of rigor.” I have for years argued that different disciplines have different types of rigor. The rigor a chemist requires is different from that of an electrical engineer. The rigor required to conduct solid research in History is different from that of Hebrew Literature. In the words of Rodney King “Can’t we all just get along?”

Now, moving on to the website referenced: This posits another interested direction for research–that of activist. Creswell, in his text on “Research Design” refers to for different “Knowledge Claims” that we have for research, and argues that we fit in one of 4 categories. One of those categories includes “Activist.” Of course, this makes the hair on the back of many necks stand straight up. How can one be “objective” if one has as one’s goal effecting change?

The need to effect change forms an explicit assumption of one’s research. Perhaps the greatest difference here is that the assumption is explicit, and often embedded in the “problem statement.” For instance, consider this problem statement/research question: “Heroin use remains a significant killer on the streets of major cities. This research seeks to identify the many ways people die from heroin use and propose policies that would reduce the number of deaths of our fellow citizens.”

Not very objective–or is it? Certainly it is “activist” in it’s role. Embedded in this statement is an assumption (hopefuly supported in a lit review) that heroin is a killer. Also embedded is that the “solution” must involve government intervention, since it seeks “policies” to effect change.

My question for you all, dear students, is this: Can one be objective, and be an activist researcher (or an “action researcher?”)

Please, feel free to share your comments and ideas on this.

The Professors

This article, from the Chronicle of Higher Education, poses an interesting question–should religious organizations on college campuses be able to restrict their membership to only those who adhere to that faith? I say this is an interesting question, because as a question it is targeted only at religious groups. I would venture to say that only religious groups have people beating down their doors to join, that share in no way a common set of values for that organization. For instance, when was the last time you heard of someone who hated chess seeking to join the chess club? How about a Republican (and for the sake of argument, a compassionate conservative) seeking to join the College Democrats? Generally speaking, those organizations are able to self-select, because only like-minded people join them.

That now sets up the interesting predicament that was faced at “The Ohio State University.” According to the article in the Chronicle (dated 28 January 05) “In the fall of 2003, two law students at Ohio State University’s main campus complained to the administration that the campus chapter of the Christian Legal Society, a student group, was violating the institution’s nondiscrimination rules… Yet the two students said the society would not let them join because one of them was not an evangelical Christian and the other was gay. The group said it would not accept students who did not share its religious views, or those who engaged in “homosexual conduct,” which, it held, is condemned in the Bible.”

Interestingly, these two students never actually say whether they attempted to join the organization, or they simply inquired as to requirements for membership. So, at the face, we have a charge of discrimination but there is no evidence of any actual harm being done.

Now, let’s deal with a few things. First, we have a group that has people trying to join it, that actually do not believe in the organization’s view. They are taking Marx’s statement to the extreme. Remember, Groucho had sad that he wouldn’t want to belong to any organization that would have him as a member. Apparently, these folks prefer to belong to organizations that would NOT want them as a member. That, in and of itself, strikes me as “odd.”

Of course, the purpose to “join” the organization most likely was simply to force their hand–to show that this organization wasn’t playing fair.

I suggest that every Religious organization (Certainly every Christian one) should encourage all to join. But I would also encourage them to continue to hold to, and preach, their ideals. If as a tenet of your faith you believe that sin is to be fled, and that righteousness is to be pursued, then preach that, teach that, and don’t hesitate to call sexual immorality on college campuses, well, WRONG. If that makes the membership uncomfortable, because of their lifestyle, then so be it–they didn’t HAVE to join.

Hopefully it will have the alternate effect of convicting, and converting, and allowing God to work in their lives.

Let em in–it just might change a life!

Ever wonder why school levies always seem to fail, and yet school taxes always seem to go up, and never go down? It’s simple– the levies keep coming back, and coming back, until they pass. It is interesting, the levies lose, and lose, and lose, but then, due to low turn out, or bad weather, or just a weird turn of events, the levy passes, often by a number of votes that can be counted on one hand. And that settles it.

I first noticed this rather odd turn of events in St Louis, where they were trying to pass a referendum to allow riverboat gambling. The referendum failed during every election for over two years, and at every defeat those supporting the referendum vowed to bring it back again. Once the levy passed, they proudly declared “this has been settled once and for all.”

So, what makes it “once and for all” when one side wins, and not another? I think it is because those that are pushing for these issues are quick to try to shut down further debate. In fact, they often use draconian tactics to make their point.

One of my favorite responses from a school district, when their levy failed, was to not only take away busing, but then add insult to injury by coming out and announcing that if any children are injured by having to walk to school, that the fault would lay with the taxpayers who were “too cheap” to pass a levy. Yup–rather than find waste in their budget (and there was a large administrative staff that could have been cut) they went for the jugular, playing roullette with the lives of children for the sake of money.

Another school district said they would have to eliminate the advanced placement and honors classes. When pressed, they said they wouldn’t fired any teachers. Why not? Because they still had full classroom loads of students. So, this was another effort to lower the education of students, simply to “blackmail” the community into paying higher taxes.

