As the Chief Learning Architect for Sun Learning Service's Cloud Computing business, I've been deep-diving into the technology infrastructure that makes the cloud what it is. Not being an engineer, I can only go so deep in understanding what all the individual technology components are, and how they inter-operate. However, it dawned on me recently (some of this fueled by a few Oracle people asking "what is the cloud?") that the cloud really is not about technology. Cloud computing's most significant impact is the fact that it will single-handedly disrupt the entire financial marketplace. Cloud computing represents the end of debt as we know it.
Cloud computing turns "pay as you go" into a reality for businesses and individual entrepreneurs that want to get an idea to the marketplace quickly. Without the need for an expensive physical data center or requiring a large debt-load, businesses can try more "adventurous" ideas. If they fail, all that is required is to pay for services requested at the scale they were at when the plug is pulled, then "clear the deck" and go back to the drawing board. In this model, failure is OK. Failure doesn't mean investors lose life savings, and banks aren't stuck with bad loans.
Cloud computing also brings into question the whole "idea" of how functional large corporations really are. We all know the larger the corporation, the less "nimble" it is. True innovation and rapid decision-making becomes quite difficult in many large corporate cultures. We see this in the recent corporate meltdown: the U.S. auto industry has proven how difficult innovating quickly enough to save even themselves can be. The banking industry's collapse also proves that the age of big de-regulated, aggregated industry may be over. Many of the most innovative people in finance are finding smaller sized companies preferable places to work because it's easier to bring new and innovative products to market quicker.
The ability to scale based on how the market reacts is how cloud computing reorganizes and disrupts the marketplace. The financial and economic meltdown of the last several months has brought more attention to what the cloud offers, and has uncovered the opportunities that lie ahead.
Again, the technology that fuels the cloud is not the commodity -- the real game changer here is the rise of innovation and creativity paired with the fuel to bring ideas to market sooner -- that's what the cloud will be about. We (Sun) just have to ensure the availability of scale (+ or -).
I believe the meaning of life is found in what John Seely Brown and Douglas Thomas refer to as “the gamer disposition.” The gamer disposition consists of five key attributes:
Bottom-line oriented
Accepting of diversity
Realization that life is ever-changing
Eagerness to overcome obstacles
Loves to complete tasks, embark on quests, and accept challenges
More than attitudes or beliefs, these attributes are character traits that players bring into game worlds and that those worlds reinforce. People who possess a gamer disposition may be happier than those who do not, and quite simplistically, will have an easier time finding “meaning” in life – because I believe one must be “happy” to be able to find true meaning in life.
What makes us happy, and makes us function well? Some researchers are discovering happiness correlates to gaming. Jane McGonigal defines four key aspects of happiness:
Having satisfying work to do.
The experience at being good at something
Time spent with people we like
The chance to be a part of something bigger
Guess what? All of these aspects of happiness are prevalent in games (especially in multi-player games). The best-designed games are setup to let you be good at things you're not good at in real life. Games come with better instructions, a clear goal, and better feedback than in real life. Games are designed to help us find our strengths and weaknesses. They also have better community aspects because all the players have agreed to the rules. Gaming is a shared experience that is not often reflected in the real world.
I haven't blogged in a while, and my first entry back is not about games and learning. Since Sun is undergoing painful times, I decided to take a moment and reflect on what Sun means to me as a company, and what I think Sun needs to do moving forward. As I hit my 2nd anniversary here, I hate to see such bad times, but I'm also excited about the opportunities that lie ahead.
----
Sun's evolution is not contingent upon a "re-invention", or becoming more "like a startup". I think Sun needs to run as far away from the "startup mentality" as it can. Let's be honest, most startups fail in their first few years anyway! What Sun needs to strive for is a soft reboot. We are adequately equipped with the currency to deliver the "game changer" the pundits and analysts so think we need. I don't necessarily think that "game changer" is a revolutionary new technology product, however (If so, bring it on) but it would seemingly start at business basics. I ask myself these questions:
Can we make it easier for someone to buy a server from us?
