University of North Carolina talk 28 May 2012

523 views
446 views

Published on

Update presentation on PhD research

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
523
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • \n
  • University of North Carolina talk 28 May 2012

    1. 1. PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE COLLECTIONS IN THENETWORK SOCIETYA Systems Approach to Service Innovation
    2. 2. MuseumLibraryArchive
    3. 3. 2003
    4. 4. Collective power asknowledgeinstitutions
    5. 5. “...ever-wiser courses of action that lead us tothe best possible future”
    6. 6. “...ever-wiser courses of action that lead us tothe best possible future”•What should we be doing now, to maximise value in the future?•What are the challenges and opportunities of a digital future for knowledge institutions?•What are the barriers to progress and how to overcome them?
    7. 7. EvolutionRevolutionExtinction
    8. 8. THE KNOWLEDGE INSTITUTION DILEMMAThe existing paradigm(s) of knowledgeinstitutions...
    9. 9. THE KNOWLEDGE INSTITUTION DILEMMAThe existing paradigm(s) of knowledgeinstitutions......rooted in the tradition of providing public valuefrom physical collections in fixed locations,
    10. 10. THE KNOWLEDGE INSTITUTION DILEMMAThe existing paradigm(s) of knowledgeinstitutions......rooted in the tradition of providing public valuefrom physical collections in fixed locations,...may not be able to accommodate successfullythe development of online service offers that aredistinctive in form and maximise public value.
    11. 11. AGENDA•Mapping the landscape (analysis)•What can be done? (synthesis)•What might be achieved? (Outcomes)
    12. 12. Knowledge Institution Research Landscape
    13. 13. Knowledge Institution Research Landscape OrganisationalEnvironmental readiness change potential
    14. 14. Knowledge Institution Research Landscape OrganisationalEnvironmental readiness change potential Technical Social Media
    15. 15. Knowledge Institution Research Landscape OrganisationalEnvironmental readiness change potential Professional values and Technical vision Social The adoption of technology Media Relationship with users
    16. 16. Knowledge Institution Research Landscape Infrastructure OrganisationalEnvironmental and policy readiness change frameworks potential Professional values and Technical Political science vision Social Policy processes The adoption of technology Media Structures Relationship with users
    17. 17. 1. Environmental change
    18. 18. 1. Environmental change an ge al ch hn ic tec
    19. 19. NEXT GENERATION USERS1982
    20. 20. 1. Environmental change an ge ial ch soc
    21. 21. DEMAND SIDE TRENDS, 2011 77% of population online (48m) - 96% email (46m) - 86% travel and local information (41m) - 86% online shopping (41m) - 79% news (38m) - 61% music downloads (29m) - 60% social networking (29m) - 51% games (24m) - 44% Next Generation Users (21m) - 34% public information (16m) 95% of UK companies online Data from Oxford Internet Survey 2011; Office of National Statistics (2011a). Statistical Bulletin: Internet Access - Households and Individuals, 2011; - 92% using broadband Office of National Statistics (2011b). Statistical Bulletin: E-Commerce and ICT Activity, 2010. - 78% public websites
    22. 22. BEHAVIOURS AND EXPECTATIONS
    23. 23. BEHAVIOURS AND EXPECTATIONS•Always on•New patterns of work, shopping and leisure•Ease of use•Personalisation•Engagement•Accessibility
    24. 24. 1. Environmental change sh ift ed ia m
    25. 25. From shellac to iTunes
    26. 26. From desk to desktop?
