Hi all.
This is a thought in response to Graham Attwell's first (and at this writing only) comment to my post here.
Graham asks a good question. He is not certain whether a software development model can be transferred to community development.
And, he expresses an entirely reasonable anxiety about my use of the term "management".
I will dispense with "Management" first. We may need a term that has not been infected by managerialism. I tried to signal this by saying that there were many different ways to manage. I am entirely happy with the idea that compliance and direction can emerge from a community and did not intend to imply any priority to a top-down approach. I tried to choose my words carefully to avoid this but, admittedly, my own antipathy to managerialism makes it hard to read anything but hierarchy into "management".
Co-ordination need not imply subordination but resources are not unlimited. A priority of needs needs to be established. I used the term "marketing" borrowing from the disquisition on Apache (and market economic terminology) but tried to turn it to the service of "allocation". The classic debate over allocation is between central planning (e.g. Gosplan) and the market. There is a function in communities to allocate resources. How it is done may be left open - the choices are not value-free - but it does need to be done. If I can leave it at that, could we agree?
The tyrrany of structurelessness (see an earlier post from Josie) argues that, without some structure, allocation will be to the most nakedly powerful. Structure allows voice to many and can help resolve allocation issues.
As to Graham's first question, the transfer of a software development model to community development is not unproblematic, but the end goal of the U&I programme is not simply the formation of a community. We argued in the bid to the JISC that we wanted to follow the Users and Innovation Development Model for the community through the Emerge project, while recognising that we were not a software development project but a community development project. But, there is an ulterior motive. This is a JISC project and the JISC funds educational software development (in many forms). All the projects that emerge from the U&I programme will have something to do with educational software, its development, integration, application, piloting, etc., etc. Each project will have its own (big or little) community of purpose around it. The U&I support project may become a community of communities involved with learning technology.
All the future U&I development projects might actually "not be about the technology but be about learning"; all the projects might have their ulterior goal be the formation of community, but the U&I support project doesn't have that transcendant luxury. We need to facilitate the development of educational software development projects.
One arguably successful model of this process is the Apache development foundation.
Comments
One good way to facilitate the development of educational software in the UK would be for the Emerge community to become a sustainable community in its own right. If this is to happen the community needs to transcend the current (and don't get me wrong, very useful role) played by the Emerge community facilitators (George et al.), such that the community takes on its own life. Can this happen? Will this happen? It can happen, yes, but will we get our act together? I hope so.