I think Jim raises some excellent points and he does open the door for a more complete discussion of the Learning Plan option. Is there a better way to tie the workflow analyses that are underway with the individual learning plan development? How aware are we of the current steps in the LCS implementation planning? How can this initiative be better linked to the reality (press?) of the LCS timelines, and how can the strategies better involve the learners/learkers(!) in the process?
What we are trying to avoid, on one hand, is the old mechanism of setting machines on desks and saying "go for it" as seems to be happening in a lot of other places that will remain unnamed. Yet, we also also acknowledge that it should be the individual employee who is recognizing the need for the increased computing power in order to new their new/emerging job and who is willing to contribute to that learning effort. Ron's original proposal stated:
Personal Commitment Plan: A learning organization places some of the responsiblity for learning back on the individuals within the organization. Personal mastery in technology requires that each employee develop themselves toward goals and purposes they choose (p.4)In this case, OGF/LCS and other Apollo rollouts, there may not have been "a conscious choice" by the employees, but it is a choice if doing their job in the future is the concern that we all have.
By way of this note, I'm asking Robin to find a time when all of us can meet, preferably next week, to find the places where we are together and what we need to do to bridge the gaps that may exist. Jim, you are right...these are not discrete initiatives; they are interconnected. Let's build on that commonality!
I have some questions about how we will prepare stations for the LCS that are not covered under the Desktop project.
We have service windows that are not at the desk of a full-time board approved employee. We also have work stations for student workers, and temporary employees that are critical to the operation of this office. Clearly the service windows do not need the office suite products, but they will need full access to the LCS systems. In the desktop meeting KC mentioned that LCS may run on a "thin client." While I have a basic understanding of the concept, I assume that it will not by a Wyse terminal.
Have we developed a strategy of creating these type of work stations? I also believe that it is critical to the theory of the LCS system to have stations that are accessible to the students. Much of what is being designed is designed as self service. We probably need to think about have stations available in the lobby of the SPS building as well as other places.
I am sure that A&R, CIAR and other places need these type of stations as well. While I wish all my employees were full-time board approved, that is simply not my reality.
Again, I am ready, willing and (IMHO) able to do installation work. I am also ready to start committing my people to training. I just need to know that there is some assurance that they will have machines in a reasonable time frame to put practice to the training.
Ted Malone
I, for one, am proud of all of our people who have been involved in the discussion that is occurring on the subject. I have been watching it carefully, and it is full of conviction (preferable to apathy), learning (a positive sign in dealing with a shift or change), and ownership (what we always strive to achieve). Resolve cannot be far behind with the high-ordered tone of respect that all are bringing to the discussion and diversity of perspective. Feel free to share my message with all involved.
While I had asked Robin to find a time when we could meet with the LCS Steering Team Chairs so that we could work on bridging the gap, I've come to think that we might be better served if we devoted the majority of the IS meetings to the LCS effort. In this way, we would be more closely attuned to their pressures, they can also remain sensitive to the other demands on IS that need to be balanced with the LCS effort, and, thus, foster a closer working relationship amongst us without creating yet ANOTHER meeting structure.
I know that some of the frustrations currently felt about where we are in the LCS/Desktop efforts relates to how we will actually make that LINK which will trigger the availability of a specific Desktop machine for a specific person. (I know that Jim, and Mary Lou and Ted, might just be saying....well, at last she gets it!)
They are asking: What is it that the person who knows that s/he will need that machine in a very short period of time needs to do in order to show/demonstrate the learning commitment required by Ron (theoretically, at least) to have the new machine?....that is the basic question being asked and the answer they hear is fuzzy at best and thus frustrating. (Did I get it????)
The question is also placed in a larger context because the machine, in and of itself, can only be as powerful as the network to which it is connected. Thus, as the Steering Team attempts an analysis of all the potential users of LCS, they/we must also determine where the network will be at the time we go "live" and if it is not where the people need it to be, what are the alternative plans for the people, who through no fault of their own, cannot use LCS directly from their station....if they have one at all? And I think, quite frankly, that the Steering Team would like NOT to worry about that and have faith in the fact that someone else IS worrying about that!
And, as the analysis of individual learning is conducted, by the individuals themselves, through whatever process an individual or department choses to use, how is/will help be provided so that they can attempt the task (if I don't even know what file management is, how can I tell if I know I need it?)...And all of this has to happen before the task of learning what will be needed for their LCS uses. How can the potential priority users be helped to know what is coming, thus recognizing the impact of the immediate future, and how can they be helped to realize the learning commitment they must make and that we will support in the months/years to come....per the Desktop Project Plan? And from the Steering Team perspective, they would like to know that someone is worrying about that, and sheparding that, and feeling comfortable that that part is being taken care of so that they don't have to worry about that!
They really want to worry mainly about all the "stuff" that is "pure" LCS stuff -- the workflow analysis, the testing of the modules as they rollout in terms of content and functionality, the reshaping of the jobs in certain areas, if needed, etc, etc, etc.
A standing meeting might help to address these issues together.....the next meeting could be on Sept 26, but if it would work, we could move it to next Wednesday, Sept 18th at noon and I'll pick up the lunch tab! Not all might need come to all sessions, but the forum would be there.
