reblogged

Risky Business–Part Uno
By Marc Strohlein - El Granada, California - on April 27, 2009

Interesting read by James Surowiecki in the New Yorker about why businesses cut spending during downturns even when history shows that that isn’t necessarily a good ploy. The gist of the article is that companies such as Kellogg, Chrysler, and more recently Hyundai, have benefited from increasing advertising and R&D budgets rather than cutting them as their competitors did. Studies by Bain & Company and McKinsey, among others, have shown that companies that either increased advertising spend or at least stayed flat grew faster than those that cut advertising, for several years after the downturns.

So with such evidence, why would companies continue behaviors that sub optimize their performance during economic upturns? Surowiecki points to economist Frank Knight and his work on risk versus uncertainty. In essence, risk describes a situation where you have some idea of the range of possible outcomes, while uncertainty entails a total lack of knowledge of what might happen. Businesses are quite used to managing risks, but when faced with uncertainty as most currently are, their instinct is to manage what they can which is primarily spending. So businesses are, in fact, acting rationally, just perhaps not wisely, when they cut advertising and R&D spending.

We continue to beat the drum for our “no guts, no glory” theme as we believe that publishers that are “pushing through” to the digital side and making investments in light, agile technology and superior user experience, will be much better positioned to ride the wave of the inevitable upturn in the economy. Companies that, on the other hand, are purely focused on cost cutting and riding out the storm will likely get caught flat footed by their more-nimble competitors. Now that’s risky business.

reblogged

On the Sustainability of OER Projects
Jan 27, 2009 at 11:18 am, Mr. Jared Stein

I’m certainly not the first to suggest that sustainability is an elephantine problem for current and future OER projects. But it’s a problem that may take several perspectives and ideas in order to condense workable solutions.
Problem of Sustainability

The success of early OER projects such as MIT OCW rely in part on funding, some of it massive. For example, MIT OCW began with grants totaling $11 million, contributed in equal amounts by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and committed $1 million of its own funds during the first two years of the project. Yet such grants may be drying up (ref needed), regardless increasing interest and participation in OER projects will heighten competition for and further limit availability of such funds. On their own few public institutions could be expected to come up with that money, and currently many US institutions, particularly state institutions, are facing budget cuts that threaten to limit, decrease, or prevent local OER projects.

The OER Handbook describes the problem of sustainability in context of successful open source software projects:

In open source software projects, money is raised by soliciting donations, selling manuals, training, software development and providing technical support. While some of these methods can be applied to OER, some can not, and some funding methods remain largely untested. Few of the well-known OER projects exhibit the same vibrant communities of contributors that well-known open source software projects have. This issue is one of the most serious the OER community faces.

Though others have found fault with it I was encouraged by the Cape Town Declaration’s suggestion that the open education movement “[has] the opportunity to engage entrepreneurs and publishers who are developing innovative open business models.” Further, some may disagree and even convulse with the idea of linking OER projects with commercial ventures, even as a means of providing sustainability. As a strong-minded capitalist, I do not. Rather, I look forward to working examples of such innovative business models (e.g. Flat World Knowledge), and anticipate innovative adaptation to what I believe is a fundamental shifting of the (sometimes conflicting, often confusing) relationship between creator/consumer/copyright holder.
However, as the OER Handbook describes, such approaches remain largely untested.
Mainstreaming Openness

At UVU I’ve maintained the mindset that long-term success of OER will depend upon mainstreaming it, integrating the mentality of authoring for OER and the activity of publishing as OER into the normal course development and teaching processes. In taking this position I merely echo what others have said, e.g. David Wiley, as in On the Sustainability of Open Educational Resources (2006), Stephen Downes, as in Models for Sustainable Open Educational Resources (2007), and Andy Lane, as in Sustaining OERs: a brief and provocative road map (2008), albeit from my own perspective of being in an institution interested in OER projects, but with no explicit funding for it.

For distance learning programs the goal of integrating OER activities is most feasible. Quality digital content production is part of the practice, and distance learning programs should already be auditing third-party copyright materials. Another approach could be to set a goal of zero third-party copyright content from the course design phase onward, ensuring that no new course includes copyright content. UVU we have played with hosting course content on a public server (called “Shadow Files”) and “mixing” it with copyright content and “private” course activities via the learning management system (LMS). Further, the LMS may be used as the OER publishing platform itself, technology provided (as I’ve prototyped on Moodle with the OpenShare block). However, in such a case the ability to release just parts of the course as OER is necessary, and most LMSs are void of such features.

