Moving from the back office to the front lines: CIO insights from the Global C-suite Study — from IBM Institute for Business Value
CIOs tell us that their place in the organizational pyramid has changed in the past five years. Many of them command more respect and possess more authority than before and they are working more closely with their C-suite colleagues.

Excerpts (emphasis DSC):

Introduction
In the first installment of our recent Global C-suite Study, we spoke in person with 4,183 top executives covering more than 20 industries to find out how CxOs are earning the loyalty of digitally enfranchised customers and citizens.1 In this report we delve more deeply into what the 1,656 CIOs we interviewed are doing to help their enterprises become more “customer-activated.”

One thing is immediately obvious: just how far some CIOs have come in the past five years. In 2009, we reported that CIOs were rising up the management hierarchy and developing a new, more powerful voice. But they often had to juggle different roles to deal with conflicting goals.2

In 2011, we identified that CIOs were starting to think more like CEOs. They were becoming essential members of the C-suite, although there were marked disparities in the mandates they held — i.e., what the enterprises they worked for expected of the IT function. Most CIOs were helping to expand or transform their organizations. The rest were tasked with leveraging IT to make their organizations more effective, or pioneering radical innovation in the form of new products, markets and business models.3

ChangingCIOMandates-IBM2014

 

 

ChangingCIOMandates2-IBM2014

 

ChangingCIOMandates3-IBM2014

In short, while some CIOs remain confined to their traditional domains, a growing number are seizing the opportunity to take on a far bigger role on the front lines of the business.

From DSC:
The  corporate world moves much faster than the world of higher ed (or K-12).  So, higher ed should take a look at what this study is saying and note what’s happening to the role of the CIO.  My bet is that many of the same dynamics discussed in this report/survey will be on our doorsteps soon, if they aren’t here already.

 

 

Speeding up on curves — from educause.edu by Bradley Wheeler

Excerpt:

Higher education faces a number of important curves, but I’ll focus first on just two:

  1. The finance of higher education is increasingly moving from a public to a private good, leading to increasing cost and price pressures (particularly for state-supported institutions).
  2. The increasing digitization of education and research favors greater scale while it also enables potential new substitutes for colleges and universities.

 


figure 4

 


 

Also see:

 
 

Education is holding Millennials back — from blog.clomedia.com, interview with Donna Harris

Excerpt:

If you ask employers whether millenials are prepared for the workforce, there is no shortage of concern.

Being able to take charge of one’s own career, question the status quo, initiate change, be creative, solve problems, operate independently and be entrepreneurial will become increasingly crucial for career success.

Today’s workers will have dozens of jobs in their lifetimes and need a vastly different toolkit to be successful — the ability to question the status quo, initiate change, be creative, solve problems, operate independently and be entrepreneurial become crucial.

This massive change from a transactional, hierarchical, closed economy to one that is global, networked, transparent and entrepreneurial is a major challenge to our overall education system. We have large institutions, degrees take years to complete, students invest tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars, and yet employers are still saying that graduates are not well-suited for their needs. We have to rethink what we’re teaching and how we’re teaching it, with a fundamental understanding of the global economic shift we’re in the midst of.

 

George Siemens Gets Connected — from chronicle.com by Steve Kolowich

Excerpts (emphasis DSC):

He earned the most of his college credits at the University of Manitoba but also took courses from Briercrest College and Seminary, a Christian institution in Saskatchewan.

Through Briercrest, Mr. Siemens had his first experience with distance education: He took a Greek-language course that involved studying pronunciation from cassette tapes that came in the mail.

When he was 28, he went on a religious retreat. “If you’re always moving away from something, you’ll be lost,” Mr. Siemens remembers a priest telling him. “Always be moving toward something.”

The idea behind the first MOOC was not to make credentialing more efficient, says Mr. Siemens. It was to make online instruction dovetail with the way people actually learn and solve problems in the modern world. He and his colleagues wanted “to give learners the competence to interact with messy, ambiguous contexts,” he wrote, “and to collaboratively make sense of that space.”

Education, then, is “a connection-forming process,” in which “we augment our capacity to know more” by adding nodes to our personal networks and learning how to use them properly.

 

From DSC:
This last sentence speaks to a significant piece of why I titled the name of this blog Learning Ecosystems.  Such nodes can be people — such as parents, pastors, teachers, professors, coaches, mentors, authors, and others — as well as tools, technologies, schools, experiences, courses, etc.   These ecosystems are fluid and different for each of us.

