"Since he was so familiar with the power of Web 2.0 tools and was surrounded by people who felt the same, he hadn't realized how many college students didn't actually have experience using these types of 21st century tools." (context)
Tough spot to be in. That's what you get for making broad assumptions about your students. Don't treat them like they're all plugged in 24x7, reading The Onion (or Wired), and waiting on the next tweet, twitter, ditter, or doodle. Good instruction starts with knowing who your students are and what they individually bring to the table. Don't think that they'll find it (or you) cool or hip just because it has to do with web-based technology.
Friday, October 31, 2008
interdisciplinarity
Anne has it correct. I note that with slight resignation. What is the best way to get technical communicators to see, value, understand, and exploit the interdisciplianary nature of their practice? I once blamed it on IDDErs. Shame on me.
wordless
Classic. I love these sort of validating perspectives. It reminds me that a good technologist's caution is warranted, if not necessary.
The Hype Cycle, used by Gartner to track the adoption of new technologies, has five distinct phases:
The Hype Cycle, used by Gartner to track the adoption of new technologies, has five distinct phases:
- Technology Trigger
- Peak of Inflated Expectations
- Trough of Disillusionment
- Slope of Enlightenment
- Plateau of Productivity
radical dude!
"Blogging is to writing what extreme sports are to athletics: more free-form, more accident-prone, less formal, more alive. Blogging is writing out loud." -- Andrew Sullivan
I like that. It's as close to extreme sports as I'll ever get. Back in the USAF, there were a couple of extreme sport A-holes who would occasionally find their way to the basketball court. I couldn't stand these guys -- and not because they sucked on the hardwood. Maybe it was the forced lingo, the scuba diving symbol tattoos, and the always empty kayaking racks on their intentionally muddy Jeeps purchased with loans they couldn't afford. Whatever the reason, I've never been able to appreciate extreme sports. Sorry Tony Hawk.
See, I'm already feeling more alive
I like that. It's as close to extreme sports as I'll ever get. Back in the USAF, there were a couple of extreme sport A-holes who would occasionally find their way to the basketball court. I couldn't stand these guys -- and not because they sucked on the hardwood. Maybe it was the forced lingo, the scuba diving symbol tattoos, and the always empty kayaking racks on their intentionally muddy Jeeps purchased with loans they couldn't afford. Whatever the reason, I've never been able to appreciate extreme sports. Sorry Tony Hawk.
See, I'm already feeling more alive
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
virtually limited
The buzz about virtualization isn't quite deafening yet. We do have much to be excited about. I'm particularly geeked up about the possibility of bleeding our PCs white with a virtual desktop environment. My initial concerns have had to do with performance.
In an informative briefing given by one of the ITS gurus (he's actually a brilliant technologist), I got a hint of a pending performance breakthrough. It was my understanding that performance in virtualized environments is bottlenecked because a single VM can only use four vCPUs. My understanding was that adding virtual guests when the VM has access to a single vCPU dimishes the guest's performance. However, it was mentioned in the informative briefing that this limitation is about to change. Apparently, even with the current four vCPU limitation, the lastest versions of the four most popular virtualization technologies (they'll remain nameless because I'm just not in the mood) are all meeting or exceeding performance requirements with six VMs running with one vCPU allocated per VM.
I'm feeling better already about a 47% hardware/software line item reduction.
In an informative briefing given by one of the ITS gurus (he's actually a brilliant technologist), I got a hint of a pending performance breakthrough. It was my understanding that performance in virtualized environments is bottlenecked because a single VM can only use four vCPUs. My understanding was that adding virtual guests when the VM has access to a single vCPU dimishes the guest's performance. However, it was mentioned in the informative briefing that this limitation is about to change. Apparently, even with the current four vCPU limitation, the lastest versions of the four most popular virtualization technologies (they'll remain nameless because I'm just not in the mood) are all meeting or exceeding performance requirements with six VMs running with one vCPU allocated per VM.
I'm feeling better already about a 47% hardware/software line item reduction.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
ah, 15% of that
The exercise was easier than I expected. That does not mean it didn't hurt. Not quite the corncob pain I remember from past austerity dances. No, this was a little less invasive.
With my general operating line item still intact, I was able to surgically remove approximately 47% of my hardware/software line item. With 2/3 of desktop machines upgraded in the past year and the remaining third still only 3-5 years old, I'm feeling confident we can weather the rest of this fiscal with what we already have. With our file, print, and mail servers now centralized with main campus, our only big metal assets are a large web server, one large web dev server, one small app server, a dedicated LMS box, and one test box. All relatively new with the server OS already paid for.
See, I already feel better looking at my justification in print. So what doesn't get done? Well, our training and travel budget was going to come out of the hardware/software line item because we were charged on July 2 for last fiscal's travel. Thank you budget office. That means no conferences, training, re-certs, junkets, seminars, etc. It also means looking for more creative ways to provide professional development opportunities to a staff that thrives on and requires continuous learning.
It's going to be a rewarding next couple of months.
