This summer time has come with some positive news including what appears to be an increase in the number of job offers in the IT sector and some unexpected testimonials from my students about where they are working now: consulting, software development, and international relations among other things. Not only in the UK but also elsewhere, people are getting on with whatever challenges they face. Yes, life is hard, but it could be a good opportunity to learn and kick back.
Out of these news, and with a bit of time to reflect these days, I have been asking myself if we can teach competence. Why competence? Because it seems to make the difference between getting a good education and using it wisely. Competence is now an area of interest in fields like project management. In information technology competence aims to be 'measured' by the identification of different skills (or competencies) that people use to perform well in their jobs. This involves working on areas and problems which we are expected to be able to deal with, in other words to succeed.
If competence can be taught, we can then teach people basic knowledge of key areas, and help them develop their skills to work on those areas. We would be then selecting core elements of knowledge, and devising activities for students to engage practically into using these elements in addressing challenges, requirements and problems in such areas. Engagement would mean the use of skills like communication, problem solving, leadership, negotiation, planning and the like.
But there is something else I wish we could teach and reflect on. It is the willingness to engage, to try again, to appropriate problems as our own, to feel curiosity and passion about what we are engaging with. It is the attitude to life in general. We are all human beings, we have ups and downs, and this sort of attitude might come to our rescue or abandon us at times. It is this attitude to be realistic about life (it is hard!), and still engage with it. I am using here the word 'engage' heavily, because I think it makes the difference between learning and simply 'receiving'. My colleague and friend Andriani Piki has found that engagement plays a key role in how people decide to use technology to support their learning, and that those students who are engaged in learning have better marks as a result.
Can we teach engagement, can we develop it, and if so how?
From my experience I can only say that all we can do as tutors is to keep putting passion in what we teach. That helps. And if we feel we are not really engaged with what we teach, there might be little point in complaining if our students are not either.
The other thing is the openness to new things. Ideally we should all try to leave space in our minds for new ideas, and keep exploring, keep talking, imagining, and challenging what we know. For people like me it is not easy, as I am stubborn and slow to accept change. But I have my students which keep me on my toes.
These students have also taught me a lesson this summer: not to underestimate them. A couple of those 'quiet' came to graduation and when I asked them about what they were working on, I got the most amazing answers. They are doing fantastically well. Those quiet students which did not seem to engage at all. A nice surprise indeed.
6 August 2010
5 July 2010
Information systems courses: Where we are
This year I started developing some course material for a course on information systems. It has helped me that I lecture on several courses on this area (for many people this is not an area, it is a discipline, for others it is a field). I began searching for appropriate textbooks. My findings so far is that there are very good best seller books in information systems, with authors producing a new version almost every year including new topics, exercises, case studies and of course, online aid tools.
However, I have not found yet what I think reflects where we are now. Where we are in my view is that we have a landscape full of information systems applications, certifications, and research in both profit and non profit sectors. We are full of models and approaches that tell us about information systems maturity in stages, information systems adoption in stages, acceptance and satisfaction of information systems through different factors and elements (and their linkages). This is the ground level of the landscape.
The hills and mountains of the landscape are the ones being described by many of these best seller books. They talk about the pervasiveness of information systems in daily life, their key presence in organisations, their help to competitiveness. These books show lots of cases of successful organisations adopting and using e-commerce systems, ERP systems, CRM systems, decision support systems. They talk about database management, project management and security management. They prescribe ways of using all these systems and technologies. Of course there are many ways and approaches to do so. But the basic premise that information systems are here to stay remains, together with the assumption that they become assets in an organisation, which, like costly football players, need to be maintained, developed and protected, because at some point in time, they will deliver what they promise; and it is only a few organisations which will play by the book. Whether our students will then climb to these hills (and many will also fall down after discovering that there is more to see), or if they will remain in the grounds of the IS world, I think we are not appreciating the richness of the IS landscape.
So it seems, we have forgotten the basics of information, knowledge, and systems, oer if you include them in text books they seem to come first and never to be repeated (well you should know by now these things). You do not talk about these things when you are selecting a costly ERP or CRM system, or when you are developing web-based software which will also be accessed via mobile phones. You now need to learn the language of usability, cloud computing, social networking, e-government, e-commerce, e-marketing. You need to talk about end users, tiers of architectures, hosts and providers. The user will then see how this language can be adapted to their own realities in organisations. We know you will do that in practice.
Pity really. We need to constantly remind ourselves that only a tiny proportion of the world population has access to information technologies, and that even so, the basics should be learned so that we can use technologies better. Courses should be designed to take anyone who has an interest in information systems and technologies. They should also learn the definitions of what they are going to be dealing with. They should also be provided with a learning environment to try different things, engage in projects, and learn from what they do.
Tutors can also have the opportunity to provide context for information systems. Ideas of sociology or critical theory can help us here. Systems seem to have emerged out of the need of human communication. In organisations this communication has a dominant purpose and orientation (profit). But people need other things, we also communicate to develop ourselves and help others develop. We should also learn how to implement systems with the idea of communication in mind.
