One of my 15 fans asks, “Janet what the heck is cloud computing, when should I consider a cloud service model and when should I not?” This is a great question and much better than an anonymous question I received via my chat widget, “what is the current state of e-learning?” Seriously. And, to which I responded…let’s try to break that down a bit…

First, let me point to some existing definitions cloud computing. I always start with the definitions. Otherwise, it’s all fuzzy. Which it actually it is. Clouds, if nothing else, are ‘fuzzy.’

Cloud Service Models

Cloud Software as a Service, or SaaS (pronounced “sass”) has been the term used by learning management system providers for several years to described their  ”hosted” service model. “Hosted” meaning 100% browser-based in this context. The (U.S.) National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in their effort to “promote the effective and secure use of the technology within government and industry by providing technical guidance and promoting standards,” has defined SaaS, as:

The capability provided to the consumer is to use the provider’s applications running on a cloud infrastructure. The applications are accessible from various client devices through a thin client interface such as a web browser (e.g., web-based email). The consumer does not manage or control the underlying cloud infrastructure including network, servers, operating systems, storage, or even individual application capabilities, with the possible exception of limited user-specific application configuration settings.

Another service model is Cloud Platform as a Service” (PaaS). Fewer LMSs offer a PaaS solution (vs. SaaS) but some are moving in that direction. NIST defines PaaS as:

The capability provided to the consumer is to deploy onto the cloud infrastructure consumer-created or acquired applications created using programming languages and tools supported by the provider. The consumer does not manage or control the underlying cloud infrastructure including network, servers, operating systems, or storage, but has control over the deployed applications and possibly application hosting environment configurations.

Yet another service model is Cloud Infrastructure as a Service (Iaas)

The capability provided to the consumer is to provision processing, storage, networks, and other fundamental computing resources where the consumer is able to deploy and run arbitrary software, which can include operating systems and applications. The consumer does not manage or control the underlying cloud infrastructure but has control over operating systems, storage, deployed applications, and possibly limited control of select networking components (e.g., host firewalls).

Some lower-tech descriptions

I like this diagram and explanation from Michael Sheehan:

There are other ways to display this hierarchy, however I elected to show it as a pyramid. For example, if one were to weight the graphic by the number of providers within each segment, the pyramid would be upside-down. The point here though is to show how these cloud segments build upon and are somewhat dependent upon each other. While they are directly related, they don’t require interdependence (e.g., a Cloud Application does not necessarily have to be built upon a Cloud Platform or Cloud Infrastructure). I would propose, however, that Cloud trends indicate that they will become more entwined over time.

(click diagram to make larger)

Another great read is Defogging Cloud Computing: A Taxonomy from Michael Crandell.

The technology industry has been moving toward open standards for some time, and cloud computing is the next logical step. Cloud solutions -– at any of the three levels described above -– are attractive for just about any company with an application that runs in a data center or with a hosted provider, that doesn’t want to reinvent the wheel or pay a premium. Multi-tenancy, low cost (metered hourly vs. monthly ), high availability with clustered servers (one goes down, spin one up automatically), virtually infinite scalability with a click –- all this is here, and here to stay. Our job as cloud vendors is to make it easily accessible and manageable, deliver best practices and continue to refine the architecture.

One of the better nut-and-bolts definition uses the common utility comparison. This one is from Darryl Chantry at Microsoft in his article, Mapping Applications to the Cloud..

Utility computing refers to using computing resources (infrastructure, storage, core services) in the same way you would use electricity or water; that is, as a metered service in which you only pay for what you use. The utility can eliminate the need to purchase, run, and maintain hardware, server, and application platforms, and to develop core services—for example, billing or security services.

When I query our LMS KnowledgeBase of 100 commercial systems by systems with 50% or more of their implementation are hosted (SaaS), it returns 70 systems. Among 107 authoring tools in our Authoring Tool KnowledgeBase, 39 have server-based authoring environments that one or more content developers access simultaneously using their browser. SaaS has been trending for quite some time. Years in fact. What we’ll see more of now is PaaS service models.

