The NOSE

leadership vs. management

:: Edward Prewitt in CIO Magazine makes a useful distinction between leadership and management. With the seemingly endless number of books and programs in leadership, which ones are useful? Prewitt suggests that there's no easy answer. However, a good starting point is to understand that Leadership is about change while Management is a matter of consistency and order:

"Leadership is about change and movement — perceiving the need for a new direction, figuring out where the organization needs to go, formulating a strategy to get there and motivating employees to make it happen. Management is a matter of consistency and order — setting goals, laying out specific plans and budgets, organizing and staffing with qualified people, and controlling deviations (a.k.a. solving problems)."

learning management systems: the wrong place to start learning

George Siemens has written a provocative article in elearnspace arguing that the current generation of learning management systems are "wrong place to start learning" because they are locked-down systems that remove control from end-users. Most Learning Management Systems excel in delivering structured learning: "For example, there are many fields that benefit from the structured approach of LMS'. Teaching knowledge/comprehension-based subjects are more effective if the content is highly structured. However, as thinking skills move to higher levels, the artificial constructs of content and interaction imposed by an LMS are limiting to discovery/exploratory/constructivist learning." Siemens is spot on with his analysis. The .LRN  open source project is trying to build just the very types of tools and environment Siemens advocates. We need to enlist George as an advisor in our project. Some more from George's article:

"Principles foreign to most LMS (or functions LMS' need to acquire to respond to reality)

Many viable alternatives exist to locked-down, closed LMS'. Most effective are tools that incorporate some of the following features:
    ▪      A tool that is modularized in nature and allows for expansion of functionality based on the learners/instructors needs...basically, a collage of tools - individually selected for their functionality.
    ▪     Simple, social tools that start with a learner's ability for self-expression...and then allow for the formation of connections between learners and content.
    ▪      One tool should not do it all, connected specialization is important, and it's the way the internet has been built. Open standards and a high level of connectivity are important. Synchronous Collaboration Tools for the Academic World discusses how things are unfolding with synchronous tools in education (and what should happen with LMS')
    ▪     A tool that fosters a learning garden/ecology is one that places a user at the center and allows him/her to explore in various areas and directions of personal interest. Success is measured against the achievement of outcomes, but the pathway is driven by learner's personal goals/needs/context. The instructor provides planned exposure to content and learning intentions and then "unleashes" the learners in exploration and expression determined by their (the learners) choices, not the limitations of an LMS.
    ▪      What types of tools allow for this? An integration of blogs, wikis, content management systems (plone), simple social tools (skype), networking tools (Orkut), collaborative spaces (groove, and acollab), and the use of emerging "connection-making" protocols like RSS and Atom.

The intent is to give the end user the control needed to respond effectively to personal learning goals (that extend beyond those identified by the course designer/instructor). Learners learn (at least according to constructivists) in chaotic ways based on personal interest, context, opportunities for application, etc. The learning ecology and tools utilized should permit learner control - both for the type of content explored and the manner in which it is explored (variety is the basis for most many theories of learning: brain-compatible, learning styles, multiple intelligence, etc.)."

 

RSS:Blog = HTTP:Web = SMTP:Email

Brad Feld has another interesting post, this time reporting on a "weird conversation" with a writer for Businesweek Online. During the interview for an article that appeared as "Betting on Tools that Power Blogs:", the the writer asked Feld "so, why are you investing in this blogging thing where no one knows what the business model is yet."

Feld goes on to write, "As a VC who does a lot of software deals, I seem go through this every time there's a new technology standard (or protocol) that catches fire. In the early 1990's, SMTP enabled a raft of companies that built businesses around all aspects of Internet-based email. Shortly thereafter, HTTP enabled - well - an entire industry. SMTP and HTTP are really simple protocols (and - when they were first created - had a slow initial commercial adoptions that suddently went non-linear and became pervasive.) We are seeing exactly the same thing with RSS - and blogging is simply the first broad-based instantiation."

Two points I take away from Feld, though it's not at all clear that people are getting it.  Point 1: It's the protocol RSS, stupid. Or the same point said differently. It's not weblogs, stupid. Point 2: There are no new business models. Or the same point said differently (the subtitle of this blog): Technology changes. Economic Laws do not.

the sun value proposition

(Q): How will Sun generate revenue enough to operate and enhance their services and R&D if the new OS is free?  

(A): Increasingly the value in the software industry is moving to services/support.

Answer by Anil Gadre, CMO, Worldwide Marketing, Sun Microsystems, Inc.

Source: Live chat with CEO Scott McNealy and other senior executives as they answer questions on the Solaris 10 OS and more.

Consulting vs. Professional Services

Feld Thoughts urges us to distinguish between consulting and professional services, noting the nearly universal tendency to conflate the two. Here is a distinction that makes a difference for both buyers and sellers, because failure to get the distinction right can lead serious abuses.

Among the biggest abuses during the Internet bubble was the conflation of analysis within investment banks. Banks distinguished between analysts and bankers. The analysts issued recommendations about individual firms based on "research" while the bankers tried to get investors to buy particular stocks. Banks insisted that a "Chinese wall" existed between the analysts and sales people to ensure the credibility of the analysts. But we know that the Chinese wall was in many cases a sham. Forbes, writing about Frank Quattrone's operation at CSFB, "...in Quattrone's shop research was expected to serve the bankers' interests. The Internet craze had led analysts at every investment bank to issue glowing reports on Internet companies that were little more than an idea and some PowerPoint slides—a process that Bill Burnham, a former CSFB Internet analyst, calls 'the competitive devaluation of underwriting standards.'"

In the banking case the investor had little idea that the banks had real interest in companies that they were analyzing. This information tended to be buried in small print, if available at all. Most of us, of course, never read the fine print.

With Feld's distinction and the lessons from the banking case, we might draw the following conclusion: as a consumer, be clear what you are buying under the package "consulting and professional services" because of the potential for conflict of interest. as a seller, don't confuse the two because in the long run trust matters: create your own version of the chinese wall.