 

learning-ecosystems-nodes-DanielChristian

 

I’m also very glad to see George continuing to lead, to innovate, to experiment and for others to realize the value in supporting/encouraging those efforts. He is out to create the future. 

Speaking of being out to create the future, I got involved with one of the experiments he led a while back called future learn: exploring innovation in education and learning.  Though that experiment was later abandoned, it helped me crystallize a vision:

 

FutureLearn-April302011-DanielChristian

 

That vision has turned into:

 

The Living [Class] Room -- by Daniel Christian -- July 2012 -- a second device used in conjunction with a Smart/Connected TV

 

So thanks George, for your willingness to encourage experimentation within higher education. Your efforts impacted me.

Finally, I’m glad to see the LORD continuing to bless you George and to work through you…to change the world.

 

 
 

Cross-college collaboration — from insidehighered.com by Megan Rogers

Excerpt:

Faced with increasingly tight budgets, liberal arts colleges are looking to share resources to reduce costs and expand programs. But when the end goal is collaboration and not a merger, how should administrators decide which services are appropriate to share?

St. Olaf and Carleton Colleges, both liberal arts colleges in Northfield, Minn., have received a $1.4 million grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation to increase collaboration over the next four years, but are drawing the line at sharing career services departments. And it’s hard to imagine the colleges collaborating in areas where they are competitors, such as fund-raising or admissions, St. Olaf President David Anderson said.

 

From DSC:
In order to survive within higher ed — and if things migrate to more of a team-based approach to content creation and delivery — I’ve often wondered if the following will occur:

  • The necessity of sharing/pooling resources — especially those involving the creation and delivery of courses (i.e. one college contributes X courses, another contributes Y courses)
  • The requirement to form partnerships for most institutions of higher education (vendors, especially), as the unbundling of higher education continues
  • The need to form consortia

 

 

 

IDC predicts 2014 will be a year of escalation, consolidation, and innovation as the transition to IT’s “3rd platform” accelerates — from idc.com

Excerpts (emphasis DSC):

  • The 3rd Platform will deliver the next generation of competitive advantage apps and services that will significantly disrupt market leaders in virtually every industry.
  • Worldwide IT spending will grow 5% year over year to $2.1 trillion in 2014.
  • Emerging markets will return to double-digit growth of 10%, driving nearly $740 billion or 35% of worldwide IT revenues
  • Within the 3rd Platform, value will start to migrate “up the stack”, from infrastructure as a service (IaaS) to platform as a service (PaaS) and from generic PaaS to data-optimized PaaS.
  • Cloud spending, including cloud services and the technology to enable these services, will surge by 25% in 2014, reaching over $100 billion.

 

Also see:

What is the 3rd platform and how will it affect business? — by Mark Neistat US Signal Company

Excerpts (emphasis DSC):

Simply stated, the 3rd Platform is the next phase of the IT revolution. The first platform was the mainframe computer. The second was Personal Computers (PC) which dominated the IT landscape from 1985 to 2005. The 3rd Platform is being built on mobile computing, social networking, cloud services, and Big Data analytics technologies.

 

What’s the future of the CIO? — from cioofthefuture.com by Peter EvansGreenwood
CIOs have an opportunity to drive strategy and create business value, and not just reduce costs 

From DSC:
The sections entitled “The demise of the Chief Infrastructure Officer” and “Technology is now central to how our organizations engage their market” seem especially appropriate.

The CIO of 2020: The future of the Chief Information Officer — from innovationexcellence.com by Paul Muller

CDOs are reaching new heights — and quickly — from sloanreview.mit.edu by Michael Fitzgerald
Is the chief digital officer position the new path to the chief executive title?

 

 

 

A proposal for Apple, Google, IBM, Microsoft, and any other company who wants to own the future living room [Christian]

DanielChristian-A-proposal-to-Apple-MS-Google-IBM-Nov182013

 

 

 

“The main obstacle to an Apple television set has been content. It has mostly failed to convince cable companies to make their programming available through an Apple device. And cable companies have sought to prevent individual networks from signing distribution deals with Apple.”