Cloud Deployment Models

Again from NIST:

Private cloud.

The cloud infrastructure is operated solely for an organization. It may be managed by the organization or a third party and may exist on premise or off premise.

Community cloud.

The cloud infrastructure is shared by several organizations and supports a specific community that has shared concerns (e.g., mission, security requirements, policy, and compliance considerations). It may be managed by the organizations or a third party and may exist on premise or off premise.

Public cloud.

The cloud infrastructure is made available to the general public or a large industry group and is owned by an organization selling cloud services.

Hybrid cloud.

The cloud infrastructure is a composition of two or more clouds (private, community, or public) that remain unique entities but are bound together by standardized or proprietary technology that enables data and application portability (e.g., cloud bursting for load-balancing between clouds).

When should you consider a cloud solution and when should you not?

I’ll comment on that in my next post. This one is too long as it is. I welcome your answers to that question and will feature them in the next post.

I’ve used a bunch of desktop authoring tools – Lectora, Dreamweaver, Authorware, Captivate, and Articulate to name a few. I haven’t really used a lot of web-based authoring tools though. I was kind of out of that aspect (development) of e-learning at the time they started becoming more mainstream. Recently, I’ve been exploring collaborative web-based options for a report I’m writing and was reintroduced to MyUdutu (from Udutu). I had used the tool once a couple of years ago for a class and watched a demo of their Facebook integration over a year ago. They also sponsored a cocktail hour at one of our conferences so I owe someone a beer or two – probably Roger Mundell.

I spent an hour or so with Roger from Udutu looking at their authoring tool and have to say I’m really kind of blown away as to its capabilities. It’s a very flexible and very versatile product. In analyst speak, it is “robust.” I wish it had been around when I was pulling my hair out learning Authorware.

Let me say up front I’m NOT getting paid to plug MyUdutu, and am not endorsing it over another product, I just want to share some notes from the demo because I think its one of those ‘best kept secrets no one knows about.’ We used my old account for the demo and the course I did for school was there and so unbelievably lame (fair warning if you see bits and pieces in the screen shots. Not my best work : )

Although the tool is often used by SMEs due to its simplicity, it definitely has enough features to satisfy instructional designers who need a lot more than linear solutions. Below are several scenario templates. You’ll have to click them to make them larger.

I was pleasantly surprised by the variety of assessment options. You could really get quite inventive with this. Roger showed me how you could select parts of an image  for instance or learn a language.

Some other tidbits in bullet points::

• Any platform – Mac, Linux, Windows environment
• Cache flash (ability to bring content in before you need it – good for learners dial-up) (Yup you heard right. Dial-up)
• Ability to save your courses so you don’t freak out about losing courses that exist on a server other than your own.
• Reusable learning objects at multiple levels (folder, course, etc.)
• Semi-complex branching
• Flash templates
• Easy to add multimedia like movies
• Learner flexibility (Take only what you need, start where you stopped, etc.)
• SCORM conformant
• Glossary that aggregates items entered
• Plug in for Moodle
• Can also be installed on your server
• Did I say boatload of templates?

I was surprised to learn that the tool is FREE as an SaaS solution. However, it will cost you $5 per learner/course if you want Udutu to host it for you. If you want it on your own server there is a licensing fee. The business model they use is really one of added value. Udutu staff can handle all aspects of building courses collaboratively from the whole enchilada to just one little thing. This seems ideal when you don’t have the type of department with dedicated graphic designers or multimedia producers.

I thought it was funny when I asked about users…seems to be a tool used by rogue designers (many clients are people circumventing their current solution (LMS, LCMS, etc. Seriously.)

I’m pulling together some answers to interview questions and will post those later.