The message goes also for researchers. We seem to have adopted different models and approaches to map the context of information systems and guide action to ensure smoother or more humanly oriented systems implementation and use. We keep identifying factors, issues and criteria to know what is best to do when things do not go according to plan. We test lots of hypotheses. So what? What is happening afterwards? Are we informing managers of what to do? Are we then incorporating these findings in our textbooks or courses? Can we then venture into telling our students what is official (according to the text books) and what is really the case in organisations? Are we trying to develop them as critical and ethical individuals?
So here is the suggestion for an information systems course and textbook. It starts with basics on data, knowledge, information. It then provides a sociological context for the emergence of information systems and technologies. It then describes how is that managers think, and how this thinking is influenced by systems. Then we present official and unofficial ways of establishing IS functions and doing things like IS strategy, IS development and IS evaluation. We then move into particular applications in the supply and demand side of organisations. We continously encourage students to investigate how these ideas really happen, and how for instance a methodology like PRINCE2 is adopted in organisations. We promote group work and use simulations, the beer game, some practice with spreadsheets and databases. We assess students on their competences to develop a solution to a problem, but also on their personal take on what is the usefulness of models and approaches. We ask them to continously keep an eye on the profit and non-profit orientation given to information systems.
And we keep telliing them that they are very fortunate to be able to study and use systems and technologies. We remind them that the world out there is not what is like in the text books. We need to nurture grounded individuals.
Off to write my course material then!
However, I have not found yet what I think reflects where we are now. Where we are in my view is that we have a landscape full of information systems applications, certifications, and research in both profit and non profit sectors. We are full of models and approaches that tell us about information systems maturity in stages, information systems adoption in stages, acceptance and satisfaction of information systems through different factors and elements (and their linkages). This is the ground level of the landscape.
The hills and mountains of the landscape are the ones being described by many of these best seller books. They talk about the pervasiveness of information systems in daily life, their key presence in organisations, their help to competitiveness. These books show lots of cases of successful organisations adopting and using e-commerce systems, ERP systems, CRM systems, decision support systems. They talk about database management, project management and security management. They prescribe ways of using all these systems and technologies. Of course there are many ways and approaches to do so. But the basic premise that information systems are here to stay remains, together with the assumption that they become assets in an organisation, which, like costly football players, need to be maintained, developed and protected, because at some point in time, they will deliver what they promise; and it is only a few organisations which will play by the book. Whether our students will then climb to these hills (and many will also fall down after discovering that there is more to see), or if they will remain in the grounds of the IS world, I think we are not appreciating the richness of the IS landscape.
So it seems, we have forgotten the basics of information, knowledge, and systems, oer if you include them in text books they seem to come first and never to be repeated (well you should know by now these things). You do not talk about these things when you are selecting a costly ERP or CRM system, or when you are developing web-based software which will also be accessed via mobile phones. You now need to learn the language of usability, cloud computing, social networking, e-government, e-commerce, e-marketing. You need to talk about end users, tiers of architectures, hosts and providers. The user will then see how this language can be adapted to their own realities in organisations. We know you will do that in practice.
Pity really. We need to constantly remind ourselves that only a tiny proportion of the world population has access to information technologies, and that even so, the basics should be learned so that we can use technologies better. Courses should be designed to take anyone who has an interest in information systems and technologies. They should also learn the definitions of what they are going to be dealing with. They should also be provided with a learning environment to try different things, engage in projects, and learn from what they do.
Tutors can also have the opportunity to provide context for information systems. Ideas of sociology or critical theory can help us here. Systems seem to have emerged out of the need of human communication. In organisations this communication has a dominant purpose and orientation (profit). But people need other things, we also communicate to develop ourselves and help others develop. We should also learn how to implement systems with the idea of communication in mind.
The message goes also for researchers. We seem to have adopted different models and approaches to map the context of information systems and guide action to ensure smoother or more humanly oriented systems implementation and use. We keep identifying factors, issues and criteria to know what is best to do when things do not go according to plan. We test lots of hypotheses. So what? What is happening afterwards? Are we informing managers of what to do? Are we then incorporating these findings in our textbooks or courses? Can we then venture into telling our students what is official (according to the text books) and what is really the case in organisations? Are we trying to develop them as critical and ethical individuals?
So here is the suggestion for an information systems course and textbook. It starts with basics on data, knowledge, information. It then provides a sociological context for the emergence of information systems and technologies. It then describes how is that managers think, and how this thinking is influenced by systems. Then we present official and unofficial ways of establishing IS functions and doing things like IS strategy, IS development and IS evaluation. We then move into particular applications in the supply and demand side of organisations. We continously encourage students to investigate how these ideas really happen, and how for instance a methodology like PRINCE2 is adopted in organisations. We promote group work and use simulations, the beer game, some practice with spreadsheets and databases. We assess students on their competences to develop a solution to a problem, but also on their personal take on what is the usefulness of models and approaches. We ask them to continously keep an eye on the profit and non-profit orientation given to information systems.
