I did not expect to see much innovation attending a conference about a
course management system. And the Angel User Conference did not
disappoint. The main thrust of the conference, and I've attended the
last three, is to give an update on the status of the company, show off
the glitzy features in the soon to be released version, and to provide
allied vendors with a chance to press the flesh. It's more kin to a
sales conference than an educational conference. If you ever had a
friend drag you to a pyramid sales pitch then you'll get the vibe of
the ANGEL User's Conference.
And I get that. They have a product to sell and partners to satisfy. But one aspect of this conference that's always left me wanting is the lack of focus on the people actually using the CMS. No, that's not correct. ANGEL Learning does focus on the customer. They actively solicit feedback, do focus groups, and partner with customers on pilot projects. No, what disturbs me about these conferences is how it always comes back to being about them. It's the "we heard you and look at what we did to make it better!" tone of the event that wears on me. Because the we is used in the royal sense not in the collaborative. When they say "we" they really mean "us". It's "look at what a great thing ANGEL Learning did for you" and not "look what we all did together." Or even better yet, "look at what you did!" with no mention of the tool.
Because at this point the tool should be implied. This isn't a sales convention. For the most part these are the people and institutions who've invested, quite heavily, into the CMS. They're preaching to the converted. And what better way to sell your product to a potential customer than though the individuals who work with it most intimately on a daily basis? At this point in the game, if I'm a university thinking about a new CMS and I'm at the conference, chances are I already heard the sales pitch. No, I'm there to hear what other schools think.
So for me, the real story of the conference lies in the undercurrent. In what we're all saying to each other in the halls and in the elevator outside the formal events and away probing ears. And since the conference had limited internet access (the hot spot was set up next to the vendors) and there was no inclusion of social computing tools, like Twitter and Flickr, that back story was lost. For the attendees this meant you could only take part in what you could physically be present for. And for everyone, especially ANGEL Learning, they lost a valuable archive of the event.
I understand that ANGEL Learning would be a little uncomfortable using technologies that are not theirs for fear of exposing a perceived limitation. But I think this fear is unfounded. Their product is a course management system. It was designed for the pre-Web 2.0 world with a goal of helping instructors better manage a course, or multiple courses, by making it a convenient place to store, collect, and distribute information. It wasn't made for creating or capturing things like the collaborative tools of today's world. And, in my opinion, that's okay. If it tries to be all things to everybody it will collapse under it's own weight. Yes, it's a "small pieces loosely joined" world where innovation comes fast and stripped down. But it's also an imperfect world where we're willing to put up with a lot because of the perceived value we're getting in return (and mostly for free). But we're not willing to put up with that in an enterprise system like a CMS. A product we invest heavily in with money, time, and reputation. Above all, a CMS must be two things stable and available, not most of the time like Web 2.0 technologies but always.
Where I see a competitive edge for ANGEL, or any CMS, would be in it's ability to adapt to and partner with these emerging social technologies. A colleague of mine whom I really respect, Joe Fahs of Elmira College, did a presentation where he demonstrated how using Pageflakes he could aggregate all sorts of content and then drop the Pageflakes link into an ANGEL course. Now, if I'm ANGEL Learning I'm thinking what can we do to make that easier? Is there a way archive any of this content, like student blog posts or videos? Is there an easy way to link it with the gradebook? And how can I do it quicker than my real competitors (Blackboard) can?
To their credit ANGEL Learning is taking some steps in this direction. In version 7.4 there will be a You Tube option in the HTML editor that enables faculty and students to drop videos into the course. And there is talk that a rubric tool could be piloted. I'd like to see more of this.
And I get that. They have a product to sell and partners to satisfy. But one aspect of this conference that's always left me wanting is the lack of focus on the people actually using the CMS. No, that's not correct. ANGEL Learning does focus on the customer. They actively solicit feedback, do focus groups, and partner with customers on pilot projects. No, what disturbs me about these conferences is how it always comes back to being about them. It's the "we heard you and look at what we did to make it better!" tone of the event that wears on me. Because the we is used in the royal sense not in the collaborative. When they say "we" they really mean "us". It's "look at what a great thing ANGEL Learning did for you" and not "look what we all did together." Or even better yet, "look at what you did!" with no mention of the tool.
Because at this point the tool should be implied. This isn't a sales convention. For the most part these are the people and institutions who've invested, quite heavily, into the CMS. They're preaching to the converted. And what better way to sell your product to a potential customer than though the individuals who work with it most intimately on a daily basis? At this point in the game, if I'm a university thinking about a new CMS and I'm at the conference, chances are I already heard the sales pitch. No, I'm there to hear what other schools think.
So for me, the real story of the conference lies in the undercurrent. In what we're all saying to each other in the halls and in the elevator outside the formal events and away probing ears. And since the conference had limited internet access (the hot spot was set up next to the vendors) and there was no inclusion of social computing tools, like Twitter and Flickr, that back story was lost. For the attendees this meant you could only take part in what you could physically be present for. And for everyone, especially ANGEL Learning, they lost a valuable archive of the event.
I understand that ANGEL Learning would be a little uncomfortable using technologies that are not theirs for fear of exposing a perceived limitation. But I think this fear is unfounded. Their product is a course management system. It was designed for the pre-Web 2.0 world with a goal of helping instructors better manage a course, or multiple courses, by making it a convenient place to store, collect, and distribute information. It wasn't made for creating or capturing things like the collaborative tools of today's world. And, in my opinion, that's okay. If it tries to be all things to everybody it will collapse under it's own weight. Yes, it's a "small pieces loosely joined" world where innovation comes fast and stripped down. But it's also an imperfect world where we're willing to put up with a lot because of the perceived value we're getting in return (and mostly for free). But we're not willing to put up with that in an enterprise system like a CMS. A product we invest heavily in with money, time, and reputation. Above all, a CMS must be two things stable and available, not most of the time like Web 2.0 technologies but always.
Where I see a competitive edge for ANGEL, or any CMS, would be in it's ability to adapt to and partner with these emerging social technologies. A colleague of mine whom I really respect, Joe Fahs of Elmira College, did a presentation where he demonstrated how using Pageflakes he could aggregate all sorts of content and then drop the Pageflakes link into an ANGEL course. Now, if I'm ANGEL Learning I'm thinking what can we do to make that easier? Is there a way archive any of this content, like student blog posts or videos? Is there an easy way to link it with the gradebook? And how can I do it quicker than my real competitors (Blackboard) can?
To their credit ANGEL Learning is taking some steps in this direction. In version 7.4 there will be a You Tube option in the HTML editor that enables faculty and students to drop videos into the course. And there is talk that a rubric tool could be piloted. I'd like to see more of this.