Apple, closer to its vision for a TV set, wants
ESPN, HBO, Viacom, and others to come along

qz.com by Seward, Chon, & Delaney, 8/22/13

 

From DSC:
I wonder if this is because of the type of content that Apple is asking for. Instead of entertainment-oriented content, what if the content were more focused on engaging, interactive, learning materials? More on educational streams of content (whether we — as individuals — create and contribute that content or whether businesses do)?

Also see:

 

internet of things

 

Excerpt (emphasis DSC):

The communications landscape has historically taken the form of a tumultuous ocean of opportunities. Like rolling waves on a shore, these opportunities are often strong and powerful – yet ebb and flow with time.

Get ready, because the next great wave is upon us. And, like a tropical storm, it is likely to change the landscape around us.

As detailed by analyst Chetan Sharma, this particular wave is the one created by the popularity of over-the-top (OTT) solutions – apps that allow access to entertainment, communication and collaboration over the Internet from smartphones, tablets and laptops, rather than traditional telecommunications methods. Sharma has coined this the mobile “fourth wave” – the first three being voice, messaging (SMS) and data access, respectively – and it is rapidly washing over us.

 

Addendum on 11/25:

 

SmartTVFeatures

 

 

 

 

Yale’s struggles signal broader challenges ahead for colleges — from christenseninstitute.org by Michael B. Horn

Excerpts (emphasis DSC):

For some time, the business model that supports traditional colleges and universities has been breaking. The ability to continue to implement sustaining innovations—more research faculty, more extravagant facilities, more administrative positions—that add cost by using increased revenue from a mixture of tuition, government funding, endowment returns, and donations is in peril for many institutions.

As a result, we’ve written about how there are a number of traditional higher education institutions that will likely merge or even cease to exist in the coming years. Many have suggested that this could not happen—despite the fact that a state like Georgia is already consolidating its public institutions of higher learning; that the situation is not so dire; or that it is something for which there will be a fix at some point.

The article relates how even five years after the onset of the recession, revenue sources have not bounced back at Yale: “More and more students require financial aid, endowment investment returns are still down, government funding is declining and tuition and fundraising increases are limited by the weak economy.”

The bigger point for traditional institutions of higher education beyond Yale is that with the repeated annual tuition increases over the past few decades, the middle class is increasingly being priced out of much of higher education. 
 

Common Core Standards: Ten Colossal Errors — a solid article from edweek.org by Anthony Cody

Excerpts (emphasis DSC):

Error #1:
The process by which the Common Core standards were developed and adopted was undemocratic.  

At the state level in the past, the process to develop standards has been a public one, led by committees of educators and content experts, who shared their drafts, invited reviews by teachers, and encouraged teachers to try out the new standards with real children in real classrooms, considered the feedback, made alterations where necessary, and held public hearings before final adoption.

 The Common Core had a very different origin. When I first learned of the process to write new national standards underway in 2009, it was a challenge to figure out who was doing the writing.  I eventually learned that a “confidential” process was under way, involving 27 people on two Work Groups, including a significant number from the testing industry. Here are the affiliations of those 27: ACT (6), the College Board (6), Achieve Inc. (8), Student Achievement Partners (2), America’s Choice (2). Only three participants were outside of these five organizations. ONLY ONE classroom teacher WAS involved – on the committee to review the math standards.

Error #2:
The Common Core Standards violate what we know about how children develop and grow.

Error #4:
The Common Core creates a rigid set of performance expectations for every grade level, and results in tightly controlled instructional timelines and curriculum.

 At the heart of the Common Core is standardization.  Every student, without exception, is expected to reach the same benchmarks at every grade level. Early childhood educators know better than this. Children develop at different rates, and we do far more harm than good when we begin labeling them “behind” at an early age.

Error #6:
Proficiency rates on the new Common Core tests have been dramatically lower — by design.

 

From DSC:
I’m trying to give the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) a fair look/review/analysis.  But the statement under #4 strikes me as being particularly relevant and extremely true:

At the heart of the Common Core is standardization.  Every student, without exception, is expected to reach the same benchmarks at every grade level. Early childhood educators know better than this. Children develop at different rates, and we do far more harm than good when we begin labeling them “behind” at an early age.