Can we make sure we cover the market with systems for every business sector (small business; start ups; medium-sized businesses; and of course enterprise)?
Can we make sure our "marketing messages" don't obfuscate the differences between OpenSolaris and Solaris for example; and can we have one overall brand message?
Can we not try and "manufacture" our presence in the open source community, but figure out ways to be a leader in that community through our contributions and commitment to it?
Can we design software interfaces that make sense instead of just cramming interpretations of bad Microsoft design into our apps?
Granted, I've only been here two years, so my grasp of Sun's history doesn't reach far, but I have spent almost 20 years in Silicon Valley in the high-tech industry. I've been on the "startup track" (Commerce One, eBay), and I've been on the "downward spiral" (remember 3Com and VLSI anyone?), and one of the constants I've seen over the years is the ability for a company and its brand to take one of two paths: rise from the ashes, or settle into the dust and disappear. There doesn't seem to be a science to it. It all seems to resolve around the leadership vision and the focus and creativity of the people that work there.
Would Palm have been able to pull out the Pre (a potential cell-phone game changer) without the desire to recruit the creative vision of Jonathan Rubinstein (a key player in the design of the iPod), and the fortitude to make the changes necessary at all levels of the company?
Granted, he came from the outside. I don't think an outsider can "save" Sun from crumbling right now. I think what we have is not a leadership problem. I think we have an infrastructure problem. Instead of replacing the "leaky pipes" left over from the dot-com boom, we've just been tightening the screws and patching the holes. I think our leaders, including Jonathan, need to be given the room and the support to continue evolving the company forward, and finally start replacing the pipes. By this, I don't mean people. I mean we need to take stock of what we're designing and building, and ensure that whatever business we decide to be in, we dedicate ourselves to designing the best experience for our end-users. Period. If it's too hard for our own people to use, how do we expect a customer to care enough to struggle with it?
I had the honor of having lunch with Scott McNealy a few months ago, and I laid my iPhone on the table. He had gently laid his Blackberry in front of him during the meal because he was monitoring his son's golf scores. He noticed my iPhone, however, and flatly stated that he wished he would have focused more on "the design" of our products. He'd like to see our products be "easier to use" which is something Apple has mastered well.
I remembered back to when Apple stock was hitting all-time lows, pundits and analysts were crying how the company was "done" "finished" and would be swallowed up by a bigger tech giant (including Sun). I remember my wife telling me the opposite: when Apple stock was at $10, she said, "You should buy it. They just have too much 'loyalty capital' to ever really go away." To my later chagrin, I didn't buy. I didn't get in until a few years back at $70. Sun seems to be in the same position now. On a recent vacation, I mentioned to a broker that I worked at Sun. He paused, and patted my shoulder, and said, "Ah, sorry to hear that."
What I'd like to see in the next few weeks is a leadership "bus tour". Five minute videos aren't good enough. I'd like to see the ELT, and mostly Jonathan, visiting Sun offices, talking to people, walking the halls, and rolling up their sleeves looking over our shoulders at our computer screens and asking us what we're working on. And yes, they should also be asking us to explain how what we're working on is helping move Sun forward. I'd like to see them talk to individual contributors, not just EVPs and VPs. Those types of connections can be strong and lasting, and valuable beyond compare. I'd like to see them inspect what we're doing.
I know this is a tough time to be here. But many other companies are struggling too, and in adverse times, it really is the creativity and "genuineness" of those that want to work at the company to come together, take stock, and get on the right track. Remember these turn-arounds:
Sears
IBM
Apple
Each company had unique challenges to face, and could have gone the way of the dust-bin if it wasn't for several variables involved. Sun's challenges are also unique to its culture, way of doing business, and several "hard to die" remnants from the past. A general "read this business book and apply these principles" aren't going to work at Sun. Should we focus less on the desktop, more on the cloud? Should we remember IBM and OS/2, and drop Solaris? We should be asking ourselves the hard questions right now. What do we have that is just lost in the marketplace, sucking too much revenue, and needs to go away?