With my general operating line item still intact, I was able to surgically remove approximately 47% of my hardware/software line item. With 2/3 of desktop machines upgraded in the past year and the remaining third still only 3-5 years old, I'm feeling confident we can weather the rest of this fiscal with what we already have. With our file, print, and mail servers now centralized with main campus, our only big metal assets are a large web server, one large web dev server, one small app server, a dedicated LMS box, and one test box. All relatively new with the server OS already paid for.
See, I already feel better looking at my justification in print. So what doesn't get done? Well, our training and travel budget was going to come out of the hardware/software line item because we were charged on July 2 for last fiscal's travel. Thank you budget office. That means no conferences, training, re-certs, junkets, seminars, etc. It also means looking for more creative ways to provide professional development opportunities to a staff that thrives on and requires continuous learning.
It's going to be a rewarding next couple of months.
the passions run deep
Technology is an extremely personal thing. We all have our particular likes, dislikes, suffrages, and delights. I know this. It's why we review, analyze, vet, test, and reverse engineer technologies and processes before we ask our end-users to adopt them as their own -- in sickness and in health.
So while I'm not overly surprised by responses to this, I'm wondering about motivation and argument. Claim and warrant are both shaped by the rhetor's passion for the subject, at least that's the way it used to be. It's this passion that I'm curious to understand better, particularly when we're talking about something as innocuous as a network operating system.
In spite of my efforts to qualify my comments, there remains this need to have the last word. It's like arguing with my kid about why he needs to have his license on him when he's driving the car that I still insure. It's a reaction that I understand, but nonetheless wish I experienced less. Julie makes two absolute guarantees in her claims about Netware/Groupwise vs. AD/Exchange. Richard is similarly compelled to reiterate the notion of fiscal irresponsibility in selecting a Microsoft solution. In both cases, I'm struck by and admire the strength of their conviction and the urgency in their tone.
What I can't swallow is the implication that our decision to adopt an AD/Exchange campus computing environment was wrong. The implication isn't palatable because it assumes there is a "right" decision. I guess it's like anything: you have opinions and convictions that drive you to accept certain beliefs. In some cases you hold onto those convictions so long that you simply can't consider any alternative, compromise, or compelling context. In other cases, you're driven to continue to hold onto something because you just can't tolerate, accept, or otherwise co-exist with the alternatives.
This is why I think we've been modestly successful in our IT work at UC. We know that technology is personal and that technologists get really geeked up when you start bandying around options, directions, and future-think. Maybe I'm just getting tired of the outliers who continue to screech the same old tunes I've been listening to since the days of the Lisa and X-Windows. Yeah, maybe I'm just getting tired.
So while I'm not overly surprised by responses to this, I'm wondering about motivation and argument. Claim and warrant are both shaped by the rhetor's passion for the subject, at least that's the way it used to be. It's this passion that I'm curious to understand better, particularly when we're talking about something as innocuous as a network operating system.
In spite of my efforts to qualify my comments, there remains this need to have the last word. It's like arguing with my kid about why he needs to have his license on him when he's driving the car that I still insure. It's a reaction that I understand, but nonetheless wish I experienced less. Julie makes two absolute guarantees in her claims about Netware/Groupwise vs. AD/Exchange. Richard is similarly compelled to reiterate the notion of fiscal irresponsibility in selecting a Microsoft solution. In both cases, I'm struck by and admire the strength of their conviction and the urgency in their tone.
What I can't swallow is the implication that our decision to adopt an AD/Exchange campus computing environment was wrong. The implication isn't palatable because it assumes there is a "right" decision. I guess it's like anything: you have opinions and convictions that drive you to accept certain beliefs. In some cases you hold onto those convictions so long that you simply can't consider any alternative, compromise, or compelling context. In other cases, you're driven to continue to hold onto something because you just can't tolerate, accept, or otherwise co-exist with the alternatives.
This is why I think we've been modestly successful in our IT work at UC. We know that technology is personal and that technologists get really geeked up when you start bandying around options, directions, and future-think. Maybe I'm just getting tired of the outliers who continue to screech the same old tunes I've been listening to since the days of the Lisa and X-Windows. Yeah, maybe I'm just getting tired.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
get me my bourbon smee!
This always cracks me up. I see this argument rear it's little pea-brained head about as often as the "tech writers need certification" debate. I too have seen SMEs attempt to develop technical information products. It's likely what drives me to teach young engineers how to do technical communication better than they assume they can. It's also why I know good technical communicators will never starve or have something interesting to talk about at the company picnic.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
15% of what!?
It’s not quite the writing on the wall, but there are faint glimmers of text underneath the white-wash job they slopped on in 2001. That would be the last time the university underwent a knee-jerk reaction to a downturn in the economy.
So much of higher education seems to run counter to common sense and the general directions you would expect things to go when the economy gets really crappy. Traditionally, more students decide to stay in school (particularly grad school) when the job outlook is bleak. Similarly, schools such as University College see slight enrollment increases as out-of-work adults look for retraining and retread opportunities. All of that means nothing when the mother ship's general endowment (the investments from all those wealthy alumi donors) takes a 40-60% hit. Yeah, that's a lot of operational dough.
