Standards as enablers for
innovation in education
– a reality check
Tore Hoel check
– a reality of Applied Sciences
Oslo a...
Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike

This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unporte...
World Standards Day
movie
Outline
• Paradoxes of Standardisation
• Innovation
• Creation – the standardisation process
• Implementation
• Feedback
•...
Battle of the Standard

22 August 1138 in Yorkshire,
England.
Standards make a
positive contribution to
the world we live in
facilitate trade
spread knowledge
disseminate innovative
advances in technology
and share good
management and
conformity assessment
practices
Types of standards
Measure
Compatibility
Semantic
Interface
& testing
& Quality
Constraint and enabler
Standardisation is paradoxical
Prisoner’s dilemma:
Nobody uses standards
because nobody uses them
Open and Closed
Participation in
standardisation without
domain knowledge
Standards
too complicated to be
understood & implemented
Innovation in our domain
The Innovation Circle
Idea

Design

Implement
The standardisation process
Factors in the standards
development setting

Factors in the
implementation setting

Creators
...
The standardisation process
Factors in the standards
development setting

Creators

Idea

Specification
The standard setting experts
Input – from where?

Interest project,
2006
Barriers to participation
September 24th

September 25th

The
Death
of
CEN
WS/LT

The launch of
EU’s
Opening Up
Education
open-stand.org
Ken Krechmer (2005) Open Standards
Requirements

Creators, implementers and
users see openness differently
e-InfraNet: ‘Open’ as the default modus operandi for research and higher
education
http://e-infranet.eu/output/e-infranet-...
Timing - when to start
creating the standard?
Need
Responsiv
e
standards

Anticipator
y
standards
Participator
y
standards...
Learning Technology Transitions

Sherif 2001
Specifying the standard
document
Specifying the standard
document

(Hoel, in
press)
Meta-disign principles
Implementation process
Factors in the standards
development setting

Factors in the
implementation setting

Creators

Idea...
Implementation process
Factors in the
implementation
setting

Implementers

Specification

Implement
-ation
Standards characteristics
– Small is beautiful
• Well-formed
• Understandable
• Right size
Mendling, J., Reijers, H. A., a...
Is formal Standards Setting Organisatons
able to compete with Consortia?
ISO MLR vs. LRMI
User feedback
Factors in the standards
development setting

Factors in the
implementation setting

Creators

Idea

Impleme...
User feedback
Idea

Specification

Users

Implement
-ation
Users do not provide
feedback & requirements
(unless asked)
Leave it to the market?
Understanding the market
Forward we go!
Doing the full Innovation
Circle
Idea

Design

Implement
Go with the SSOs that
have a truly
Open Process
Standards development
and implementation are
intertwined …
… standard bodies should
therefore shift their focus
to also include
implementation concerns
More engagement from
Implementers and Users
Eductional authorities
must take responsibility
The Market is not going to fix it
alone!
Questions?
tore.hoel@hioa.no
Twitter: @tore
Twitter: @tore
Twitter: @tore
Twitter: @tore
Twitter: @tore
Standards as enablers for innovation in education - a reality check
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Standards as enablers for innovation in education - a reality check

656 views

Published on

Invited talk at ICCE 2013 conference, Bali, Indonesia, on 21 November

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
656
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
8
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • ICCE Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, Open Educational Content, and Standards
  • Grim, pessimistic picture
  • England vs. Scotland 1138
    Carraccio
  • Open and Closed?
    Let us crack this paradox, so we can move on the more interesting ones.
    The formal standards organisations may claim that they are doing open standards because they have an open and transparent process leading up to a document that is available for all for a fair and reasonable price. However, if the contributors to these documents and their users are being part of a culture that see even a small price as an obstacle to their involvement, «open closed» will be taken for closed and not a viable option. This is especially the case, when the community (in this case the educational community) is starting to buy in to ideas like OER and Open Access.
  • Open vs. closed innovation
    Knowledge widely distributed - found outside the company.
    Inbound & outbound flows of knowledge
  • Actors - Engaging research
    Process - Openness
    Output (product / document) - Quality and Timeliness
  • Standards bureaucrats
    Researchers - University
  • Expenses, flexible process, positive for my research, my expertise relevant, knowledge about the process, influence, cost…
  • 2 days in September
    24 Sep The Workshop has been on a wrong track for more than ten years: To produce standards that are open and freely available for download and use for all is wrong. CEN standards are documents for sale. The experts that are contributing their work for free in the workshop need to buy the standards back in order to read and use them. This is a matter of principle, compromising this system will put all CEN standardisation in jeopardy. It must be stopped, even if not a single euro is earned by selling the CWAs of the Workshop.
    25 Sep Alle educational materials supported by EU projects should be available to the public under open licenses. Open interoperability standards are necessary to ensure economics of scale, and «such standards must remain open». Therefore, the Commission will «promote the development of open frameworks and standards for interoperability and portability of digital educational content, application and services, including OER, in cooperation with European standardization organisations and programmes».
  • Creators, implementers and users see openness differently (Kretschmer, 2005)
  • Research willing to do anticipatory
    Industry more reluctant
    Participants role: «Wait!»
  • Standards characteristics
    ⁃Small is beautiful
    ⁃How to engage implementers and users - need of agencies to promote; what if the vendors don't botherUnderstanding the market
    ⁃Is formal standardisation able to compete with consortia?
    Example, MLR vs. LRMI
  • Accounting principles inspired frameworks: correctness, clarity, relevance, comparability, economic efficiency, and systematic design
    Asking the users: “larger models tend to be negatively connected with quality” (Mendeling et al. 2007)
    Athens declaration (MLO-AD): “Harmonization efforts should focus on small, simple models based upon existing commonalities that can be expanded upon at national or regional level, rather than all- inclusive monolithic standards.”
  • MLR: ISO backing, nearly 10 years, academic semantic web interest
    LRMI: June 2011, schema.org (Google, Yahoo..), visibility in web searches, industry involvement, CC, Gates foundation, freely used by all,
  • Standards as enablers for innovation in education - a reality check

