Radio interview

Today's radio interview with Jim Blasingame:

Mobile web sites for business

Listen to a conversation about mobile web sites for business

Mobile Apps vs Mobile Browser

There are two different ways content can be made available to mobile users. Content can be made available via a mobile application (App) or content can be available from a mobile browser. A mobile App is a software program that works on a specific mobile device, whereas browser content can be accessed by all mobile devices. The pro's and con's of each approach is detailed below:


Pro's and Con's of the Mobile App approach:

Pro	Con
Pros - For the person(s) creating the app - functionality and control - App creators can be assured that all their App's features work. An App can be developed so that it is optimized to run effectively on a specific mobile devices.	Cons- For the person(s) creating the app - App creators will need to develop an application that works on each of the mobile players. Each player uses a different operating system and supports different technology. Porting to different players is not trivial.
Pros- For the end user - Since the app is downloaded to your device you are not as limited by weak or slow WiFi access speeds.	Cons - For the end user - The end user will not be able to surf over to a web site and access the content the way they do it on their PC. They will need to purchase and install each application. Many times end users will not have access to the necessary network speeds to download and install the Apps on the fly so they will need to think a head of time what applications they will need. Each App cost money.

Pros and Cons of the Mobile Browser Approach (ReadyGo Mobile solution)

Pro	Con
Pros - For the person(s) creating the app - One development cycle works on all the different mobile devices that have a browser.	Cons- For the person(s) creating the app - Need to test out and make sure the technology you are using to create your mobile web site is supported by the different mobile browsers. For example iPhone does not support Flash. Some features that you may want to add my not be available across all mobile browsers. Need to make sure that when you are developing your mobile accessible web site that it is slim so that your content will download and run fast on a mobile device.
Pros - For the end user - Access when you want it where you want it, typically for free.	Cons- For the end user - Does the technology deployed on the web site work on their mobile device? Does the web site have the functionality and bandwidth so that it works well?

Anita's interview on "The Small Business Advocate"

Cloud Computing

Every 10 years the technology industry gives a new name to an existing technological paradigm. Then every vendor races to say how their solution is that new name. This is a very effective way to get media buzz and upgrade companies to the next generation service or product. If anyone says "How is this different then the old name?" That person is told that "they don't get it" or are given a line of incomprehensible verbal garbage. Yes, it is true that the technologies and applications have changed, since technology and applications are continually changing. These changes are not paradigm shifts, just next generation changes. To really understand the pros and cons of a so-called new technology that is really a re-named old technology, it is wise to know the old name, and understand it's pros and cons. Then find out what is new. Typically I find what is new, has everything to do with marketing and nothing to do with business decision making.

A perfect example of name changing an existing technology is "Cloud Computing", formally known as "ASP (Application Service Provider)"; formally known as "Time Sharing". Back in the real old days every IT executive had a very clear idea if they wanted to host applications internally or Time Share their applications. Time Sharing was having an application you used hosted on someone else's equipment. You paid a monthly fee to have someone else's people maintain computer hardware and software that you used. It was a strait forward pro and con business decision. Do you want to control your software and data or are you willing to let someone else control your software and data? How trusted is this third party? Who's head will role if something happens to your application and data? Do you have any control over heads rolling? What if the hosting company goes out of business, gets bought, or sold? Can you get your software and data back? Of course it is much easier to pay someone else to buy, manage, and run a data center then it is for you to hire and pay for all that hardware, software, people, and electricity.

The same business decisions existing today with Cloud computing. Do you want control over your data? Control cost something. In today's terms control means that you need to pay to manage your data vs paying a monthly fee to have someone else control your data. For some businesses this is a no-brainer. Cloud computing provides small and medium size businesses or large company departments with access to sophisticated application's they could never bring in house. From the technology industries point of view it is much easier to run a large data center that is tightly coupled with new releases of your software then to manage an extensive network of field support people who need to help your customers manage and run your applications. From a business angle, a consistent stream of monthly revenue is much easier to manage then living on new sales and service agreements.

Observations about Facebook friends

After spending some time connecting with people over Facebook I have reflected and made a some observations.

First of all I realized that in real life I have three levels of friends.
Level 1: people that I schedule time to be with,
Level 2: people I run into and greet e.g. co-workers, other parents in my child’s class
Level 3: former level one friends who now live someplace else. In the past I only interacted with them when we exchanged holiday cards or if we are in the same town we will get together for a meal.

Moving to Facebook the definition and interaction of friends have changed. I have seen that Facebook democratizes the type of interactions I have with these three levels of friends. I find that my Facebook interactions are minimal and sanitized view of my life. Way to superficial for my level 1 friends, about right for my level 2 friends, and more often then before for my level 3 friends.

What is most interesting about Facebook is that I have gained two new groups of "friends" which I call level 4 and level 5 friends. Level four friends are past level 1 friends that I have not socialized with in years. Level 5 friends are former level 2 friends I have not run into in years. For both level 4 and 5 friends I see the same routine play out. We hook up, then have the same three or four catching up e-mails. Then these people go into my Facebook ether. That is they are my “friend” and I am their “friend”. When I log onto Facebook I get to see their new posts, but I rarely if ever directly converse with them.

On Facebook I see that most adults post only superficial information on their life e.g. a picture of their dog, a photo of a vacation, a child's accomplishment, some mindless test or quiz they have taken. Facebook has given me a strange, superficial insight into the lives of many people I hardly know or have not known in years. They too have a strange, superficial insight into my life. I have not found that I have any more connection to these people then if I ran into them in a store or the airport. What is different is I now continually can find out the most superficial things about their lives.

Another observation about Facebook is that I find that it provides an insight into how people want to be viewed, or maybe what is important to them. My brother, who has two young children, only shows pictures and provides statistics on his cycling races. Other friends fill me in on the latest activity of their dogs or their score on some superficial online quiz they just took. I wonder if this is what is truly important to them or is their way of superficially connecting to a wide net of people while maintaining privacy. I wonder if these connections bring any new benefit into our lives or if they are just the latest distraction.

Do multi-taskers make good employees?

I was very interested in a new study on chronic multi-tasking run by Stanford University professor Clifford Nass. Specifically professor Nass looked at the new bread of media multi-taskers. People who are receiving and using multiple, unrelated streams of information at once, like chatting with a number of different people, while working on a paper, while reading, and listening to TV. They studied chronic multi-taskers and found that multi-tasking impaired a person’s cognitive processes at most of the types of thinking we categorize as deep thought. Surprisingly the study found that chronic multi-taskers are really bad at being able to filter relative information, manage their working memory, and are slower at switching tasks. They concluded that chronic multi-tasking harms a person’s ability to think.

Additionally they found that there were different patterns of chronic multi-tasking in different generations. Teens and twenty’s want to do it, while thirty plus have had it forced upon them. Across the board they find that chronic multi-tasking is a growing trend in all age groups. Not surprisingly chronic multi-taksers believe that they are competent when performing these tasks. They give themselves a lot of credit for getting lots of information from multiple sources.

So how does this relate to business and specifically eLearning. I have attended a number of conferences where the speakers tell us we should be modifying our courses to cater to young people who are use to simultaneously receiving lots of media stimulation. This study clearly demonstrates that people might be chronically multi-tasking but that this behavior is not conducive for thinking and learning. I have always contended that an organization should build internal training that works for the corporation’s culture. Modifying material so that it appeals to a new demographic has always been counter-intuitive to me. Good training should be focused on meeting a companies goals and meeting a course objectives. Typically this is assuring the employee can demonstrate an understanding of the material being presented. The goal of a course creator should be to focus on presenting information in an instructionally sound way.