The surprised look around the table after the Dean announced a 5% budget hacking this fiscal and additional 10-15% next fiscal made me smile a little. Deep down inside I was thinking that now is the time these people have to stop playing like they know how to run a business and actually do something business-like. When I think about why and how certain departments in the organization have dedicated operational budgets, I get a small pain in my lower back. It's the pain you get from sitting on your wallet all day, only to ask yourself, "Why do I carry a wallet anyway? My wife has all the money. Maybe it just makes me feel like I'm really in control of something."
It’s been a long and windy complaint of mine that for the most part, people working in higher education fail to understand that what they are doing is selling a product. Arguments about what that product actually is occasionally get way off track, especially when undertaken by people with Ph.D.s in education or textual studies. Suffice it to say that regardless of what the product is, enough people on most campuses wouldn’t know the product if it was marked by a rotting moose carcass on the quad.
In a really creepy (almost scary) way, I’m really geeked-up about the possibility of showing my colleagues how to carve out 15% of a budget without canceling the coffee service. I honestly think that those of us with enough scars from the private sector can bring a fair amount of calm and diligence to an otherwise weepy-eyed job.
Results and better suggestions to follow.
So much of higher education seems to run counter to common sense and the general directions you would expect things to go when the economy gets really crappy. Traditionally, more students decide to stay in school (particularly grad school) when the job outlook is bleak. Similarly, schools such as University College see slight enrollment increases as out-of-work adults look for retraining and retread opportunities. All of that means nothing when the mother ship's general endowment (the investments from all those wealthy alumi donors) takes a 40-60% hit. Yeah, that's a lot of operational dough.
The surprised look around the table after the Dean announced a 5% budget hacking this fiscal and additional 10-15% next fiscal made me smile a little. Deep down inside I was thinking that now is the time these people have to stop playing like they know how to run a business and actually do something business-like. When I think about why and how certain departments in the organization have dedicated operational budgets, I get a small pain in my lower back. It's the pain you get from sitting on your wallet all day, only to ask yourself, "Why do I carry a wallet anyway? My wife has all the money. Maybe it just makes me feel like I'm really in control of something."
It’s been a long and windy complaint of mine that for the most part, people working in higher education fail to understand that what they are doing is selling a product. Arguments about what that product actually is occasionally get way off track, especially when undertaken by people with Ph.D.s in education or textual studies. Suffice it to say that regardless of what the product is, enough people on most campuses wouldn’t know the product if it was marked by a rotting moose carcass on the quad.
In a really creepy (almost scary) way, I’m really geeked-up about the possibility of showing my colleagues how to carve out 15% of a budget without canceling the coffee service. I honestly think that those of us with enough scars from the private sector can bring a fair amount of calm and diligence to an otherwise weepy-eyed job.
Results and better suggestions to follow.
hey mitch, go tend to the hogs
We’re coming up on two years into our migration off eDirectoy to Active Directory. It was my decision to push UC’s early adoption. We were spending too much money on Novell licenses for the OS and a dedicated GroupWise mailbox, not to mention the hardware.
Now the problem is governance. The campus has a tight small group of dedicated experts working as the technical gods. They’re extremely good forest admins. UC is luck y that we have a guy who is just as good, if not better. Now the campus group knows it. Our guy has been pushing enough on the tech side, and I’ve been gripping enough about protocol and policy that they’ve asked our guy to join their little team. It’s a good move for our guy and great gain for them.
In the coming weeks I plan to put governance back on the AD team’s radar. It’s too important to decentralize in a university as dysfunctional as ours. The way I see it we have to focus on 1) systematizing compliance, 2) centralizing policy vetting and object packaging, 3) developing a reproducible core skill sets for sit admins, and 4) defining a clear path for ongoing management, maintenance and development.
That’s what I’m going to propose. Lofty? Not really. When you consider the consequences of doing nothing (and the path we’re headed down now), they seem like fairly pragmatic and necessary goals.
Now the problem is governance. The campus has a tight small group of dedicated experts working as the technical gods. They’re extremely good forest admins. UC is luck y that we have a guy who is just as good, if not better. Now the campus group knows it. Our guy has been pushing enough on the tech side, and I’ve been gripping enough about protocol and policy that they’ve asked our guy to join their little team. It’s a good move for our guy and great gain for them.
In the coming weeks I plan to put governance back on the AD team’s radar. It’s too important to decentralize in a university as dysfunctional as ours. The way I see it we have to focus on 1) systematizing compliance, 2) centralizing policy vetting and object packaging, 3) developing a reproducible core skill sets for sit admins, and 4) defining a clear path for ongoing management, maintenance and development.
That’s what I’m going to propose. Lofty? Not really. When you consider the consequences of doing nothing (and the path we’re headed down now), they seem like fairly pragmatic and necessary goals.
who has time for the blah, blah, blah?
Not me apparently. It’s been so long that I’ve forgotten I had an outlet for navel gazing and whining. Coming back is like finding that old bottle of Wild Turkey I forgot I had on the back shelf of the pantry. That and the old Fuente I found in the travel humidor that I keep in my fishing tackle bag. Nice find. Better when I can find the time to enjoy them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)