Using Groupsites to Construct Knowledge Sharing and Learning Infrastructures
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
2 likes•634 views
Presentation of a case in which an online collaboration platform was used to support a university based course in technology entrepreneurship. Exemplifies the opportunities and problems of using collaboration platforms to support learner networks including Communities of Practice.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Using Groupsites to Construct Knowledge Sharing and Learning Infrastructures
Similar to Using Groupsites to Construct Knowledge Sharing and Learning Infrastructures (20)
More from Peter Bond
More from Peter Bond (8)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (12)
Using Groupsites to Construct Knowledge Sharing and Learning Infrastructures
- 1. Using Collaboration Platforms to Create Tailored Knowledge Sharing and Learning Infrastructures in Universities and other Enterprises Opportunities and Problems A University Technology Entrepreneurship Course Peter Bond Learning Futures Consulting Presented at HEEG Conference Kingston UK. 15th April 2015 Higher Education Enterprise Group (HEEG). Kingston University
- 2. Objectives • To share my experience of using a commercial (SAAS) collaboration platform to create a knowledge sharing and learning infrastructure (KLSI) to support university students on a course in ‘technology entrepreneurship’. • To relate the benefits and opportunities of using an inexpensive fully tested commercial software ‘as a service’ over systems such as BlackBoard, especially flexibility, seamless navigation between resources (content), integration with the wider internet, blogs, conversation/discussion areas, user profiles (including, objectives, ambitions, skills), and the ease of extending registered users to beyond the university to include, for example, learning resources in the form of local SME owner/managers, community groups and local organisation with problems students might solve as a startup project. • To relate the problems I experienced of developing and using the KSLI in a ‘conservative’ university.
- 3. • School of Engineering (2007 to 2013) • 60 rising to 160 M.Eng., Mechanical, aerospace, civil, product design (M.Sc.) • Compulsory. Insignificant in terms of curriculum hours. Significant as a means of distinguishing engineering graduates from this particular university. • A Year 4 (M.Eng) module originally a means of satisfying the demand of Professional Institutions for coverage of management and organization theory, business, marketing, accounting, financing. Also compulsory for some M.Sc students. • Tick box. No real departmental interest or commitment, but two profs championed change to ‘Technology Entrepreneurship’. Enterprising Results • 875+ Possible Solutions/New product concepts were generated • 175 ‘real’ products and ‘invitations to invest • 20 or so simple products worthy of further development The Course
- 4. • Business Opportunities are opportunities to solve problems (Honda philosophy—hate something, change something, make something better) • We live in an ‘archive of solutions’ (products indicative of solutions) • Startups design the solution, AND the organization that will deliver and support it (two forms of solution making) • Both solutions articulated in the ‘business plan’ (invitation to invest) • Assignment is the production of the ‘business plan’ The Course (Enterprise Studies)
- 5. Problem solving based, organized as a group project Students allocated groups and play the roles of MD, Technical Director, Marketing Director, Finance Director, Director for CSR (defined in course context) ‘Board’ has regular meetings—progress minuted and reported Students ‘pitch’ for investment to a panel (assessed) Poster exhibition to capture essence, to which local businesses were invited (assessed) The Course (Enterprise Studies)
- 6. Product Types—Simple, Everyday, Novel
- 8. The Course Assignment Investment Plan (Key Doc 3) Key Doc 10 Marketing Key Doc 8 Finance Key Doc 7 IPR/legal Key Doc 6 Org Design Key Doc 5 BEAR Key Doc 4 Opps to Innovate Key Doc 9 implementing
- 10. Some years later —2009-2012
- 11. Collaboration Platforms and Enterprise 2.0 Web 2.0 Enterprise 2.0 Internal Social networks Online Public Communities Of Interest Voice of Customer (VoC) Marketing Team Sites (e.g., MS Sharepoint, Huddle)) Social Networks Collaboration Spaces Project Management (Huddle) Learning Socially (e.g., Mzinga) Innovation (e.g., Brightidea.com)