Robert Bacal thinks the terms ‘informal learning’ and ‘e-learning 2.0′ are “silly terms to take things we’ve been talking about (or discarded) years ago, and repackage them with fancier terms.” “We”, if I understand Robert correctly, are people (like Robert) who are not ignorant and not intellectually impoverished. “Long term experts on learning.” So if you’ve ever uttered ‘e-learning 2.0′ or ‘informal learning’, you’re ignorant and impoverished and conning everyone. He says:

“We”, as supposed professionals have an obligation, an ethical obligation to know our field, and not to create bogus new terms so we can make money by way of conning consumers. And even more important, educators, tasked with the future of our children, should, well, be educated about learning.

The sad part is we are starting to put the futures of our children (and adult learners) into the hands of people who can’t reason their way out of a paper bag, and the scary part is that limited resources may end up being allocated to completely stupid approaches to create learning in others.

It sure would be nice if some more “long term experts on learning” who think “2.0″ is all rubbish would put their work, their background in learning theory and their “hard-core research” out in the public for comment. It’s not that hard really. The publish button is just over there to the right.

(You can download a free whitepaper Informal Learning: Extending the Impact of Enterprise Ideas and Information (a conversation with Jay Cross) from Robert’s website. You have to opt in to receive future email though because it’s a pay-per-lead item. Yes, he gets paid $1.50. For a paper. About Informal Learning. Gotta love irony.)

Update and hat tip to my tweeps: the article is free here .

I have located the key to the chain that secures me to my desk.  I’d love to start making some plans to meet up at (or near) any of these learning-related events.

DevLearn 2009 “Building the Future of Learning” – November 10-13, 2009, San Jose, California (sitting on research panel and facilitating a concurrent session on multi-generational research & ID considerations).

Learn & Know 2009, Meridian Knowledge Solutions User Conference – November 17-18, 2009, Chantilly, Virginia (sitting on a bloggers panel with Mark Bower and Susan Smith Nash)

Chief Learning Officer Summit – April 11-13, 2010, Braselton, Georgia (session on cloud computing). Conference still in planning stages.

2010 AITD National Conference “New Thinking Learning & Development” – April 21-22, 2010, Sydney Australia (session on e-learning and session on social media)

While my primary aim is to engage in wonderful conversations with like minded people, in the back of my mind I truly am hoping for no major shoe malfunctions…which seem to haunt me and my Brandon Hall Research travel adventures. I didn’t tell you about Montreal…

1. Can’t hide.
   Other person: “Want to talk at 2:00?
   <pause> Me: “No, I’ve got a meeting at 2:00.”  {note: there is no meeting}
   Other person: “OK, how about the same time tomorrow?”
   Me: “Sure, 2:00 tomorrow.”
   (Me, silently: Great. Now I can’t Tweet, update my Facebook status, blog, bookmark, etc. because my every click will show up on FriendFeed and I’m supposed to be in some fictitious 2:00 meeting. And I’ll have to change all my presence indicators….should’ve just had the meeting.)
2. Procrastination becomes visible.
   Links shared throughout the day could be viewed as breadcrumbs on your way in or out of the rabbit hole. Like “Ig Nobel Public Health Prize Goes to Bra That Converts Into Gas Mask. Innovation at its best.
3. Sloppiness has a wider audience.
   Adding a wrong name to that email is a lot easier to take than sending an @reply instead of a DM. (if that’s foreign to you .. an “@reply” on Twitter goes to many people, a direct message (DM) ideally just goes to that one person. Ideally.)
4. New paranoia becomes a caricature of old paranoia.
   Old paranoia might be wondering if “they” are talking about you behind closed doors. Well, you know when you’re on LinkedIn and it says “your profile has been view by 5 people in the last 7 days…see more”? New paranoia means your viewing someone’s profile looking for clues like some stalker or something. It’s much easier just to casually walk by the office several times.
5. Time becomes more of an issue.
   Flight was late? Accident on freeway? Inclement weather? There’s an app for that. And your boss might have it.
6. This type of thing:
   
7. Photographic evidence.
   Can’t opt out of the work happy hour if your “friend” is going to take pics of you doing something entirely more fun and then upload them via twit pic.
8. Short attention span.
   God, grandma…can’t you tell that story in 140 characters already? Or are you going to make it a blog post?
9. Scanning.
   “Yeah, I saw the memo. Didn’t read it though. Why, what’s going on?”
10. Multi-tasking.
    Reminiscent of potheads from the 70s. “Did you read that? What? <pause> “Did you read that?” <insert random factoid>
11. Laziness.
    Someone already said it better than you so why bother. Just improve your search skills and go find it.
12. Bad hair day.
    …because someone will document it in some way to their entire network (and maybe even add a #hashtag).

