CompNet memo Created by Arild Nybraaten - 04.02.99 - page 7
Memorandum
To: CompNet partners
CC:
From: Arild
Date: 04.02.99
Re: Proposed selection of Action Lines for CompNet
Introduction
In my questionnaire from Dec.98 I asked some questions concerning interests and opinions on in which direction the partners were interested to guide the project.
The answers are reported in a previous memo ( Feb. 3rd. 1999)
Building on these answers, the original proposition, and our own views, we have tried to find the Action Lines in the IST-programme that best matches our team (all of us) and our interests.
References.
The references to the IST-programme is to “Draft 3.0 – Dated January 18th 1999. The version distributed had some peculiarities in the chapter numbering. I hav done some deletion of empty lines/headings to make the references within the programme text consistent. The original and the "consistent" document can be found from the page http://www.idb.hist.no/CompNet/IST/ at our web-site.
The references are made according to the above “corrected” version. “IST-3.2.1” does mean Chapter 3.2.1[1]
Some rather inaccurate references are made to the Memo on our responses to "the questionnaire.
Discussion
Comments on your responses.
From your responses I have got the impression:
· There is a general interest and quite some competence on OOP, CORBA and component based design.
· Distributed knowledge and distribution of knowledge and the ability to collaborate in distributed groups are fields where all do want to expand their fields of work/interests.
· Most of us are interested - or are much involved in ODL.
· Collaborative work "on line" are mentioned by several of you (on or between the lines)
· All of you are interested in applying the technology (Component based Design, CORBA an all that) to fields/ end-user cases. Most of you seems to be "content centric".
These are expected answers and in line with the proposed very broad sketch of a project.
When looking a bit more:
· One of you (Parallax) are "(really) good at" OOP, standards, Component based etc. etc.
· One of you (Sheffield) is focussed on pedagogic design, knowledge management, learning effectiveness etc.
· One or two of you have their main focus on "standard" web-based training/education and together with some more on the commercial aspects.
· Some are mainly interested in the networked teamwork as a use-case and less interested in the ODL-part.
· Some would like to work with theory and implementing, some mainly with design and implementation.
· Some of you have links to or interests in other fields and other projects in the 5FP in combination with CompNet.
Finally
· There are possibilities to find use-cases and to find areas to do field-testing and evaluation for the products. Possible areas are within ODL as well as in companies.
· No one has mentioned the "socio-economic aspect of CompNet as one of the topics they are interested in - are missing or where they have competence.
When comparing this to what can be read from the IST-programme - the group seems to be able to propose, back and do a project that is within the scope of the IST programme and which could give a high rating when evaluated. The weakness of the team might be the lack of "socio-economic interest/competence"
Comments on IST v. 3.0/Draft
On the Key Actions (KA) and Action Lines (AL).
From your responses I have selected the AL seeming to be within our scope. For each of them I have commented on how CompNet and our group will fit.
ALIII.3.1 – Open Platforms and tools for personalised learning
This is the AL that seems to fit best for the group as a whole and for most of the aspects of CompNet.
In IST-3.3.2 it is stressed that KAIII is content centric which means that the content which utilises our technology is to be a very important part of the project. The approach is also to be user driven.
The other objectives and strategies put forward in IST-3.3.1 and 3.3.2 covers most of the responses from you.
ALIII.3.1 is also on the platform used to deliver the content focusing on reusable learning objects, re-usable components and a suite of modular building blocks and tools on an open platform.. This is right on target for the OOP, CORBA end component based development.
Other points of interests are flexible learning, group learning and interaction between all parts taking part in the learning process.
AL-III.3.2 Flexible University
Seems to be primarily focused on organisation and production of learning material.
The content (how to deliver knowledge (pedagogically, through which user interface and in what context is the important thing. The groups wanting to focus mainly on the Component based design will find few points.
Parts of the project could be placed at this AL – but definitely not the centre of gravity.