OER investments may interweave with distance learning initiatives in other ways as well. Terri Bays, Dan Charchidi, Sunnie Kim in presentation Open Sharing, Local Payoff note, “OCW can complement a distance learning initiative, taking content from and directing learners toward an … e-learning curriculum”. It’s a two-way street: developing OER can result in distance learning; developing distance learnign can result in OER.

Additionally, many of the same justifications for distance learning as a cost-reducing and education-enhancing vehicle apply to OER. Mark Pesce notes, “Recording is cheap, lecturers are expensive, and students are forgetful.” Capturing teaching materials in a digital form has perhaps the highest potential for institutional ROI. Reuse reduces redundancy: capturing allows reuse, and access to reusable materials has the potential to dramatically reduce redundancy, diminish the cost of lecturing both in the expenditure of dollars and time, and improve student learning. Stephen Downes argues that “non-economic definitions of ’sustainable’ should not be dismissed lightly”. He mentions that different organizations will have different objectives for practicing distance learning, and some are not cost-saving. Indeed, OER provide a potential means of relieving faculty lecture time for other teaching activities, such as actually interacting with students and providing more feedback.
Brainstorming Institutional Changes Towards Openness

I’ve collected the following ideas on how to successfully mainstream and integrate OER across the institution. Many of these are based on the practices of other institutions, and conversations with colleagues and the OER community. These ideas are based on the need to grow positive attitudes toward OER support across the institution, and the fact that different institutional staff may require different arguments to catalyze support (here especially I welcome feedback, altertions, or additional ideas from the community).

* IT should be encouraged to work with OER advocates to find streamlined technology solutions for publishing OER, and then budget for maintenance of these solutions.
* IT may need proof that OER will either not overload hardware, or be worth the increased load. Also, discussions on whether or not OER may increase susceptibility to malicious attacks.
* Administration may need evidence that OER does not diminish profitability or marketability of institutionally-own content, and in fact may provide satisfactory ROI through PR, student retention, quality improvement, international competitiveness, adaptation to changing cultural and educational paradigms, etc.
* Student services and advisement may need education and training on the potential value to students of OER, and how to access and utilize OER in a manner similar to that in which they access and utilize course catalogs and descriptions
* PR should be educated on the goals, scope, and potential impact of institutional OER efforts that they might better.
Faculty may need reassurance that the value of opening and sharing is competitive with the value of locking down and isolating learning materials.
* Faculty and technology support staff may need workflows and technology training to facilitate publication of OER.
* Finding, reusing, and remixing of OER should become just another faculty skill set, and trainings should be provided–similar to (now commonplace) trainings on use of word processors, e-mail, and the web.
* Everyone should be involved in discussions of the potential value and responsibility of using non-rivalrous resources to provide access to educational content to a new, broad international audience.

I believe OER can be mainstreamed and integrated into existing processes for course development and publishing, but the needs identified in this list above require organizing, supervising, supporting, and proselytizing. Institutions serious about engaging in open education would be well served by funding at least one full-time position, such as “OER Coordinator”, if not a small team. Such a position may be situated in context of campus IT, faculty development and training, or distance learning. Investment in such a position could cohere OER efforts and reduce waste, redundancy, poor planning, and, perhaps most significantly, mis- or failed communication. At the very least, an existing staff member should be appointed as OER coordinator, and responsibilities shifted or condensed to allow for these needs.

My experience with the OER community has shown me that the passion, reasoning, and ideas of individuals will fuel and maintain the global effort regardless–Andy Lane states that “the success of OERs is also dependent on a thriving and healthy OER movement”. But to foster the movement in the long-term it behooves us to focus on the immediate needs of local sustainability. Unlike purchasing computers or licensing an LMS, with OER we are not buying a solution, we are building a solution. In doing so we are investing in the people of the institution, and can obtain a new kind of ownership: a grassroots, shared ownership of the learning materials cultivated by access to and encouragement of open and shared learning resources.

5 Responses to “On the Sustainability of OER Projects”

1. Thieme Hennis Says:

   Hi, interesting piece. I am also convinced that lower barriers for publication, a more intrinsic relation with external parties, and new business models may lead to sustainability of OER. I am currently working with an OER/social networking startup, and we  http://aboutpeers.com) have proposed to develop the next Delft OCW site.