After reading Bob Blakley’s post about privacy, I’m pretty sure I’ve been thinking about privacy in the wrong way. Blakley, of the Burton Group, noted that “keeping personal information secret” is the wrong definition of privacy. I’m pretty sure that’s how I’ve been thinking about it.

Blakley says, “privacy is the problem you have after you share sensitive information.” He talks about sociability — the “social good which we give to one another, not a social order in which we control one another.”

The key message I’m reading is this statement:

Technology can’t solve privacy problems because they’re not technology problems he says. But technology can make privacy problems worse.

If we accept the technology frame and let technologists define privacy as control over dissemination of information, we ARE going to have less privacy.

Blakley says we need to focus on building sociable spaces,  so “people’s social and antisocial actions are exposed to scrutiny so that normal human social processes can work.”

Why do I feel that that’s not the direction we’re traveling?

I haven’t read a lot of research in the area of culture and instructional design – especially integration. Here’s a good one.

Patricia Young, Ph.D. did a literature review on the topic of  integrating culture in the design of information and communication technologies (ICTs). The definition of culture used in the article is from Geert Hofstede:

Culture is the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the member of one human group from those of another. Culture in this sense is a system of collectively held values.

Young notes that “in ID, definition of culture are more broadly based to include sociological, anthropological, and educational perspectives.” She writes about integrating culture in design through internationalization (eliminate culture; homogenous technological product that is usable across cultures) and localization (specialize; make acceptable to target group).

One “model of culture” she mentions is Hofstede’s five dimensions:

• Power, distance
• Uncertainty avoidance
• Masculinity-femininity
• Individualism-collectivism
• Time orientation

Methods to integrate culture in the design of ICTs are cultural variation (design specification to accommodate for variations in learners, characteristics of learners and the tasks for learning and content – like the use of graphic symbols vs. text) and cultural research (describing the target audience in terms of learning strategies and contexts for learning, e.g. humor).

Young suggests that the design has not caught up with technology and that the future of integration in design lies in changing mindsets first and design practices second.

To follow Young’s work in this area, refer to her website about her future book here.  The book describes a framework to integrate culture in design.

The Culture Based Model (CBM) is an intercultural instructional design framework that guides designers through the design, development, management and assessment process. This model works in constructing custom development, adding on to existing designs, re-engineering off-the-shelf products, and providing diagnostic evaluations. CBM has 8 areas consistent with the acronym: ID-TABLET. These areas include Inquiry, Development, Team, Assessments, Brainstorming, Learners, Elements and Training. CBM’s ID-TABLET focuses on project management and project design. The areas under project management include: Brainstorming, Team, Development, Learners, Assessments, and Training. The project design focuses on monitoring and content development. The areas under project design include: Inquiry and Elements. These areas operate simultaneously and maintain an interactive relation. As a model that seeks to meet culture based design decisions, CBM is a comprehensive tool for the design process.

Young, P. (2008) Integrating Culture in the Design of ICTs, British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 39 No 1 p. 6-17.

One of my professors brought to my attention a research article in AECT about theory utilization specifically, theories “functioning as conceptual tools.” The qualitative study (informed by hermeneutic, phenomenological and ethnographic approaches) explores “views and actual uses of theory in context.” The research question examines “the nature of instructional designers’ practical involvement with formalized theories.”

Semi-structured interviews and examination of actual online courses were used to explore the way designers go about their practical duties. Four men and three women participated* – one from a high-volume design organization, two from custom design companies, one from a university instructional design center, two in-house designers for a laboratory-based organization, and one in-house designer for a technology company. Some had formal training (4), some did not (3).