AL-III.3.3 Advanced Training systems
Focused on VR and the like
AL-III.2.2 Content Management and personalisation
Interesting from a lifelong learning and ODL (and Open Distance Training) point of view. Collaboration between partners and interactive work , (mobile) agents and collaborating content-owners. "open standards for interoperability". "Access management guidelines"
Parts of our idea is within this AL. The "standards" and "access management" may be in the knowledge bases, the authoring systems - not in the distribution platform (?)
AL-II.2.2 Team work
Focusing on models, architecture and technologies to allow teams to work together across all types of boundaries (location, organisation, time etc).
This is a major point in all types of ODL, distributed organisations and networked organisations/enterprises. To our project a solution is essential.
The focus is on the way of working or makes the collaboration face as few constraints as possible.
The technological platform to carry the teamwork is a "minor point" as long as its functionality is sufficient.
AL-II.2.3 Dynamic Networked organisations
Very on the organisational side. Some points will be included[2] - but not enough to make this AL one where we can compete for projects.
AL-II.1.2 Corporate knowledge management
Same comments as for AL-II.2.3 - even more. Should be left to specialists in other fields than ours.
AL-IV.3.1 Component based software engineering
The main interest of some of the participants.
A large part and the supporting platform of CompNet.
KA IV is not said to be "content-centric" - so the content is just used to demonstrate "technology-transfer" and "best practice initiatives".
The main thing is to make the best reusable and general platform (or methods to construct one) allowing the platform to be constructed from parts constructed by sub-contractors or from COTS-components. What the platform is going to support is a minor point.
Other comments
Projects “centre of gravity”
In IST-2.3 there is supposed that many projects will span more than one KA and multiple AL In fact “Integration at the programme level is a key feature of the IST-programme”. Therefore each proposal should identify a single AL where the largest part of their activity / or their most significant innovation takes place as their “centre of gravity” The centre of gravity defines in which Call for proposal they should apply.
Cross program activities and Clustering
The programme is encouraging cross programme activities. These activities can be projects in special cross programme themes are mentioned in IST-2.3. These themes have specific AL (CPA.1 etc) Projects can be entered in an “open class – CPA.O all specified in IST-5.5.3.
AL CPA.O looks interesting. The AL describes “umbrella projects” that is based on project clusters. We should consider being open to become a member of a project cluster if “asked for it” or if a cluster is organised in “our neighbourhood”
More Informal clusters, networks of projects and Working groups are encouraged in IST-4 “Concerted Actions and Thematic Networks. Must be considered in our planning process.
KAIII.3 complementing 4FP.
AL III.3.* has been defined to complement ongoing actions in the 4th FP. This may be looked at in two ways
· There will be harder to compete for projects because teams working in FP4 will apply for project to continue or extend their running projects. As the have speed and mass (speed * mass = momentum), they will be difficult competitors.
· It will be easier for us to implement project in our environments as we may get support from or are connected to work being done in the EU-system[3]
I tend to believe in the positive bulletpoint J
Proposal
The interests are divided between to AL or "groups of AL".
· There is great interest in themes contained in AL-IV.3.1 - Component based software engineering.
· There is also competence, and great emphasis on themes contained in AL-II.2.2 Team Work, Some points in AL-II.1.2 Corporate knowledge management, ALIII.3.2, Flexible University and AL.2.3 Dynamic Networked organisations may be applied.
The gravity centre of our competence, interests, experience and environments are within the educational / learning sector. A project having AL-III.3.* as its centre of gravity would be natural. Within this group AL-III.3.1 seems to fit the group and the project sketch. The objectives for KA-III, and the description of the AL gives room for / puts emphasis on the underpinning technology and is said to be "content centric". The AL-III.2.2 Content Management and personalisation is also covering some of your intentions.
By using modern learning methods and ODL as main examples and test-bed, most collaborative methods and ways of teamworking can be taken into account. Knowledge management is covered within this AL as well.