    27. 27. APPisation
    28. 28. “The objects of culture are no longer secured behind glass cases or tied to the walls of museums and galleries orconstrained by the control over publishing and broadcasting, but are created and recreated in the social process.” Tredinnick, L. (2008) Digital Information Culture: The Individual and Society in the Digital Age
    29. 29. FragmentationDisintermediation Authenticity
    30. 30. 2. Organisational readiness potential
    31. 31. 2. Organisational readiness potential lo gy hn o ftec o p ti on a do
    32. 32. sustaining innovation (status quo 2.0) vtransformative innovation
    33. 33. “Many librarians who work inphysical libraries see the Internet as providing a digital mirror of theirown institutions: the digital library as a surrogate for the physical library.” email from xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 7th March 2012 Attribution redacted
    34. 34. 2. Organisational readiness potential es lvalu na n sio sio ofes vi pr and
    35. 35. clarity of purpose and mission professional education practitioner worldview
    36. 36. 2. Organisational readiness potential t he w ith ip sh r lati on se re u
    37. 37. user studies 2000 to date
    38. 38. 3. Infrastructure and policy frameworks
    39. 39. THE INSTITUTIONAL MODEL - THE SILO National policy • What broad objectives? Institutional policy • What local objectives? Operational • How are processes and priorities decided? processes • What does the audience Target audience want/need?
    40. 40. THE INSTITUTIONAL MODEL
    41. 41. THE INSTITUTIONAL MODEL • Tools of public policy
    42. 42. THE INSTITUTIONAL MODEL • Tools of public policy • Destination
    43. 43. THE INSTITUTIONAL MODEL • Tools of public policy • Destination • Component of wider organisation
    44. 44. THE INSTITUTIONAL MODEL • Tools of public policy • Destination • Component of wider organisation • Physical collection defines professional values
    45. 45. THE INSTITUTIONAL MODEL • Tools of public policy • Destination • Component of wider organisation • Physical collection defines professional values • Long-established model
    46. 46. THE INSTITUTIONAL MODEL • Tools of public policy • Destination • Component of wider organisation • Physical collection defines professional values • Long-established model • Trusted, reliable
    47. 47. THE INSTITUTIONAL MODEL • Tools of public policy • Destination • Component of wider organisation • Physical collection defines professional values • Long-established model • Trusted, reliable • High sustainability costs
    48. 48. THE INSTITUTIONAL MODEL • Tools of public policy • Destination • Component of wider organisation • Physical collection defines professional values • Long-established model • Trusted, reliable • High sustainability costs • Value not well understood
    49. 49. THE INSTITUTIONAL MODEL • Top-down silios “Our governance arrangements are for the most part designed to maintain hierarchical, command and control decision making”. Ison, R. (2010). Governance that Works
    50. 50. THE INSTITUTIONAL MODEL • Top-down silios“Public organisations werenever designed to maximise • Infrastructure with aon efficiency, flexibility and purposecustomer friendliness butrather to ensure a uniformand unbiased implementationof the law.” Peters, B. and Pierre, J. (2007). Handbook of public administration
    51. 51. THE INSTITUTIONAL MODEL • Top-down silios“Dynamic conservatism - • Infrastructure with a purposethe fight to remain thesame” • Technical rationality Schon, D. (1991). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action
    52. 52. Status Quo 2.0 may not be enough
    53. 53. ?. What do we know, what can be done?
    54. 54. ChangeCompetitionUncertainty
    55. 55. “Networks have become the predominant organisational form of every domain ofhuman activity.. The space offlows has taken over the logic of the space of places…” Castells, M. (2010). Rise of the Network Society, 2nd ed.
    56. 56. “The Internet has become avital part of our lives and our society” Oxford Internet Institute. (2011). Oxford Internet Survey 2011.
    57. 57. FUNDAMENTAL CHALLENGE
    58. 58. FUNDAMENTAL CHALLENGE•How do public knowledge institutions:
    59. 59. FUNDAMENTAL CHALLENGE•How do public knowledge institutions: •Make explicit the utility and attractiveness of the destination? What is the unique value of place?
    60. 60. FUNDAMENTAL CHALLENGE•How do public knowledge institutions: •Make explicit the utility and attractiveness of the destination? What is the unique value of place? •Develop online service propositions that are distinctive in form and value, while aligning with trends in user needs and behaviours?