- 13. • Enhanced organizational performance • Improved team-working and project management. • Faster integration of new employees to the workplace and/or workgroups. (talent management) • Reduction in time and effort to find relevant task related knowledge and information. • Greater levels and more effective collaboration, functional and departmental. • Broader input from employees into decision making processes. • Cross-pollination of ideas. • Spontaneous, unscheduled, unanticipated interaction leading to unexpected opportunities to innovate. • More effective knowledge sharing. • Much greater degree of self-organization and group cohesion (productive relationships). • Better relationships with partners (not just suppliers) and customers. • Less structured, less formal, interactions leading to trust and less fear of failure amongst employees. • More cost effective training and education programmes of greater relevance and impact. General Benefits-1
- 14. • Compared to Blackboard collab platforms seamlessly integrate group working tools that internet natives are familiar with (social networking). Also integrate with the wider internet. • They are informal spaces, unlike Blackboard, so are more user friendly. • Provide an opportunity for groups to work more directly with tutor through discussion forums and special interest groups • Allows students to upload documents easily and to draw attention to other learning resources, including anything media type on the wider internet in discussion areas. • Allow tutors to monitor individual activity on the site. • Allows tutors and students to drive the learning process through new content and internal emails (email ‘blasting in groupsite) • Library/knowledge base expands in line with the interest of the cohort and tutors and can remain as a library • Most discussions are visible and afford all students the opportunity to assist others, so peer to peer learning is likely to be greater than with Blackboard or the classroom • Allows university outsiders to be brought into the conversation. E.g., private and public sector managers. Some Specific Benefits University Enterprise Education
- 15. What is Technology? • -ology, zoology, archaeology, psychology. • Bodies of knowledge created through systematic studies of the subject. • Subject of technology is (industrial) technique, or how a result is achieved. •
- 16. Technology is NOT!!!! It IS the knowledge of the technique or method for using these objects KALIF System is the technique or method for using integrated ‘social media’ platforms
- 17. The KALiF System • The system is designed to facilitate and accelerate the process of network or community of practice (CoP) development. EU research project to 2004. • A CoP concept recognises and promotes learning socially as a key aspect of group performance. • KALIF mechanism is based on content triggered/driven conversations aimed at attaining results • Turns a list of individuals into a CoP. • Creates the conditions for the effective construction of mutually beneficial productive relationships. • Results in a knowledge sharing and learning infrastructure • Provides a framework for sponsors (a university) to direct and influence the direction of development of the CoP
- 18. stimulating identify recruit The KALIF ™ System Face2Face offline learning/sharin g events online events. growing repository of relevant knowledge learning resources Team/CoP dedicated to doing GOOD STUDENTS Community Stakeholders Business Managers
- 19. Total Integration by Means of KALIF ™ System Face2Face offline learning/sharin g events online events. growing repository of relevant knowledge learning resources Team/CoP dedicated to doing GOOD STUDENTS Community Stakeholders Business Managers stimulating identify recruit Talent Pool Problem Owners Online Events Blogs, Objective sharing, webinars, discussions, hot topics and issues, b/e.learning.. Knowledge/Information Repository learner resources. People, mentors, coaches, peers, cases, opportunities, learning resources, video, audio. docs. Face-to-face Events Hacks Knowledge markets (Problem solving) Workshops Games –simulations Classes Appreciative enquiries Knowledge Cafes Exhibitions In Motivational Spaces
- 20. Groupsite
- 21. Groupsite
- 23. Groupsite
- 25. Groupsite
- 26. Alternatives to groupsite.com • Hosted http://www.socialgo.com http://grou.ps/ http://www.mixxt.com/ http://www.bloomfire.com/ http://www.qlubb.com/ http://www.socialparody.com/ http://www.spruz.com/ http://wall.fm/ http://www.igloosoftware.com • http://tallyfox.com • http://kutpoint.com/ • http://ning.com • http://www.wikidot.com On your server http://www.buddypress.org http://www.socialengine.net/ http://lovdbyless.com/ http://www.elgg.org/
- 28. Problems Related to the Dept/School • No real interest in business/management education • Responding to demands of the engineering professional bodies • Competing demands teaching and research. The latter wins. Hence, not a great interest in teaching/learning strategy or technology • • CD rejected in favour of traditional lectures. Students were not allowed to receive learning material upfront. Uploaded to Blackboard each week. Only resolved with agreement to use groupsite. • Tutor colleagues not interested enough to participate in groupsite. • Situation improved with change in teacher to a ‘champion’ (Prof Hon) but he did not participate. • The groupsite was not Blackboard, and its use not be sanctioned by the university. • Six weeks lectures(2hrs) 5 weeks group working in Action Learning Labs. Groupsite as group support. Some success in attracting users