As projects spanning more than one AL is supposed to be entered (or perhaps encouraged) we should indicate the other AL's
My proposition is therefore
· CompNets "centre of gravity" is placed within AL-III.3.1.
III.3.1 Open platforms and tools for personalised learning
Objective: To enable an education and training centre, company or service provider, to implement and maintain integrated learning services based especially on reusable learning objects. Emphasis is placed on personalised learning in collaborative environments that involve high-quality pedagogic approaches. The RTD should address the development of re-usable components and a suite of modular building blocks and tools on the basis of an underlying open infrastructure supporting a wide range of flexible learning activities (learning by doing, collaborative and group learning). It should also address the development of environments that facilitate interaction, including social interaction, between learners and between teachers. This should encompass all functionality needed to develop, manage and deliver courses and benefits should be sought in terms of pedagogy, cost-effectiveness, service quality and scalability. The work is expected to be validated in more than one learning setting and specific discipline. It should contribute to on-going standardisation activities in open learning architecture and learning objects re-usability.
· AL II.2.2 Team Work, AL-III.2.2 Content Management and personalisation and AL-IV.3.1 Component based software engineering and to some extent ALIII.3.2 Flexible University are used for describing the scope of our project within our centre of gravity.
Next steps
If my proposal for "centre of gravity" is accepted, the dates that apply are:
· Publication date - Call for proposals : March 16th
· Deadline for proposals: June 16th
· Target for 1st Contract Engagement: Oct. 16th
The project will have two main parts + the field testing, evaluation, dissemination and all that
· The "underpinning" platform - Components, CORBA and all that stuff.
· The content to be carried on the platform.
By content it is understood the examples or courses that are taught, but primarily the teaching methods and the services that are offered to all participants in the learning process.
The underpinning platform (CORBA and all that)
The description of the platform and the work/methods to construct it may be the easiest to sketch. The majority of the partners are technologists. We do know what we want to get more competence in. We can easily sketch the possibilities and the services our platform should supply.
When we have some more experience we may supply any service and tailor it to support any content.
Someone has to specify that content :-)
The content
The chosen AL are said to be "content centric".
To be able to build a project we have to have some kernels in the centre of the project. According to the description of ALIII.3.1 . The work is expected to be validated in more than one learning setting and specific discipline. It should contribute to on-going standardisation activities in open learning architecture and learning objects re-usability.
This means that I want you to think of typical services (pedagogical, working-facilities, learning facilities etc. that you think should be offered in a future networked learning environment.
· Start from the environment and context where you have experience - and extend /expel your wishes.
· Try to put it into some specific settings from your field of work.
· Do have a certain view on the technological possibilities and limitations - but not to sharp.
· I will take direct contact with some of you to help me making a proposal to put into a discussion, but it is important that all of you make up some opinion without being disturbed by others.
· Try to identify specific areas that can be made a work package (WP) by itself - like Knowledge management / Knowledge (data) Bases. Think of the possibilities for field testing and evaluating within our/your environment.
Missing competence ??
The final part of the project - testing, and evaluation in a socio-economic perspective has to be specified. We have to consider our competence and contacts within this field.
Contacts with other groups doing RTD within the FP5, FP4 some other EU programme or funded elsewhere should be considered to make clusters, cross-programme groups or "networks".
· Look around you.
· Look for points of interest, arguments(!) and competence in the "socio-economic area"
Work shop.
The first steps - outlined above have to be done by discussing locally and via the network.
When we have got some proposals and sketches for a project, I will initiate a Workshop. The workshop will be placed at a place most convenient for the team as a whole.
Will the end of March be a convenient time for this workshop? If so you know when I expect to get some material from you J
[1] - which hopefully is Key action II -> Objectives
[2] - or does apply to the typical use cases / test beds.
[3] Not just FP4 but some of the other EU-activities.