    61. 61. PLACE CYBERSPACE Availability Time hungry Range of resources Search capacityInnovative interpretation Personalisation Conviviality Quality/durability
    62. 62. Systems approachto strategic service innovation
    63. 63. General Systems Theory, systems approach, SYSTEMS THINKINGsystems dynamics, Soft Systems Methodology,Vanguard Technique, boundary critique, CriticalSystems Heuristics, Systemantics, ecologicalsystems theory, sociotechnical systems, ecosystems,open systems, cybernetics, operations research,fuzzy systems theory, process improvement,Syntegrity, Viable System Model, social systemstheory, systemics, systems philosophy, systemsengineering, systems analysis, critical systemsthinking, systemography, critical systems practice,total systems integration, adaptive systems theory,applied multi-dimensional systems theory, livingsystems theory, complex systems theory, holon, link
    64. 64. General Systems Theory, systems approach, SYSTEMS THINKINGsystems dynamics, Soft Systems Methodology,Vanguard Technique, boundary critique, Critical ReductionismSystems Heuristics, Systemantics, ecologicalsystems theory, sociotechnical systems, ecosystems, The problemopen systems, cybernetics, operations research,fuzzy systems theory, process improvement, SolutionSyntegrity, Viable System Model, social systemstheory, Single view systems philosophy, systems systemics,engineering, systems analysis, critical systemsthinking, systemography, critical systems practice,total systems integration, adaptive systems theory,applied multi-dimensional systems theory, livingsystems theory, complex systems theory, holon, link
    65. 65. General Systems Theory, systems approach, SYSTEMS THINKINGsystems dynamics, Soft Systems Methodology,Vanguard Technique, boundary critique, Critical Reductionism HolismSystems Heuristics, Systemantics, ecologicalsystems theory, sociotechnical systems, ecosystems, The problem Situation in contextopen systems, cybernetics, operations research,fuzzy systems theory, process improvement, Solution ResolutionSyntegrity, Viable System Model, social systemstheory, Single view systems philosophy, systems systemics, Multiple perspectivesengineering, systems analysis, critical systemsthinking, systemography, critical systems practice,total systems integration, adaptive systems theory,applied multi-dimensional systems theory, livingsystems theory, complex systems theory, holon, link
    66. 66. KNOWLEDGE ECOSYSTEM AND THE USER-CENTRIC EXCHANGE MODEL
    67. 67. KNOWLEDGE ECOSYSTEM AND THE USER-CENTRIC EXCHANGE MODEL•Meta integration of the structures and operational processes
    68. 68. KNOWLEDGE ECOSYSTEM AND THE USER-CENTRIC EXCHANGE MODEL•Meta integration of the structures and operational processes•In relation to policy, what are the needs of the users?
    69. 69. KNOWLEDGE ECOSYSTEM AND THE USER-CENTRIC EXCHANGE MODEL•Meta integration of the structures and operational processes•In relation to policy, what are the needs of the users?•What are their behaviours in relation to knowledge and channels of delivery?
    70. 70. KNOWLEDGE ECOSYSTEM AND THE USER-CENTRIC EXCHANGE MODEL•Meta integration of the structures and operational processes•In relation to policy, what are the needs of the users?•What are their behaviours in relation to knowledge and channels of delivery?•To achieve maximum value for the users, what processes and structures are required?
