Just been reading James Clays Blog entry on the lack of connectivity as we move around the country and more ironically, at ‘eLearning’ conferences.
I too have found that there is great variation in the quality of 3G coverage in some very surprising areas of the UK. Whilst this can be infuriating for those frequently working out of the office, it is not actually something we can easily influence – the single driver for change is ‘profit’; it must be economically viable for the telecomms providers to increase coverage in areas of poor service.
No T-mobile signal
Photo originally uploaded by Kai Hendry
What I find more frustrating is turning up to an academic conference to find little or no WiFi connectivity – and this happens at academic institutions, not hired halls! Does this show that universities and colleges do not actually have campus-wide WiFi, or have they not planned to incorporate a flexible system (which is what WiFi is supposed to facilitate)?
Now this is not an advert, but travelling in First Class on Virgin Trains west-coast line, gives you free WiFi access… yes, ladies & gents, boys & girls – WiFi on a moving (high-speed) train. It is decent quality and realiable – how do they do that???
There are so many portable, personal devices being used. Just take a look at people in their everyday lives – there is the evidence, right in front of you. Now we can argue about the content and purposeful nature of what is being communicated – but we can’t deny that mobile communication and participation is happening now on a lager scale.
My ‘tech’ point is this: will institutional systems and networks shrink physically at the user-end and grow at the core? I think we will inevitably end up supporting a virtual system which houses data and provides enhanced WiFi systems & features.
At this point we (the institution) will not control the use of hardware or software – it is coming in already with cheap/free web & mail on decent smartphones. I’m sitting on the bus on my way to work – but I could well be a student doing an assignment?
So, I’m done – just got to Save and this is published on the web direct from the No. 38 bus, as we drive through Birkenhead North. I didn’t need to use my institution’s network.
OK – I’m sitting at my iMac now, in my office and I can pick up the blog entry sent from my iPhone on the bus. I know this (WordPress) is not an ‘official’ college application – but I could have used one – and does it matter anyway?
Tech point: Our technology is changing rapidly; less focus on the physical user-machine, more emphasis on the infrastructure to transport data in a flexible manner (WiFi) and certainly, a boom in virtualization of services at the core server end.
Are we (technical services staff) ready for this – I think our college is up there, but inevitably there are the ‘late majority’ and the ‘laggards’. I was speaking with an ex-colleague last week at JISCRSCNW09 conference, and she is rather infuriated that her technical services are not pro-active and forward thinking – the knock-on effect is that they are becoming part of the ‘barriers to learning’.
Rogers' modified by Moore
Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation model modified by Geoffrey Moore.
Whilst Rogers mentions early adopters as the opinion leaders. Moore argued that this is actually vital in order to target the early majority – he argued that there is a chasm between early adopters and early majority – explaining why some innovations become merely a minority interest.
Rogers does not agree with Moore:
‘…some scholars claimed that a discontinuity exists between innovators and early adopters versus the early majority, late majority and laggards (Moore, 1991). Past research shows no support for this claim of a ‘chasm’ between certain adopter categories. (Rogers, 2003, p.282)
Further reading:
MIT – Moving from Technology-Centered to Human-Centered Products
The Life Cycle of a Technology
Proven Models
‘Crossing the Chasm’ – Wikipedia entry
Les Robinson – ‘Enabling Change’
Forgot to post this up a couple of weeks ago.
Diffusion of Innovations
Innovators; early adopters; early majority; late majority; laggards.
Rogers’ model adapted in an interesting way by Geoffrey Moore – idea of a chasm separating innovators and early adopters from the rest.
Rogers looked ‘outside the box’ “I was convinced that the diffusion of innovations was a kind of universal process of social change” (2003, p.vxi)
Innovators: tolerate & enjoy high levels of uncertainty and risk – technical knowledge is crucial – their community may react with criticism, uncertainty and scepticism; will probably look for support from a geographically scattered ‘clique of innovators’ (Rogers, 2003, p.282)
Early adopters: larger group – much rooted in their local community; usually respected as opinion leaders: more cautious colleagues rely on them for judgement.
Early majority: a still larger group – one third in total. People who tend to think carefully before adopting an innovation: they don’t want to be first in, neither do they want to be the last – staying well behind the leading edge.
Late majority: Sceptical and cautious – uncertainty must be removed before they feel safe to adopt. Don’t make a change until there is lot of pressure from their peers – logic in their position – they can’t afford failure.
Laggards: ‘near isolates in the social networks of their system’ he argues, he does not mean any disrespect .
Rogers describes later adopters unfavorably in terms of personality, saying they are generally less empathic, have lower ability to deal with abstractions, have fewer years of formal education.
Recent Comments