And we keep telliing them that they are very fortunate to be able to study and use systems and technologies. We remind them that the world out there is not what is like in the text books. We need to nurture grounded individuals.
Off to write my course material then!
12 March 2010
The gap in the IT job market
From a number of different conversations with graduates seeking for IT jobs and with employers seeking for IT graduates, something that many would not believe is happening. There is a gap between what employers want and what graduates are offering.
Many employers want people who are committed, who are willing to engage with IT problems and who are able to go beyond their own area of comfort or expertise. They do not seem to find this sort of people when they interview or recruit. After endless assessment activities, interviews and the like, they reach a staring conclusion: Many people do not have this kind of 'X' factor. They then need to go into another round of recruitment!
Graduates on the other hand come to me with concerns about not getting a job in which they can gain experience and develop their IT and management careers. The last statistic I heard from one of them is that for every position available there could be 200 applicants. So graduates apply but find it difficult to go through the process. There are some good stories though: A graduate obtaining a position as a data administrator, another getting into teaching, and another one realising he needs to redefine his expectations. Among graduates I still find those who think that having connections will get them a job. Partly true. But partly misleading. Specially if they come to me to 'get them' a job. Or if they end up 'begging' for it. None of these work with me and with many employers. At least in the side of the world where I am now.
There is a gap in the IT job market that in my view needs to be addressed from both sides. Employers need people that can 'hit the ground running', in other words people who are ready to deliver what is expected. But we all know that it takes time, and even if you get a job candidate who is like this, then s/he might have several job opportunities. It is important to give candidates a good space to find their ways, as quickly as possible, but giving them the opportunity to put their skills into practice before hitting the ground (and hopefully continue walking).
Candidates on the other hand need to show better what they are capable of. I come across CVs that look like lists of bullet points on technical languages, tools, courses and marks (nothing on commitment, client engagement, understanding needs and being proactive in the best possible ways). More needs to be said about how people see themselves, what strengths and limitations they bring to the job, and how they have developed their career so far. Promising too much can also be a bad thing.
I also come across individuals who just 'think they deserve' something better, given that everyone (including themselves) expects nothing else but success. I went through a similar thing myself and I thought that I had done enough to 'deserve' a good job. A good friend asked me: Why are you so worried of failing? Another good friend told me: Things take their own time to come to you. I am very glad for their advice. There are lots of things that we can call 'work' that need to be done, there might be just few things we can call 'jobs'. If we only wait for the latter, we might be missing work that no one is willing to risk doing, in other words missing opportunities.
I am sure we can keep ourselves mentally active by reviewing things we have learned, by talking to people, by thinking positively and laterally (simple solutions to problems) and by valuing what we have, the people that love us and that will treat us the same, with or without a job. Good friends can make a difference.
Many employers want people who are committed, who are willing to engage with IT problems and who are able to go beyond their own area of comfort or expertise. They do not seem to find this sort of people when they interview or recruit. After endless assessment activities, interviews and the like, they reach a staring conclusion: Many people do not have this kind of 'X' factor. They then need to go into another round of recruitment!
Graduates on the other hand come to me with concerns about not getting a job in which they can gain experience and develop their IT and management careers. The last statistic I heard from one of them is that for every position available there could be 200 applicants. So graduates apply but find it difficult to go through the process. There are some good stories though: A graduate obtaining a position as a data administrator, another getting into teaching, and another one realising he needs to redefine his expectations. Among graduates I still find those who think that having connections will get them a job. Partly true. But partly misleading. Specially if they come to me to 'get them' a job. Or if they end up 'begging' for it. None of these work with me and with many employers. At least in the side of the world where I am now.
There is a gap in the IT job market that in my view needs to be addressed from both sides. Employers need people that can 'hit the ground running', in other words people who are ready to deliver what is expected. But we all know that it takes time, and even if you get a job candidate who is like this, then s/he might have several job opportunities. It is important to give candidates a good space to find their ways, as quickly as possible, but giving them the opportunity to put their skills into practice before hitting the ground (and hopefully continue walking).
Candidates on the other hand need to show better what they are capable of. I come across CVs that look like lists of bullet points on technical languages, tools, courses and marks (nothing on commitment, client engagement, understanding needs and being proactive in the best possible ways). More needs to be said about how people see themselves, what strengths and limitations they bring to the job, and how they have developed their career so far. Promising too much can also be a bad thing.
I also come across individuals who just 'think they deserve' something better, given that everyone (including themselves) expects nothing else but success. I went through a similar thing myself and I thought that I had done enough to 'deserve' a good job. A good friend asked me: Why are you so worried of failing? Another good friend told me: Things take their own time to come to you. I am very glad for their advice. There are lots of things that we can call 'work' that need to be done, there might be just few things we can call 'jobs'. If we only wait for the latter, we might be missing work that no one is willing to risk doing, in other words missing opportunities.
I am sure we can keep ourselves mentally active by reviewing things we have learned, by talking to people, by thinking positively and laterally (simple solutions to problems) and by valuing what we have, the people that love us and that will treat us the same, with or without a job. Good friends can make a difference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)