Lou Gerstner described his first few decisions as CEO of flailing IBM like this:
"I put the brakes on a plan, which was already well under way, to break up the company into several operating units." Gerstner characterizes this as "the most important decision I ever made--not just at IBM, but in my entire business career."
The rationale behind it was to leverage all of the pieces of IBM--hardware, services and software--to deliver top-to-bottom technology solutions. To colleagues, Gerstner may have expressed total confidence in that monumental decision, but he conceded he didn't know how the company might deliver on the potential of that "unified enterprise."
Similarly, we have an opportunity to solidify, unify, and synchronize how we provide the same components to our customers in a more user-friendly manner. I compare it to returning a purchased item that I no longer want. When I do that at Amazon there are simple, straightforward interfaces, a quick process for resolution, and an overall painless experience. The same can't be said when I tried to return an item to Sony the other day. The people there treated me like I was bothering them, and had a convoluted, overly extemporaneous process for resolving what I thought should be a simple transaction. I want us to be an Amazon, not a Sony.
I hope all of us at Sun can work together to make complex things simpler, to innovate not only what we build, but how we build it, and how we expect people to use it. That, I think, will move us forward as a company, where we will hopefully rise from the ashes, and not settle in the dust. A friend of mine just the other day said, "Wow, I couldn't imagine the tech world without Sun." I said, "Yeah, it would be difficult to see this great company, once a titan of the Valley, whimper away."
I saw a recent presentation by Simon Phipps where he laid out in real plain language Sun's open source commitment and strategy. He also explained what it means to be in the open source community. He stated that our vision is not one of next quarter, or even next year. It's a 5- to 10-year vision. Sun may look like a laughing stock now, but we are on the track that makes the most sense: software itself is not the commodity. The ease of use, the ease of access, and the services that enable a person's computing experience to excel is the commodity. Sun's visionary stance in this space is one that will take time. We (the employees and partners) of Sun need to invent that time... create the space by finding the efficiencies to innovate within, and grow not just the "business" but reboot the process of doing business with us.
People often seem overwhelmed with information (I know at times I am). An individual can easily access a ton of information in just a few seconds on almost any subject. The great thing about this plethora of data is the ability for the individual to tailor information to their specific needs, and in some ways design their own learning experiences.
As the rise of social networking continues and the design of media development software makes it easier and more affordable for novices to design their own learning, more and more people are beginning to participate in creating learning content to share with others.
I think this moves us more towards what I call "ubiquitous learning." Most corporations provide on average about 40 hours a year of formal training for their employees. There are over 2,000 hours in an average work year. I can guarantee you that most workers don't reserve their learning to just those 40 provided by the company. Most people constantly learn, and most learning occurs through peers.
Since most of what we learn is informal, one has to question the efficiency of providing 40 hours of formal learning over the year. Does it really work? Why is it when people hear, "You must take this training course" they usually cringe?
I predict that corporations will find ways to involve their employees in ubiquitous learning: offer them collaborative learning environments, quick and easy ways to participate in learning events in different forms, provide informal and formal forums for information sharing, construct communities of practice, etc., and allow workers to integrate learning into the day-to-day work they do.
I predict "measuring" learning will become less important as the knowledge-based society matures, and learning will evolve into becoming a natural part of the average worker's tasks.
I have several friends who are teachers, and I constantly talk to them about how they integrate technology into their classrooms. One friend who teaches 2nd grade in an economically depressed area replies that she can't even begin to think about computers in her classroom: most of her kids are coming to class hungry, or traumatized by dysfunctional home environments. She is also challenged by the oppressive No Child Left Behind focus on achieving specific test scores. This leaves her little time to contemplate how technology can transform her classroom.