- 29. • Sat outside of the university LMS experience with which was not that positive • Despite the numbers claimed by developers, Enterprise 2.0 initiatives are not as successful as one might assume. • Failure to realise that simply having ‘the technology’ (the platform) is not enough to use it. Not just investment in software but investment in ‘method’ ‘technique’ ‘KAliF’ • Insufficient commitment and ‘buy-in’ by individuals. • Insufficient understanding of what motivates engagement with others on a collab platform Further and General Problems
- 30. • The usual problems of group based tasking and assessment, which are also evident in ‘the real world’. • Research by Four Groups using a buddy press platform called http://strongti.es shows personality type matters. • Four Groups are developers of the 4G psychometric profiling method. Problems Related to Groupworking
- 31. Good Outcomes • Despite the hard work the students had to put in, the majority gave very positive feedback on the module. They recognised they had worked to produce a ‘real’ justification for financial investment, which would be good on their CVs
- 32. • Recognise investment has to be much more than the purchase or hire of a platform. • Recognise enterprise/entrepreneurship education is an opportunity to do things differently, which collaboration platforms might enable. • A platform supporting an enterprise initiative could stand outside of the formal LMS and be dedicated to it. • Allows/enables integration with a wider (local) assortment of enterprises, so promoting academia- industry links • Possible to use platforms to manage change, to improve existing initiatives and to change a culture. Solutions and Opportunities
- 33. University/ School/dept Collaboration Platform/ knowledge sharing and learning infrastructure Invitation only Problem owners This equates to the offline events mentioned in the earlier model of the KALIF system in which problem owners and would-be solution providers are brought together face to face. A feature of the Lean Startup movement
Editor's Notes
- These are simple products and examples of solutions to sometimes vexing problems and are the kind of products the students were encouraged to provide new concepts of. In search of an opportunity to invent or innovate students were given the task of evaluating the performance of products they, or others close to them, had used. Students were, more or less, limited to simple products to keep down the amount of work they had to do on what was a small module of 75 hours total study time with few credits. The exercise also reinforced the idea that we live in an ‘archive of solutions’ a phrase used by philosopher of technology Werner Rammert to describe the human ‘cultural’ environment.
- All the material was produced up front as a learning resource. Adobe Acrobat Professional was used by Peter Bond of Learning Futures Consulting to create a comprehensive set of documents covering all aspects of small business start up and early stage development. The document set was designed to be a resource for students well after they had left university. Based on Learning Futures’ own Business and Innovation Challenge ‘training’ programme which had been tested in a few SMEs scenarios, the material was organised using Key Documents. Each of these was a point of entry into the whole set. Hyper Links ensured they all led back to the key doc on the raison d’etre of the business plan document, also referred to as an invitation to invest. Key docs were contained in folders with other documents providing supporting information or tools that the groups might have found useful. Outside of the Key Docs, were produced detailed guides to the student on the construction of the b plan doc, plus another on assessment (changed many time during the time the coure was run). A guide for future tutor’s was also produced giving the phiiosophy and values of the course, and specific reasons why it was designed in the way it was. This was never used, and ignored by the university.
- This indicates that each doc was linked, Key docs were lined to each other and to supporting information. Key Doc 1 and 2 were context setting or background material including a raison d’etre for the course and why the course was compulsory. Key Doc 3 was an introduction to the assignment, the construction of a business plan (also referred to as an invitation to invest). To complete the business plan students had to use the information in the key docs depicted here. However, in effect each Key Doc was a point of entry into the assignment, and all roads led back to Key Doc 3 (and vice versa) via embedded hyperlinks.