    1. 1. Standards as enablers for innovation in education – a reality check Tore Hoel check – a reality of Applied Sciences Oslo and Akershus University College Oslo, Norway ICCE 2013, Bali, Indonesia
    2. 2. Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
    3. 3. World Standards Day movie
    4. 4. Outline • Paradoxes of Standardisation • Innovation • Creation – the standardisation process • Implementation • Feedback • Why the process doesn't work? • Could it be put right?
    5. 5. Battle of the Standard 22 August 1138 in Yorkshire, England.
    6. 6. Standards make a positive contribution to the world we live in
    7. 7. facilitate trade
    8. 8. spread knowledge
    9. 9. disseminate innovative advances in technology
    10. 10. and share good management and conformity assessment practices
    11. 11. Types of standards Measure Compatibility Semantic Interface & testing & Quality
    12. 12. Constraint and enabler
    13. 13. Standardisation is paradoxical
    14. 14. Prisoner’s dilemma: Nobody uses standards because nobody uses them
    15. 15. Open and Closed
    16. 16. Participation in standardisation without domain knowledge
    17. 17. Standards too complicated to be understood & implemented
    18. 18. Innovation in our domain
    19. 19. The Innovation Circle Idea Design Implement
    20. 20. The standardisation process Factors in the standards development setting Factors in the implementation setting Creators Idea Implementers Specification Standards (maintenance) process Implement -ation Implementation process Users Egyedi 2008
    21. 21. The standardisation process Factors in the standards development setting Creators Idea Specification
    22. 22. The standard setting experts
    23. 23. Input – from where? Interest project, 2006
    24. 24. Barriers to participation
    25. 25. September 24th September 25th The Death of CEN WS/LT The launch of EU’s Opening Up Education open-stand.org
    26. 26. Ken Krechmer (2005) Open Standards Requirements Creators, implementers and users see openness differently
    27. 27. e-InfraNet: ‘Open’ as the default modus operandi for research and higher education http://e-infranet.eu/output/e-infranet-open-as-the-default-modus-operandi-for-research-and-higher-education/ The range of Opens
    28. 28. Timing - when to start creating the standard? Need Responsiv e standards Anticipator y standards Participator y standards Product or Service
    29. 29. Learning Technology Transitions Sherif 2001
    30. 30. Specifying the standard document
    31. 31. Specifying the standard document (Hoel, in press)
    32. 32. Meta-disign principles
    33. 33. Implementation process Factors in the standards development setting Factors in the implementation setting Creators Idea Implementers Specification Standards (maintenance) process Implementation process Users Implement -ation
    34. 34. Implementation process Factors in the implementation setting Implementers Specification Implement -ation
    35. 35. Standards characteristics – Small is beautiful • Well-formed • Understandable • Right size Mendling, J., Reijers, H. A., and Cardoso, J. (2007). What makes process models understandable?
    36. 36. Is formal Standards Setting Organisatons able to compete with Consortia?
    37. 37. ISO MLR vs. LRMI
    38. 38. User feedback Factors in the standards development setting Factors in the implementation setting Creators Idea Implementers Specification Standards (maintenance) process Implementation process Users Implement -ation
    39. 39. User feedback Idea Specification Users Implement -ation
    40. 40. Users do not provide feedback & requirements (unless asked)
    41. 41. Leave it to the market?
    42. 42. Understanding the market
    43. 43. Forward we go!
    44. 44. Doing the full Innovation Circle Idea Design Implement
    45. 45. Go with the SSOs that have a truly Open Process
    46. 46. Standards development and implementation are intertwined …
    47. 47. … standard bodies should therefore shift their focus to also include implementation concerns
    48. 48. More engagement from Implementers and Users
    49. 49. Eductional authorities must take responsibility The Market is not going to fix it alone!
    50. 50. Questions? tore.hoel@hioa.no Twitter: @tore Twitter: @tore Twitter: @tore Twitter: @tore Twitter: @tore

    ×