In my daughter's middle school, computers are still in a "computer lab" off the library. So students have an allotted time during the day to "go to computer lab". They even get to "choose" to work on a Mac or PC based on their personal preference. I find this wholly inane (especially since we live near Silicon Valley).
What we need to do is throw out textbooks completely and provide students with an internet-enabled computer IN the classroom (and note that I used to work for a textbook publishing company). Not only would this save the backs of our small children (who have to lug the outrageously over-priced and cumbersomely heavy books in backpacks that must be causing damage to the spine), it would also transform how people learn.
In this New York Times article a Boston school that uses the "disruptive innovation" of computers to transform their curriculum is profiled. It states that kids are handed a Mac laptop when they enter the classroom. For their math work, they access special software that allows them to play against the other students in class in a game setting. It has been highly engaging, fun, and "makes the students learn more."
Students and teachers also IM, blog, and complete assignments using GoogleDocs. At the end of class, the students hand back the laptops and head for home. No heavy books to lug around and no "dogs to eat homework."
I often hear from educators and administrators how computers should not be the focus in the classroom, that they are disruptive to a learning environment. On the contrary, computers in my opinion make more sense: they enable all of the curriculum to be accessible in a small package, they enable network-based learning, they are easily managed and controlled, and they widen the boundaries of what is possible in an educational setting. What teachers and administrators need to realize is that they are a replacement for the book, pencil, and paper -- not a "device" to populate a "lab" in the library. Kids already recognize this. Teachers and administrators need to get on board and understand that the catalyst for positive change in education is staring them right in the face.
Saw this cool cellphone interview with the Acrobat team. I knew Adobe would integrate Flash into Acrobat. Think about this for what we do: one runtime gives us interactive training manuals (embedded Flash, 3D objects, interactivity) and the same file also outputs a printed manual. Combine that with web-enabled capabilities (Adobe has a lot of plans for acrobat.com and you gotta see Buzzword!) and you've now got social learning embedded as well. Hot stuff. I wish we were doing this kind of stuff with Java... seamless playback of multiple filetypes in one UI.
Found this interesting research summation on the effectiveness of pausing during an instructor-led classroom session to increase learner retention. To summarize the research:
In this study an instructor paused for two minutes on three
occasions during each of five lectures: the intervals ranged from
12 to 18 minutes. During the pauses, while students worked in
pairs to discuss and rework their notes, no interaction occurred
between instructor and students. At the end of each lecture, students
were given three minutes to write down everything they could remember
from the lecture (free recall); 12 days after the last lecture,
the students were also given a 65 item multiple-choice test to
measure long-term retention. A control group received the same
lectures (using the same anecdotes and visual aids) and was similarly
tested. In two separate courses repeated over two semesters, the
results were striking and consistent: Students hearing the lectures
while the instructor paused did significantly better on the free
recall and the comprehensive test. In fact, the magnitude of the
difference in mean scores between the two groups was large enough
to make a difference of two letter grades depending upon cutoff
points!
An insightful opinion in the New York Times today talks about how we're entering the Cognitive Age. In the Cognitive Age, your ability to adapt to learning new skills and applying creative ways to put those skills to work solving real problems is paramount to your career success. Although the article is pointedly political, the main thrust of it is easily observable in the job marketplace.
It seems easy to blame globalization for the loss of jobs, or for the current economic woes, however, most companies are not shipping jobs overseas just for cheap labor. Globalization is really about localization in many ways. Companies are building manufacturing plants in many areas around the world to create and/or build up local business models.
The new challenge for us as corporate educators is to build learning experiences that enable complexity to become simpler. The information available to consumers now is much more diverse than just 5-10 years ago, and it's fueling a need for ease of use, consistency, and powerful user-generated manipulation. I think we need to radically reinvent the job descriptions of teachers and educators so that we can better prepare ourselves to be able to architect more meaningful, contextual learning applications.
|
|
|
|
Well said. That's the most exciting thing for me:...