While the Early Bird Special planning continues and as the dates are identified and the pilot proceeds with IS folks, that first wave might also include some from the LCS priority groups who are ready for this type of machine. The first wave session was to see what it would take to use this approach, but unless we have some from outside of IS as Karen suggested in one of her memos, it is not a true test. Ted said he felt he had 3 people ready; Mary Lou has several that I know of. Can/should they be involved in that first EBS, and if so, how are we identifying them? Would they be willing to help with the process analysis and documentation that is to be part of the first wave effort?
And what are we asking that IS staff do to demonstrate their commitment to a learning plan? What pilot effort are we making in that regard? And will such "demonstrations" differ? and if so, how? And if that is not in place, how can we, in good faith, allow the first machines to roll-out? Is simply showing up on that Saturday enough? Is simply having a job description that says you have those skills enough to "qualify" you? Its a rub!
I think Miguel said that EBS is one answer, and we all agree that it should not be the only answer. We do need more answers and we can come up with them together. At one point, Jim asked: "Do we have any kind of reasonable assurance that the LCS Implementation will have what it needs to carry forth the plans the LCS Implementation Team is making in good faith?" The answer is YES, but we need to make sure that all of IS knows what the LCS plans are, and I would hope that the assurance could be even more than "reasonable!" We can/will find it working together.
Jim also stated: "We will prepare them [emphasis added] in any way we can to make sure they qualify for a desktop unit that will allow them to function in the new and evolving world of LCS." By working together I believe that we can also find that point where the above statement can have a different emphasis. I would hope that we can get to the point where we can say: "Our employees will prepare themselves in any way that they can be sure that they qualify for a desktop unit that will allow them to function in the new and evolving world of LCS and to function in a world that will require continous self-imposed learning in the future."
If EBS is one stategy, what is the next and the next? What ELSE will/should be available in October, November, December? That will be our agenda. Also the updates that relate to "qualifying," to installation scheduling, to the network infrasture, to training, to whatever else is needed to make LCS the success we all want it to be and to make the Desktop Project all that it can be....and all the while making sure that we don't lose sight of the need to continue to support the on-going instructional demands, the on-going SIS and OGF demands, etc. And we are just beginning to get an inkling of the the impacts might be when LCS is operational. Will we need a database manager just` for LCS? What Technical Operating support will be needed when/if we have to have both SIS and LCS operational? Will and what will be the increased UNIX demands? So many unknowns.....
Let me know what you think about the Wednesday meeting(s), and I know you will let me know what you think about anything that I've said!!!
Joyce, I have only one word to say in response to this missive . . . ."BINGO!!!"
Ron, earlier I sent you some of the discussion items but we now have them on the web:
http://www.gc.maricopa.edu/apollo/desktop/ebs/I'd encourage you to drop in and see what debates you have triggered!! The discussions are both rich and intense. We have asked Ken if he would allow us to include one of his recent notes on our issue.
The tension you designed in the requirements for the Desktop Projects versus the rollout of LCS implementation demands is something to behold. There are those who probably wish we had not chosen to take you seriously, but I am glad we have. If we do not take the opportunity to engage in such debates, we loose something.
Stay tuned! (...and it really is coming together is a very good way!)
Mary Lou, after the discussion at the LCS Steering Team meeting on Monday, I took some time to read the "discussion thread" that is on the Web regarding the deployment strategy for desktop machines at GCC.
I can see that there is a conflict between doing things in a "new" way that characterizes the "learning organization", and the pragmatics of being ready to implement a new system which represents a multi-million dollar investment. The irony is, that LCS is supposed to be one of the "beacons" for the transformation process which will eventually involve the entire district in some major culture changes. If the implementation process for LCS stalls because we don't have people ready, willing, and able to use it, the light of this particular beacon will certainly "dim".
My concern is that all the people who need to test the system, and be the early adopters (workflow teams and the implementation teams and involved BAE's) are ready to do so when the applications are available to us. GCC and PC HAVE to shake the system down quickly so the rest of the district can begin implementation as soon as possible. The pressure on GCC/PC is far greater than if you were a "follower" and other colleges were not so dependent on your ability to rapidly test and implement. It will be a travesty (in my humble opinion) if an impediment to the successful implementation turns out to be that people were not ready. Being ready, means being familiar with the basic desktop skills necessary to navigate the new system when it is available (and having the equipment to do so, of course).
To my knowledge, there is no other major application or system currently in development that will have anywhere near the impact that LCS will have (or has the potential to have) on the entire district. It is true that nothing is cast in concrete with respect to the roll-out schedule and we could be a few months late, BUT at this time we must (as you indicated) proceed on the assumption that modules will be ready for testing according to the plan - which means late January. (I wish I could nail this down with more certainty at this time but I don't have enough information to do that yet).
I certainly hope that you and your colleagues will be able to reconcile your philosophical differences and find a way to "reward" the early "learners" while at the same time make sure that people "on the front line",(like in Ted Malone's organization) are adequately prepared to start using LCS as soon as it is available to them.
Enough rambling for now.
Ken