   Find the link to my report on the future of Delft OCW (thesis project) here: http://hennistalk.blogspot.com/2008/05/final-thesis-report-future-of-delft.html

   A shorter description, but without extensive description of the revenue models and overall sustainability can be found in the article I presented in last year’s Ed Media conference: http://www.scribd.com/doc/11464174/ED-Media-08-Future-of-Delft-OCW-A-Case-Study

   [Reply]

   January 28th, 2009 at 2:58 am
2. Tom Carey Says:

   Another article to address OER sustainability is the chapter “Extending the Impact of Open Educational Resources through Alignment with…Institutional Strategy: Lessons Learned from the MERLOT Community Experience” in the book “Opening Up Education”. The part that applies to this discussion is a description of the MERLOT cooperative approaches to sustaining institutional investments - in essence, identifying strategic institutional priorities where support for OER work would have an evident payoff, rather than going for ‘big picture’ support of OER as opening up education to the world.

   You can access the chapter online at http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapters/0262033712chap12.pdf

   [Reply]

   January 30th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
3. Jeremy Says:

   I like your ideas on mainstreaming. Just today in our college technology council meeting, I corrected the chairman’s assertion that it’s illegal to upload textbooks to our CMS. “It’s could be an *open* textbook,” I said.

   But… You’re a “strong-minded capitalist, eh? Let’s talk about how companies react to market forces.

   Look at diversified companies like IBM. I must admit that I’m a little biased (having completed three internships there as an undergrad), but whenever a market they’re in becomes a commodity, they bail out responsibly. It’s not worth it for them to compete on razor-thin margins.

   Compare IBM’s actions to one-trick ponies like SCO, or consortia like RIAA, who employ every method at their disposal to force their relevance on the marketplace when demand is moving the other way.

   Let’s bring this model into the OER debate on sustainability. *Are we so convinced that OER is the way to go that we have to put artificial structures on it to keep it viable?* Or are we willing to accept that, like an organism ill-suited for its environment, this movement may someday be extinct… and for good reason?

   [Reply]

   January 30th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
4. Mr. Jared Stein Says:

   @Jeremy I like where you’re going with this, but I’m not sure if adapting existing financial systems to OER efforts is “artificial structures”, though maybe I’m misunderstanding. I for one am willing to accept that the movement could be extinct, and for a good reason, but, based on several online cultural shifts toward “free” or “open” information, I think we’re more likely going with the flow rather than against it.

   [Reply]

   February 2nd, 2009 at 11:26 am
5. David Wiley Says:

   “To foster the movement in the long-term it behooves us to focus on the immediate needs of local sustainability.” Yes, yes, yes. Otherwise, we become the dictionary example of “flash in the pan.”

Earlier today I was able to conduct my final one to one interview for my dissertation.

This was the 6th(??) interviewee. All have had some involvement in the decision making processes that resulted in Emerald's new presence in Dubai.

It's been a learning experience. I'm not sure the first interview was a good one. I think I spent too much time trying to stick to a script, I didn't introduce the thing as well as I could have and I didn't listen as actively as I should have.

That being said, and after only a brief review of the interviews and my notes, there is a lot of consistency in the topics covered and the overall stories that emerge. I think I have to be happy with how it's gone so far.

The documentary evidence that I need to corrobarate and triangulate these interviews is a  little more difficult. I believe this mostly due to the fact that there is not much evidence there in the first place; much of the process and conversations and final decisions don't seem to be auditable in the form of meeting agendas, minutes, emails or much else. I don't know how much of a problem this is yet.


The very act of going through the interviews has been enormously useful though, and very enlightening. There have been some side tracks that I'll follow through that I think will really add some depth, texture and balance to the research.

The shape and structure of the dissertation is a little clearer to me now.

Overall pleased with how things have proceeded in May. My plan calls for data and evidence and interviews to have concluded by the end of May so we're ok there. June is analysis/interpretation. Don't have a clue how that might pan out - check back in a month.

From the Scholarly Kitchen

Publishers allow authors more freedom to use their articles than authors currently believe, a recent study notes.

The report, Journal authors’ rights: perception and reality, was written by publishing veteran, Sally Morris, for the Publishing Research Consortium (PRC).