Backing up a second and to let you know the “lenses” that I’m looking through…I believe that we have been incredibly designed and created by God, and God is extremely detail-oriented For purposes of time, consider just a few examples:

  • The incredible amount of intricacy in the human body — especially in the amazingly-complex human brain and what it can do
  • The vast amount of variety in our world and beyond — of people, landscapes, animals, birds, fish, planets, stars, etc.  A handful of pictures that focus just on flowers from Mr. Bill Vriesema’s Flickr account (with his permission) quickly illustrates this point:

 

BillVriesema-flower1

 

BillVriesema-flower2

 

BillVriesema-flower4

Again, my thanks go out to Mr. Bill Vriesema for the permission to use these photos
See http://www.flickr.com/photos/vreez/

 

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think those flowers look the same. I doubt they grew at exactly the same rate either. I doubt that they would grow the same ways in the exact same kind of soil.  Some would thrive…some would die (or should I say, “fall behind?”).

Likening this to each of us as individuals, we each have different gifts, abilities, interests, and passions.  We are not the same.  We don’t mature at the same rates.  And most of us don’t like to be controlled.  School is becoming too much about control and cramming students into certain man-made molds.  It seems to me that we are losing our way. Where’s the creativity, imagination, joy, wonder, excitement, and awe that should be inherent in learning about those things around us?

In fact, rewind to yesterday with me and allow me to bring this very close to home.

My son shared with me that he finds Sunday afternoons to be the most stressful, depressing days and times of the week.  Why? Because he hates school and he knows that’s coming up on Mondays.  Great. (And by the way, he’s a very smart young man.) 

I asked him what he would do differently if he were to design a new system.  He replied — without hesitation — “Allow me to choose what I want to learn and who I want to learn it from.”

So I then asked him, what if he could learn about how they negotiate contracts in the NFL…?  “YES! I’D LOVE THAT!” he said enthusiastically!

And here’s one of the very real problems that we, as a society, are facing:

  • We are no longer running a 100 yard dash; or even a 440 or an 880. We are running a marathon! That is, we need LIFELONG learners! People who constantly learn, reinvent themselves, keep growing, keep learning. 
  • We DO NOT need people who HATE to learn new things or have a really bad taste in their mouths about their educational experiences.

So my biggest concerns with the Common Core are that:

  • The Common Core State Standards are NOT helping us get to where we need to get to; if we are to use such mechanisms, then let’s add disciplines/areas of learning such as fine arts, music, drama, sports, woodworking, auto mechanics, and many other areas
  • The Common Core State Standards move us towards standardization and goes against how we were created — how we are made.
  • They do not help us run the required marathons that EACH OF US now find ourselves in!

As readers of this blog will know, I often embrace and even push change where it makes sense to do so. But when I hear that most of the public doesn’t have a clue as to what the Common Core State Standards even are — and despite where they came from and how they were developed — I get very nervous for the future of our youth and for our nation — and any other nation that follows such pathways of standardization.

I hope to have these fears assuaged — that such concerns are unfounded.  But right now, I’m having trouble seeing things that way.

 

 

Study: Teachers love EdTech, they just don’t use it — from edudemic.com by Katie Lepi

Excerpt:

EdTech Is Essential!

  • 86% of teachers think it is ‘important’ or ‘absolutely essential’ to use edtech in the classroom
  • 965 say that edtech increases student engagement in learning
  • 95% say that it enables personalized learning
  • 89% say that it improves student outcomes
  • 87% say that it helps students collaborate

However…

  • Only 19% use subject specific content tools weekly
  • Only 31% use information or reference tools weekly
  • Only 24% use teacher tools weekly
  • Only 14% use digital curricula weekly
  • Despite all the buzz about 1:1 classrooms, only about 1 in 9 are implementing a 1:1 or BYOD classroom

 

From DSC:
Looking at this solid posting from edudemic and Katie Lepi, I can’t help but ask:

  • What might this tell us about the model/approach that we are using?
  • Is that model/approach working?
  • Is that model/approach working fast enough to prepare our students for the futures they will inherit/experience?
  • Are there other approaches that would work better?

I’d like to add some potential factors to the list of why educational technologies might not be being implemented in certain situations:

  • We decided not to use teams; that is, we decided that our teachers (or professors or trainers) should continue to do everything — “it is their job after all”
  • A teacher (professor, trainer) may not be gifted in a particular area (such as creating digital audio or digital video, designing simulations, developing educational gaming, designing e-books, offering mobile learning, etc.)
  • A teacher (professor, trainer) may not be interested in a particular area (such as creating digital audio or digital video, designing simulations, developing educational gaming, designing e-books, offering mobile learning, etc.)
  • May view an area as totally irrelevant because that wasn’t part of that person’s background/experience (i.e. Who needs educational gaming? Why should that matter/help? I didn’t have that in my toolbox.)