The researchers were studying any use of formal design theories so didn’t differentiate among learning theories, instructional theories, process models, etc.). Three interviews with each participant were conducted – the first about background/everyday work experiences/practical involvement in the design process, the second about specific uses and views of formal theory, and the third to address unresolved issues from prior interviews.)

The researchers found 10 themes. Some findings within those themes:

Participant desire to use theory and report that they often do.

Participants expressed ambivalence toward theory (theories were “viewed as overly abstract, rigid, or complex with relatively little guidance regarding application.”)

The range of theories chose are “likely limited to those that practitioners know about, understand how to apply, and find useful in their work.” The researchers then suggested that “practitioners may seldom identify theories that are actually useful in their specific setting, even if a helpful theory exists.”

Practitioners did not distinguish between theories, models, and design processes in descriptions of their work, “possibly suggesting that – given the abstractness and complexity of many of these conceptual tools – practicing designers are offered little basis for differentiating them and may lack the ability to select ones most suitable for their purposes.”

Using theory as an argumentative device brings a measure of legitimacy and professional to design decisions. However, theory use was somewhat hindered by others who did not see its value. This, the researchers noted, pointed to “an interesting and often tension-filled aspect of instructional design work (i.e, the process of negotiation to arrive at a workable design plan.)”

Decisions are often made on the basis of intuitive judgment and practical wisdom developed over time.

There are limitations with any study. Here, the researchers note that they didn’t query participants regarding their theoretical knowledge in general and the inquiry approach used is not easily researched.

(*About the sample size: Researchers note the “focus on thick description and intensive analysis prohibited a more expansive sampling procedure and investigation.”

Yanchar, S., South, J., Williams, D, Allen, S., and Wilson, B. (2009) Struggling with theory? A qualitative investigation of conceptual tool use in instructional design. Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2009.

Lisa Gualtieri, Editor-in-Chief, eLearn Magazine wrote an article called Learn from Rogue Tweeters: 7 Steps to Promoting Your Organization in Twitter. She writes that while organizations are trying to figure out how to use social media in a formalized ( more on that later) way, the rogue employee  just does it, “it” being participating in mutually beneficial dialogue about the company with the general public . You rogue-types know who you are (from the article: “Mark plans to continue tweeting until someone tells him “that’s not your job.”)( I would add “or until he gets promoted or finds a sweeter gig.”)

Why does Mark  (the employee in the article) tweet for OMSHR (the company in the article) when it’s not in his job description? My guess is passion, greater good (it’s safety stuff), dedication, or if-not-me-who? (he’s in IT). Only he knows why but OMSHR is lucky to have him. He is concerned however, that policies may eventually constrain him…he believes the current informal process works because he is “conscientious and diligent.”

THE CURRENT INFORMAL PROCESS WORKS. So why formalize social media (in my mind a highly informal way to learn)? Or should we be saying “non-formal?” (And go me! for not tripping over that stack ‘o buzz words.)

Let’s go on a little Google hunt.

Back in 2005, Stephen Downes had some comments on formalizing informal learning based on a CLO article

Of course, this [the writers had said that informal learning needs to be integrated into formal learning in the sense that it should be tied to measurable performance metrics] isn’t the point of informal learning at all – but I can see the point. It requires a very careful balance between respecting learner intentions, which in the end drive informal learning, and supporting corporate needs, which are addressed not through demand learning, but rather, by making appropriate informal learning resources usefully and widely available.

Respect your learners intentions and make informal learning resources available and useful.

Earlier this year Mark Oehlert, in response to a George Siemens post about “formally adopting” informal learning (vs. trying to make it formal…big diff), said:

why does it bother me that people/organizations think that somehow they need to “adopt” this mysterious thing called “informal learning.”? How about this…the principles of ID can’t handle it, IDs aren’t taught how to design with it, no one knows how to assess its impact and yet we feel compelled to somehow exert our control over something that largely grew up because we failed so miserably in other areas…

[ID should] stay the hell out of it.