For both the submitted and accepted version of the manuscript, authors routinely underestimated what their publisher agreements allowed them to do. Moreover, the rights granted by publishers generally exceed authors’ wishes.

On the other hand, authors tend to overestimate what they can do with the published version of their article when it comes to self-archiving. Few publishers allow final PDF versions to be made publicly available through subject or institutional repositories, although more than half of authors believed that their agreements allowed them this right.

The strength in this report is not the introduction of new data — there have been several, well-conducted author and publisher surveys, which Morris amply summarizes in her report — but her analysis and interpretation. Morris focuses on why there is a systemic disjoint between what publishers offer and what authors believe they can do.

Finding a solution to this problem is clearly her purpose.

She writes:

Publishers need to ask themselves why it is that authors have such an inaccurate understanding of their copyright policies, particularly with regard to self-archiving [...] Clearly publishers have failed to get across the positive message about those policies which, contrary to authors’ and others’ belief, do meet (or even exceed) their wishes.

Morris believes that much of the misunderstanding about self-archiving can be explained by confusion over the term ‘postprint.’ Indeed, she doesn’t hold back leveling some of this blame on the RoMEO database and on open access advocates such as Stevan Harnad and Peter Suber, who all equate ‘postprint’ with the final draft of a manuscript and not the published version of an article.

Responding to the report, Stevan Harnad defends his use of the terminology:

the preprint/postprint distinction is perfectly coherent: a preprint is any draft preceding the author’s final, accepted, refereed version, and a postprint is any draft from the author’s final, accepted refereed version onward (including the publisher’s PDF).

This definition may be coherent for Harnad, but it seems to confuse more than clarify.

NISO’s proposal for Journal Article Versions uses less ambiguous terminology such as Author’s Original, Accepted Manuscript, and Version of Record. Morris believes that widespread adoption of standardized terms will avoid future confusion. It would also reaffirm that publishers are adding value at each stage of publication. Morris concludes,

Although a few academics and librarians may want to see the demise of established journals and their publishers, most do not; a clear explanation of why this could happen, if a critical mass of their value-added contents were freely available, needs to be reiterated at every opportunity.

Reblogged from the Scholarly Kitchen

As one former publisher, now consultant, told me, “a consultant is someone who steals your watch to tell you what time it is.” That is, a consultant is someone who tells you exactly what you already know, but want to hear again for reassurance sake.

In a particularly cogent article, Open Access 2.0, published in the June issue of the The Journal of Electronic Publishing, Joe Esposito lays out many things that we don’t know – or at least are not willing to admit – about publishing. This is not a collection of declarative diatribes loosely held together with non-sequiturs, or a pronouncement of how we’ve done good in our company/library. It is one of the few articles based on theory – in this case economic theory – and how it helps us to understand and predict the successes and failures of publishing.

The basis of Esposito’s argument is that the publishing economy’s limited resource is not access, but attention, and that the role of traditional publishing is to help readers decide what is worth their time reading. This job is done essentially through filtering (also known as gatekeeping).

And yet Esposito does not discount other forms of publishing that allows everything to come through the gate, and to filter and evaluate later. Thus he sees places for the role of Open Access and repository publishing, only he believes that these forms of publishing should occupy different market niches. In this sense, Joe goes beyond the typical rhetorical and binary argument of open or closed, but sees a plurality of publishing markets for reaching a plurality of reader communities. Similar to the argument of viewing the automobile as simply a horseless carriage Esposito writes:

One of the reasons that many open-access ventures have had a hard time financially is that they have been built on the mistaken assumption that they are replacing traditional publishing and thus have to re-create all of the services that traditional publishers now provide.

For pure OA publishing, he sees stripped-down models that attempt to minimize the role of human involvement and to maximize automation. For instance, he views a university librarian spending time coaching a faculty member on how to deposit a manuscript into the institution’s repository as both overly expensive (in the time of a highly-paid administrator) and unsustainable.

In spite of his insistence on avoiding the binary pro-against open access, Esposito creates another dichotomy between supporting readers (the traditional subscription market) or authors (the author-paid OA market). Part of this dichotomy may be used for rhetorical purposes and to strengthen the force of his argument. Nevertheless, this is one article from which both sides of the open access debate can read, agree, and learn.