    71. 71. HUMAN ACTIVITY SYSTEM Diagram2:SociotechnicalSystemModel ORGANISATIONSUBSYSTEMS •  Goalsandvalues INPUTS •  Technology OUTPUTS •  Structure •  PsychoIsocial •  Managerial Flowofmaterial/energy/informa8on Knowledge institution Manager’s view
    72. 72. HUMAN ACTIVITY SYSTEM Diagram3:SociotechnicalMeta?SystemModel KNOWLEDGEINSTITUTION •  Goalsandvalues KNOWLEDGEINSTITUTION •  Technology •  Goalsandvalues KNOWLEDGEINSTITUTION •  Structure Goalsandvalues •  Technology •  INPUTS •  Psycho?social •  Structure •  Technology OUTPUTS •  Managerial Structure •  Psycho?social •  •  Managerial •  Psycho?social •  Managerial Flowofmaterial/energy/informa8on Knowledge institutions as process industry User’s view
    73. 73. HUMAN ACTIVITY SYSTEM Diagram3:SociotechnicalMeta?SystemModel KNOWLEDGEINSTITUTION •  Goalsandvalues KNOWLEDGEINSTITUTION •  Technology •  Goalsandvalues KNOWLEDGEINSTITUTION •  Structure Goalsandvalues •  Technology •  INPUTS •  Psycho?social •  Structure •  Technology OUTPUTS •  Managerial Structure •  Psycho?social •  •  Managerial •  Psycho?social •  Managerial Flowofmaterial/energy/informa8on Knowledge institutions as process industry User’s view
    74. 74. Public Knowledge Ecosystem Boundary ExchangePolicy, Resources Diagram3:SociotechnicalMeta?SystemModel KNOWLEDGEINSTITUTION •  Goalsandvalues KNOWLEDGEINSTITUTION •  Technology •  Goalsandvalues KNOWLEDGEINSTITUTION •  Structure Goalsandvalues •  Technology •  INPUTS •  Psycho?social •  Structure •  Technology OUTPUTS •  Managerial Structure •  Psycho?social •  •  Managerial •  Psycho?social •  Managerial Flowofmaterial/energy/informa8on Knowledge institutions as process industry Strategist’s view
    75. 75. Diagram*4:*Boundary*Exchange*Schema@c* PRESENTATION* INDIVIDUAL* Disclosure*medium* Expecta@ons* Human*capital* Social*capital* Accessibility* Awareness*of*need* Intelligibility* Cogni@ve*skills* OUTPUTS* Interpreta@on* Ability*to*find* Knowledge*objects* for*public*use* Connec@vity/rich*links* Ability*to*process* Relevance* Mo@va@on/confidence* LEARNING*–*The*apprehension*of* knowledge*to*advantage*
    76. 76. Diagram)5:)Revised)SchemaAc)of)Boundary) Exchange) Knowledge)objects) SEEKING) APPREHENSION) OUTPUTS) Knowledge)objects) for)public)use) EFFECT) Learning)curve)Upstream)factors)
    77. 77. Diagram)5:)Revised)SchemaAc)of)Boundary) Exchange) Disclosure channels e-Learning research Knowledge)objects) SEEKING) •Physical location •London Knowledge Lab (IoE) •Digital object •Heutagogy at MOSI-ALONG APPREHENSION) •Aggregation service •Constructivism (Siemens) OUTPUTS) •Other media channels - •Europeana Knowledge)objects) TV, publication, etc for)public)use) •JISC Content and e-learning •etc. EFFECT) Learning)curve)Upstream)factors)
    78. 78. Provisional definition 1 Knowledge embraces the record of human thought, creativity and experience in all media, whetherdocumentary, images, sound or otherentities and is an essential component of individual and social well-being.
    79. 79. Provisional definition 2 Learning is the apprehension of knowledge to advantage...individuals are able to learn more about themselves and the world around them.
    80. 80. Provisional definition 3 The purpose of knowledgeinstitutions is to disclose to usersknowledge objects in support of learning
    81. 81. THE RESEARCH QUESTION Should the traditional institution-based service paradigm be replaced by a user-centric exchange model as a strategic tool to maximize the value of knowledge collections delivered digitally by museums, libraries and archives?
    82. 82. ?. What might be achieved?