Catherine Lombardozzi, also earlier this year,

I think that creating an informal learning strategy in support of business learning needs is mostly about aggregating, organizing, and making available a variety of resources that can support learning on a specific topic, similar to how I’ve talked about learning environments in the past. The strategic part is making decisions about what resources we’ll deliberately support – we can’t possibly corral all possible informal learning resources, and we need to figure out where to start.

Aggregate, organize, make available and decide what to deliberately support (formally adopt a strategy)

And this, recently from Mike Prokopeak talking to Lance Dublin about a third domain:

Formal learning typically refers to structured learning events and programs, while informal refers to unstructured learning that happens outside the bounds of traditional learning events, whether it’s over the water cooler, in the field or through a blog or discussion forum.

“There is a third domain,” Dublin said. “That’s the domain where you use all these informal tools but you use them with intention. You put enough structure around them so they have a purpose within the organization.” [He calls this non-formal learning] The opportunity lies in defining the middle between the two poles, Dublin said. Non-formal learning is structured, but not formal, intentional but not directed.

Structured, but not formal, intentional but not directed.

Lastly, a conversation I’ve been having in comments with Karl Kapp in What are the Results of Following an Instructional Design Process? in which I’m disagreeing with the idea of Web 2.0 ‘design’ entirely. Karl mentions templates, simplified (read standardized) tagging,  guidelines, etc.

As designers, we need to provide templates for meaningful contributions of one peer to another, perhaps a sample blog entry to use as a model, or a method of standardizing contributions, a list of key words so the folksonomy is limited, something that ties strategies to contributions to encourage learning and retention of the content contributed. These elements add structure to the contributions but still allow creativity.

What’s your take? Ithink we need more Mark’s and OMSHR’s. Less meddling and a better understanding in the industry of what strategy is.

Just finished up an online presentation, Using Social Medial to Improve Workplace Learning, slides below. I had uploaded my slides an hour early and took care of all the necessary details – shut off cell phone and house phone, banished children from my immediate area, let the dog out, shut the windows, and…special bonus this week…asked my contractor not to run the power saw or pound sheet rock from 1-2 pm. I forgot to tell him the part about me needing electricity and, of course, at 12:55 I lost power. I asked him “calmly” to put it back on and was presenting by 1:02 with a light sweat. Anyway, it went pretty good in my opinion (which doesn’t mean jack.)

At the end of the presentation, I tried something different and shared Wordle so we could make a word cloud for two issues: what things make a bad  classroom training session and what an ideal online community would look like. I gathered up text from the chat box. This one is for “bad things.”

and this one “ideal online community”:

Couple of additional notes from the presentation:

• Most of us reported a dramatic change in the way we communicate, collaborate, and interact at work over the last 10 years.
• 2/3’s didn’t have a strategy for social media
• Most of us reported moderate usage social media

Some quotes and talking points:

“Social learning technologies must be seen as the medium for relationship creation, not information exchange.” (Digenti, 2000)

“Learning is an integral and inseparable aspect of social practice.” (Lave & Wenger, 1991)

“We are moving toward a knowledge-era model of education with large-scale social networks involving complex communities and individual identify construction.” (Wenger, 2004)

“Social learning technologies can bring together and bridge the gap between training and knowledge management – linking knowledge and acquisition, development, and learning. A strong collaboration platform links continued knowledge acquisition, development, and learning.” (Bruck, 2007)

“It is within complex online communities and networks where social construction of understanding occurs.” (Huberman, Romero, & Fang, 2008)

References (because, ya know, I’m a researcher ; )

Bruck, P. (2008) Welcome and introduction to microlearning and capacity building. Microlearning and Capacity Building. Proceedings of the 4th International Microlearning 2008 Conference. Innsbruck, Austria.

Digenti, D. (2000). Make Space for Informal Learning. ASTD Learning Circuits.

Huberman, B.A., Romero, D.M. & Fang, W. (2008). Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope. Social Computing Lab, HP Laboratories, Palo Alto, CA and Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (You must buy this book!)

Wenger, E. (2006). Learning for a small planet: a research agenda. Scientific project description.