Bizzaro Campus

With the fiscal crisis facing campuses, many operational systems and services that previously may not have normally undergone much scrutiny during the budgeting process, are now being re-assessed: do these services still provide the value they once did or are they still required–and if not–can they be eliminated? Some of these discussions have become popular throughout higher education, resulting in ideas such as: eliminating or reducing land-line phone service in the residence halls as students with cellular phones increase; moving email off campus to third-party services like Google or Live@edu, or; closing academic computer labs in recognition of the growing number of  student-owned laptop computers. It is interesting to consider how the services offered in these three examples have shifted over the years from innovative to key-differentiator to industry-standard to indifference to wasteful.

Bedework Killed the “LMS”

One of the projects I have been following for a long time is Bedework, which I think is now in position to kill the learning management system (LMS). By this, I do not mean to imply that Bedework has superior teaching and learning tools, in fact, as an enterpirse calendar, it clearly does not even compete in the online education market: it’s functionality will not usurp those of the LMS. Rather, more specifically, I suppose my point is that Bedework will kill the idea of the “System” in the “Learning Management System.”

G*

Ok, this is lame, but after reading Christopher Dawson’s “Windows 7 is the same as Ubuntu” it hit me like a no-duh,  Google has essentially met (?) usurped (?) surpassed (?) the idea of WS-*, and what I would have thought only achievable through a MS approach of standardization through dominance, established the web service protocol.

There are a variety of specifications associated with web services. These specifications are in varying degrees of maturity and are maintained or supported by various standards bodies and entities. Specifications may complement, overlap, and compete with each other. Web service specifications are occasionally referred to collectively as “WS-*”, though there is not a single managed set of specifications that this consistently refers to, nor a recognized owning body across them all. The reference term “WS-*” is more of a general nod to the fact that many specifications are named with “WS-” as their prefix. This page includes many of the specifications that might be considered a part of “WS-*”. -Wikipedia

Yes, web services are more than just the aggregation and presentation of widgets (oh, that’s gadgets now), but for all practical purposes WSDL is now “Add Stuff,” (or more appropriately, Gadget API’s and Designer) as well as the ever-growing list of internal Google services (g-mail, google apps, etc.). Not exactly analogous I know, but I guess I am just wondering how development of services might be affected. Will (how long before) folks primarily develop for Google, thus requiring a Google interface for accessing remote services?

So-now the lame part-I am going to coin g-* (pronounced like WS-* as WS star). Of course… “g-*” by Patrick Masson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.

SOA Needs To Be “Burried”

Forrester analyst Randy Heffner, has published a report titled “SOA Is Far From Dead—But It Should Be Buried.”

Sparked by a tinderbox of economic jitters and technology backlash, a recent thread of industry discussion cries out, ‘SOA is dead!’ Although many have had fun with the discussion, it is in fact quite misguided. No prior industry initiative for IT architecture has had an impact as positive and broad-reaching as service-oriented architecture (SOA). But SOA’s impact is only part of the story: You have many more technology initiatives besides SOA. You need a bigger architectural vision that encompasses SOA, business process management, event processing, Web 2.0, and much more besides. Although SOA is far from dead, it should be buried inside a larger vision.

What’s In Your Wallet?

What’s the prevailing business management strategy of the day (i.e. governance, decision-making, planning, change management, leadership, visioning, etc.), not just for Higher Education or IT?

The More Things Change (Bb Buys Another LMS), The More They Stay The Same (Reaction Filled With FUD)

As most know by now, Blackboard has announced that they will purchase Angel. Of course this has sparked all sorts of responses from folks, covering everything you might expect – unfortunately most still misrepresent open source.

Rather than offer any thoughts on the buy-out and what it might mean to Blackboard users, Angel users or even the entire LMS industry, I’d like to focus on how the discussions align with current ideas, perpetuate/counter misconceptions, or, have evolved from traditional views on the viability of open source.

With things moving so fast, or at least the comments through blogs and twitter (#auc09, #bbplusangel), etc. (the announcement was made on May 6th and the Angel Users Conference was just this week), I am sure most folks are reacting rather than assessing, but I am struck over and over by the comments being made by those on the ground working with an LMS and those reporting on the acquisition: everything from misconceptions to downright ignorance regarding open source projects and adoption.

Government Promotes Open Source for Public Sector

I just saw an article in The Register on the creation of an Action Plan for the adoption of Open Source by the UK Government. While this action alone is impressive and inspiring (I have been trying with limited success to move the State of New York and SUNY in this direction), what is even more significant is the process through which they are developing their policy.

Included in the Action Plan is :

To help bring together the online debate around this Action Plan, we’ve set up a public page which contains links to blog posts, news stories and tweets about UK government, open source and open standards. If you write about this online, please use the tag #ukgovOSS to help us find your comment.

The approach used by the Council is completely in line with the the open source methodology of collaboration, many eye-balls, iteration, etc.

In addition to promoting the use of open source software, the new policy also emphasizes open standards and encourages the re-use of IT solutions in the public sector.

Among the 10 points of the government’s action plan are the following:

• The CIO Council and the Office of Government Commerce will develop guidance to ensure open source will be given the same consideration as proprietary products.
• The two bodies will also set up a program of education and capability building in the field.
• The CIO Council will regularly assess open source products for their maturity and recommend those that meet agreed criteria.
• It will also work with systems integrators and software suppliers to open up their solutions to meet open standards, to include open source and facilitate re-use.
• The government will specify requirements by reference to open standards and require compliance with open standards in solutions where feasible.
• Government purchasers will use a standard OGC approved OJEU clause to make clear that solutions are purchased on the basis that they may be re-used elsewhere in the public sector.

Something to shoot for…

Trying to Keep Up.

I just keep ignoring this blog as I have been spending more time on the SUNY Delhi blog. The whole department is contributing so the conversations just seem to flow. So few hours..

The Question Shouldn’t Be; “Why IT Projects Get Killed…”

It should be, “Why IT projects get started.”

CIO Insight just published the top five reasons why IT projects are killed. According to the a survey of 167 IT executives, conducted by The Information Systems Audit and Control Association, the reasons were:

1. The Businesses needs changed (30%)
2. The project does not deliver what was promised (23%)
3. The project is no longer a priority (14%)
4. The budget was exceeded (13%)
5. Does not support the business strategy (7%)

Conference Invitation