So what would my solution be, for school districts? Let me say, my suggestions are focused not on how to defeat, or repeal, the levies, but rather on how school districts could do better without them. These suggestions at times may require a rethinking of what “public education” means, but that isn’t an insurmountable obstacle.

First, make students buy their own textbooks. College students have to do it, so why not public school students? I hear the screams now “but what about poor families that cannot afford the books?” Simple: we help them. If you are below a certain income level, then you get “free” books. If you aren’t, then you can also economize by purchasing used books, and then selling them back, just like the college model. The books in public schools now are often used for several years in a row. Requiring the purchase of the books would perhaps result in students taking better care of the books, since parents will have a direct financial stake in the care of the books.

Second, continue to require students to pay to play. Participating in sporting events and teams at taxpayers expense shouldn’t be viewed as a “right” of students. They should be required to take physical education classes, and that should be community funded, but anything beyond that should be seen as “above and beyond.”

Third, permits for parking (at local High Schools) should be purchased. This would perhaps reduce congestion (price it high enough so many would choose not to drive) and also help subsidize the busing system.

Fourth, identify any additional “above and beyond” programs, and charge fees that are appropriate for sustaining the program. If it is an event with spectators, then charge an appropriate fee for that program, and have that money go directly to support that program. Any money generated by a program should be used directly, and not subsidized a “lesser interest” program.

One quick aside on this point: If taxpayers subsidize a program, such as the football team, they should be allowed to attend for free. They already paid for it–they should get to see it!

One of these days, I want to see people insist that a referendum that passed be brought back just one more time. after 4 defeats, to finally win and declare final victory seems “odd.” How about “best two out of three.” Think we could convince people to go for that?

Don’t forget, the midterm exam is coming. Leave your homework in a pile on the desk on your way out, and make sure your name is on your work.

Wow!! Here I was preparing to write a blog about how both sides can present “true” facts (yes, I realize the humor in that…) and still hold opposing views.

It turns out that the Democrats chose to distort the facts anyway. Why would they do that? Because the facts from the CBO report show that everyone–yes everyone benefited from the tax cuts. In fact, refer to my previous discussion about why the tax cuts were a good idea to help recover from the slowing economy that Clinton passed on to Bush.

So, let’s start with the distortions. According to the Democrats, as reported in the Yahoo/Reuters news story, The CBO report shows that “the top 1 percent, with incomes averaging $1.2 million per year, will receive an average tax cut of $78,460 this year, and have seen their share of the total tax burden fall roughly 2 percentage points to 20.1 percent.” While this is most likely “accurate reporting” (that is, the Democrats did say this) it’s not actually to be found in the data of the CBO report. In fact, if you look at Table 3 of the report (use the link above, and read this for yourself) you will find that the share of “Total Tax Liabilities” for the top 1% of the population hits 21.2% by 2010, when the tax laws sunset (that is, revert back to the higher tax rates of 2000.)

So first, the Democrats actually understate the tax burden by 1 full percentage point. Not “even” a rounding error mistake. But what’s worse, they are arguing that it is “not fair” in some measure that 1% of the population is only paying 21% of the taxes. Read that again, slowly. 1% of the population is only paying 21% of the taxes. Let that sink in. That’s apparently too low, according to the Democrats.

Wow.

As if that isn’t enough, Table 4 actually is more “telling” since it presents the differences in tax Rates and liabilities. Yes, the tax rates for the top 1% dropped by a greater percentage. Could that be due to the fact that we are taxing them at a much higher rate to begin with? Remember, the more money you earn after you hit the highest tax rate, the greater percentage of your income you pay at that rate. If today, you happen to earn one dollar over the line, pushing you into the highest tax bracket, you will pay that rate–but only on one dollar. On the other hand, if you earn 1 million dollars over the line, you pay that higher rate for that total amount. So the total effective tax rate for a person one dollar over the line is far lower (given that the vast weight of the rate is the lower tax rates) than the rate for the person one million over who, for all practical purposes, earned all their income at the higher rate.

Now, that being said, you would think that the total change in share of the tax burden, or as the CBO report puts it, the total share of the “Individual Income Tax LIabilities” would decrease by a greater rate. But we see that is not the case. According to their report, those people in the top 20% of earners (highest quintile) actually show an increase in the share of the liability for most years, and there are only three years (2006-2008) when the tax share decreases at all for those in the top 1%. On the other hand, those in the bottom 60% of earners show a decrease in the total share of income tax burden every year. EVERY year.

Please, Democrats, let’s be intellectually honest here. Present the facts. The facts being simply this–The tax cuts put more money back in everyones’ hands, and at the same time did maintain the progressive tax structure that you believe is so important.

The other fact is even more insidious. Most people won’t go read the report, and the CBO won’t engage in political debates, so they won’t correct you.

But I will. And hopefully so will others.

Your homework today? Find truth. Seek truth. Live Truth.