    83. 83. ENABLING STRATEGIC INNOVATION
    84. 84. ENABLING STRATEGIC INNOVATION • Rethinking professional education
    85. 85. ENABLING STRATEGIC INNOVATION • Rethinking professional education • From technical rationality to strategic thinking Problem situating, not problem solving
    86. 86. ENABLING STRATEGIC INNOVATION Evolution • Rethinking professional education • From technical rationality to Revolution strategic thinking • The risks and opportunities of radical change Extinction
    87. 87. ENABLING STRATEGIC INNOVATION • Rethinking professional education • From technical rationality to strategic thinking • The risks and opportunities of radical change Blending knowledge and the role of public service broadcasting
    88. 88. ENABLING STRATEGIC INNOVATION • Rethinking professional education • From technical rationality to strategic thinking • The risks and opportunities of radical change • The nature of innovation and impact elsewhere
    89. 89. ENABLING STRATEGIC INNOVATION • Rethinking professional education • From technical rationality to strategic thinking One message, one voice • The risks and opportunities of radical change • The nature of innovation and impact elsewhere • Advocacy
    90. 90. STRATEGIC INNOVATION
    91. 91. STRATEGIC INNOVATION•New ways of thinking about the future
    92. 92. STRATEGIC INNOVATION•New ways of thinking about the future•More strategic and radical views about how knowledge institutions might take more central role in society
    93. 93. STRATEGIC INNOVATION•New ways of thinking about the future•More strategic and radical views about how knowledge institutions might take more central role in society•Greater connectivity with the key policies of learning and social development
    94. 94. e. cbatt@mac.comb. chrisbatt/wordpress.com tw. chrisbatt www.digital-futures.orgThanks for listening
    95. 95. ASPIRATION 3 Advocacy
    96. 96. ASPIRATION 3 • One message with a strong voice • Engaging with wider policy agendas Advocacy • Good news story for the policy makers • Powerful campaign to citizens
    97. 97. 4. How might a user-centric model be developed?
    98. 98. METHODOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS Mapping Modelling Evaluation
    99. 99. A new worldview
    100. 100. 5. How might a user- centric model be used?
    101. 101. CYBERSPACE v PLACECyberspace • AvailabilityPlace
    102. 102. CYBERSPACE v PLACECyberspace • Availability 24/7Place When open
    103. 103. CYBERSPACE v PLACECyberspace • Availability • Time as a limited resourcePlace
    104. 104. CYBERSPACE v PLACECyberspace • Availability • Time as a limited resource Whenever convenient No time overheadPlace When open Travel time Must be worthwhile
    105. 105. CYBERSPACE v PLACECyberspace • Availability • Time management • Infinite knowledge resourcesPlace
    106. 106. CYBERSPACE v PLACECyberspace • Availability“At last we have a medium big enough for knowledge” Weinberger, D. (2012) Too Big to Know • Time management • Infinite knowledge resourcesPlace All of the above plus the physical collection and 1000+ websites
    107. 107. CYBERSPACE v PLACECyberspace • Availability • Time management • Infinite knowledge resources • Powerful search toolsPlace
    108. 108. CYBERSPACE v PLACECyberspace • Availability • Time management • Infinite knowledge resources • Powerful search toolsPlace All of the above plus staff and aggegation
    109. 109. CYBERSPACE v PLACECyberspace • Availability • Time management • Infinite knowledge resources • Powerful search toolsPlace • Innovative interpretation
    110. 110. CYBERSPACE v PLACECyberspace • Availability • Time management • Infinite knowledge resources • Powerful search toolsPlace • Innovative interpretation Show and exhibitions
    111. 111. CYBERSPACE v PLACECyberspace • Availability • Time management • Infinite knowledge resources • Powerful search toolsPlace • Innovative interpretation • Personalisation
    112. 112. CYBERSPACE v PLACECyberspace • Availability Profiles • Time management Notifications • Infinite knowledge Push services resources Feeds • Powerful search toolsPlace • Innovative interpretation • Personalisation Unclear, apart from staff awareness of individual need
    113. 113. CYBERSPACE v PLACECyberspace • Availability • Time management • Infinite knowledge resources • Powerful search toolsPlace • Innovative interpretation • Personalisation • Channels of conviviality
    114. 114. CYBERSPACE v PLACECyberspace • Availability • Time management Facebook, LinkedIn • Infinite knowledge Crowdsourcing resources Communities of interest • Powerful search toolsPlace • Innovative interpretation • Personalisation When open, place • Channels of conviviality to meet others
    115. 115. CYBERSPACE v PLACE • Availability • Time management • Infinite knowledge resources • Powerful search tools • Innovative interpretation • Personalisation • Channels of conviviality • Quality/durability
    116. 116. CYBERSPACE v PLACE • Availability • Time management • Infinite knowledge resources • Powerful search tools • Innovative interpretation • Personalisation Duty to provide and • Channels of conviviality sustain services in support of public policy • Quality/durability

    ×