With the rapid pace of change, time is no longer on our side.  That is, it doesn’t serve our students well if it takes us 2-3 generations to get teachers, professors, and trainers ready to use all of the relevant technologies.  That is a pipe dream and we need to abandon it asap.  No one has all of the gifts that they need. We need to work with teams of specialists.  It will take team-based efforts to create and deliver learning environments, products, and services that feature more choice and more control for our students.  They — and all of us actually — are encountering a different world every single day that we wake up. Are we preparing them for it?

 

 

 

Faculty Coalition: Forget About Cost Savings with Online Programs — from CampusTechnology.com by Dian Schaffhauser

Excerpts:

Cost savings promised by the expansion of online education are tough to pinpoint, including those programs that promise to be free for students.

According to the Campaign, there are no guarantees that online courses save students money.

The Campaign declared the idea that MOOCs could lower the cost of college degrees a “pipe dream.”

But even as public institutions introduce their own online programs, they frequently charge students more for those courses, the report said.

 

From DSC:
(Dian, these thoughts are not aimed at you. Keep up the excellent work out there!)

The only way that online education costs as much as a face-to-face offering is if such a course/offering is ***highly*** sophisticated — that is, that it incorporates a ***significant*** amount of programing, educational gaming, deep analytics and sophisticated reporting, home-grown animations and/or simulations, etc.

Otherwise, there is no way in the world that an online course costs as much to produce and offer as a face-to-face course.  Consider two key things:

  1. Ask any Director of Physical Plant to lay out their annual budget and expenses ***just to keep their campus(es) up and running*** — let alone enhance them further — and you’ll quickly see what I mean!
  2. In many cases, the infrastructures already exist to serve the face-to-face students (i.e. systems like the CMS’s/LMS’s, Student Information Systems, etc.). So offering online courses only serves to increase the ROI for this infrastructure. (If one couldn’t use the existing systems, then I could see where there would be additional expenses; with that said, the bottom lines are still not the same.)

Many colleges and universities are using the increased demand for online courses to keep the prices up; they are not passing along the savings to the students. (BTW, for those who claim higher education isn’t a business, how do you explain this?  The argument that higher education isn’t a business holds no water at all; such viewpoints can no longer be taken seriously.)

By keeping the costs of online courses as high or higher than F2F courses, such colleges and universities are making a big mistake.  By doing so, they are only causing the existing bubble in higher education to expand even further.  It will pop.  In fact, with the increased use of incentives and lowering the tuition that’s actually being paid by the students (vs. the “list” price), one can’t help but wonder if the bubble hasn’t already popped at many colleges and universities.

We need to start passing along more of the savings to our students.  I can’t think of a good reason why everyuniversity and college in the U.S. should not offer a spectrum/variety of pricing structures.  If you want to take a face-to-face course, you will need to pay more for that course, as there are greater expenses involved in providing that type of learning environment.

Last thoughts:

  • While I think that MOOCs are half-baked, they continue to improve.
  • If MOOCs morph into something that uses technologies like IBM’s Watson, that will be a game-changer for sure.  We will still need SME’s, but the prices that can be offered will be drastically less.  See this recent posting for further thoughts on this perspective.

 

 

CenterForDigitalEducation-2013Yearbook

 

Description:

The Yearbook is a unique publication produced annually by the Center for Digital Education (CDE) that highlights some of the outstanding trends,

people and events over the past year in education technology. The first part of the Yearbook gives readers market awareness by outlining how much money schools spent on education technology, where the funding came from and what technologies have been garnering the most attention.

The second part features 40 education innovators who are using technology to inspire their students, improve learning and better the K-20 education system. We hope that this 2013 Yearbook issue provides inspiration to our readers to continue on their quests towards innovation in education.

 

From DSC:
My quote in the Center for Digital Education’s 2013 Yearbook reads:

 

“Educational technologists need to be bold, visionary and creative. They need to be in tune with the needs, missions and visions of their organizations. We have the opportunity — and responsibility — to make lasting and significant contributions within our fields and for the organizations that we work for.”

 

 
© 2024 | Daniel Christian