- This is how the material was given to the university. The expectation was that all students would be given a CD or pen-drive with all the learning resources on.
- The third presentation of the course was supported by groupsite. In the previous year, ning.com was used. This was quickly abandoned in favour of groupsite because the knowledge repository/library was not visible in ning.
- There are now many kinds of platform now available which in one way or another are additional to a company’s normal IT system and purport to enable and support the idea of enterprise 2.0, or the social company. They range from pure social networks like ning.com, or those which are aimed solely at companies, such as tallyfox.com. There appears to be two markets, a large corporate one into which companies sell very expensive solutions based around content management systems, and purport to specialise in talent management, or social e learning. The other market consists of medium sized organisations, or more informal community groups. However, the common focus is on personnel integration and relationship building, upon which improved performance itself is based.
- The relationship between the expensive collaboration platforms which are aimed at large corporate entities and which promote enterprise learning and personnel integration and talent management. Blackboard has a mention.
- A general list of benefits from using a collaboration platform after the enterprise 2.0 model
- This HEEG event is based on the use of technology to enhance learning about enterprise and entrepreneurship. However, it is misleading and ultimately unproductive to view sofrtware or a web 2.0 enabled platform as technology. Devices are merely instruments, and to play an instrument one must develop skill in the technique of using.
- CoPs The term CoP was coined by Jeean Lave and Etienne Wenger to distinguish something about ordinary social groups that they felt was extra-ordinary, that its members explicitly learned from each other. A community of practice (CoP) is a coherent social network which forms around an objective that its members share. An important distinguishing characteristic is that members of a CoP share knowledge of good practice with each other with the explicit aim of improving each other’s competencies, know-how, and, thus, technical performances. Members of a community of practice form a market for ideas on performance improvement. Improving the performance of individual members is a typical CoP objective, as is solving a problem shared. The key feature of a CoP is that each member facilitates the learning of the others. KALiF, social networks, knowledge and learning When two or more people begin to work together in expectation of mutual benefits, a social network is formed. Social networks arise and evolve from the complex interplay of everyday practices. As people work together, as they solve problems together, as they play together, they form complex networks of relationships that manifest themselves in many different ways. For example, we speak of communities, societies, groups, teams, families, cultures, and even civilisations as social networks. KALiF™ is a method or strategy for accelerating the formation of relationships and, thus, social networks. Relationships are the bridge across which individuals can share knowledge, share know-how, share goals and values, share problems, and share in solution making. KALiF also enables the process to be managed. It was designed according to the principles and practices of learning organisation development and knowledge management. Originally, it was used to bring together key players in EU supported research programmes in the fields of knowledge management and 'technology enhanced learning', to share ideas and expertise, thus generating a collaborative knowledge network, or community of practice, to provide the focus and a forum through which organisations involved in the innovative projects could share knowledge and experiences. These projects (KALiF and K2), led to the development and testing of a range of networking facilitation services which now constitute a coherent 'tool-box' or system for leading and facilitating organisation and social network development.
- This diagram captures the essence of a method of organisation development and performance improvement called the KALIF™ System. It uses advanced internet technologies and more conventional means to drive changes in an organisation’s practices and knowledge foundation. The main driving mechanisms are conversations, through which relationships are gained and maintained. It begins with a single person who wants to make their organisation more enterprising, to be better at improving itself, the community that hosts it, and all other existing and potential stakeholders, including students and lecturers who wish to do good, however that is manifest. The single person identifies another with a similar ambition, and recruits them into the ‘enterprise’. They organise a normal face-to-face meeting. Together they identify and recruit another person with the same ambition. They meet face-to-face. They begin to build a relationship. They begin to share ideas on how their joint enterprise can be realised. They decide to use the KALiF™ System and its online space for knowledge sharing and collaboration. They identify and recruit more members of what now is a community of practice. Each is encouraged to keep in touch through a dedicated and private online knowledge sharing and collaboration space. They post messages, upload documents to stimulate thoughts about how they achieve their joint ambitions. They begin to use their online space to organise face-to-face meetings, which are better for relationship buliding.