Off Course-On Target

BigThink Indeed!

This interview on BigThink.com with Nicholas Negroponte about the ongoing One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project is well worth the click and the time for you to watch, and perhaps most interesting of all, there are several other topics there worth watching.

I found it to be very open and authentic as Negroponte answered the following questions:

• How did One Laptop Per Child get started?
• How did you design a laptop specially tailored to children’s needs?
• Do you worry about the laptops growing rapidly obsolete?
• What evidence is there that One Laptop Per Child is working?
• How can teachers and students make the most out of a new laptop?
• How do you respond to critics who say, “Students should read books, not play with computers?”
• What will be the equivalent of the “Negroponte switch” in the next 20 years?
• What are the most radical technologies forthcoming from the MIT Media Lab?
• Should people “unplug” more to avoid media oversaturation?
• Following the battle between newspapers and Google, will walls between media increase?
• Which of the projects in your career has been the most difficult?

In the interview Negroponte provides some very reasoned and fascinating commentary about how he judges success for OLPC with examples such as truancy rates dropping to zero in many places (from up to 30% previously) and stories of how kids with an OLPC are teaching their parents to read and write.

Negroponte also makes some very revealing comments and tell some interesting stories about the reactions and effects on teachers where the OLPCs are in place.  He notes five consistent comments they get from the teachers involved:

1. Discipline problems go down in the classroom.
2. They've never loved teaching so much.
3. They've never had parents so deeply involved with school.
4. Not only does truancy drop to zero, but the energy level in the classroom is just undeniably different.
5. They just get swamped by emails with questions from the kids.

Negroponte also discusses things like the “Negroponte Switch” where he predicted about 20 years ago:

“…that most of the information that you got through the ground, through wires and physically, would in fact come through the air, and most of the things we got through the air, like television, would come through the ground.”

You can also hear about his more recent thoughts on how he believes that the next big change will be at the “space between biology and silicone”.  Negroponte discusses some of the most recent work going on at MIT and his thoughts on “unplugging” and how he sees life now as more of an omelet!

The interview video runs almost 30 minutes but I strongly encourage you to watch more than just the beginning or read through the transcript. For me, much of the best was at the end where he talks very openly about the projects in his life which have been the most difficult.

I also liked the way BigThink.com put together this interview where the questions appear as just text on the screen for a few seconds and then all the rest of the video is simply a head and shoulders shot of Nicholas with an all-white background.  They nicely provided a full text version of the interview accessible with one click, which then scrolls down below the video. It’s very handy for people like me with limited bandwidth and for those who want to grab relevant  bits of the interview.

See some of my other postings on OLPC, such as the recent one on “How the OLPC version 3 Predicts the Future of PCs” and an older one  “Opportunities in our Laps?”

Both Nicholas and OLPC are worth watching in 2010.

-- Wayne

Unlikely Ukulele Uniqueness

You wouldn’t expect anything less than eclectic from me or Off Course – On Target, so here is the latest addition to my “What if the Impossible Isn’t?” list. My mission is to have us all change our baseline assumption to be that almost anything is possible.

The TED videos (and BoingBoing) are great sources of examples showing us how the impossible isn’t.

WARNING:  TED videos have proven to be addictive!

TED has recently released the teaser of who we will be seeing and hearing from in the TED2010 program guide. 

For one example of what you can expect in 2010, check out the music and passion coming from a young ukulele player named Jake Shimabukuro.  Yes, that’s right—a ukulele player!  Think you don’t like the ukulele or know what “that kind of music” sounds like?  Check out some of Jake's YouTube videos such as the one below and see this example of how “the impossible isn’t” as he literally makes those four little strings dance and sing.  Best if you watch a few of these to see the diversity of sounds and songs from Thriller to Over the Rainbow to Let’s Dance.

I picked out the following performance of George Harrison’s “While My Guitar Gently Weeps” which takes place by a stream in Central Park .

Some of his concert performances are particularly worth watching to get more of a sense of the person behind the music (see below).

Almost more than the music, I love the passion and the commitment to change the way we think of this instrument and perhaps music in general. Well worth a look and listen, though with the usual caveats and warnings that you are likely to spend more time there and learn more than you expect.  And that’s part of the good news and the gift!  Enjoy!

Free Works in the World of Bits and Good Causes

Thanks to Kevin Kelly for the following example of the effectiveness of the "free economy" and how it can be applied to the physical "real" world of bits, not just the digital world of bytes.  Even better, this example highlights a great cause—Malaria No More and their Nothing But Nets campaign. 

If you are looking for a way of gifting a difference in the world, consider buying some nets ($10 each) and help make Malaria No More a reality in 2010.

** If you donate between now and Dec.31, 2009 your gift will be matched dollar for dollar, so consider donating NOW!

Free Wins Against Malaria

"Nothing free can be valuable" say some critics. That is, giving away things devalues them. This is obviously untrue in the digital realm, but what about physical things? The fear of the free was especially an issue in charity. If, with good intentions, you give medicines, or pumps, or solar panels, to the needed for free, won't they neglect, or trade off, or ignore these gifts?  In particular, if you give long-lasting insecticide-impregnated mosquito nets to families in malaria territory, would they just use them for fishing, or sell them? Maybe you should sell them the nets originally for a small amount?

Turns out after many years of testing, that the free nets are incredibly effective in reducing malaria. Free wins! The story by Jeffery Sachs is here in Scientific American. Or you can read the PDF for the academic paper on the experiment.

Free or not, nets are a great idea and better than malarial drugs. If you want to fund a net ($10), there's a number of places that help you do that, including Nothing But Nets.”

 

via kk.org

What It’s All About

Want to see what it is all about? Want to see a real live humanitarian and all around great person?

Check out this video of my dear friend Linda English, a founder and Director of Membership Development, Learning for International NGOs LINGOs, www.lingos.org

This is from the Microsoft Alumni Foundation, Honors 2009 Integral Fellows ceremony on Wednesday (Nov.18, 2009).

You GO girl!

Opportunities in our Laps?

I suspect that many of you are aware of Nicholas Negroponte, the charismatic founder of MIT’s Media Lab and his One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) initiative (or as it is sometimes called, “the $100 laptop”). The stated mission of OLPC is:

“ …to develop a low-cost laptop—the "$100 Laptop"—a technology that could revolutionize how we educate the world's children. Our goal is to provide children around the world with new opportunities to explore, experiment, and express themselves.”

Negroponte originally announced this initiative at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in 2005, and it has since received a great deal of attention, along with a full range of reactions. But, more importantly, they’ve made great progress since the announcement, and they are on track to begin the distribution of millions of laptops every month starting next year (2008).

Originally staffed by a core of Media Lab veterans, it quickly expanded to include a wide range of exceptionally talented and dedicated people from academia, industry, the arts, business, and the open-source community. For an overview of this project and an update on its progress, please check out the OLPC wiki and information on the OLCP site about the specific components of the OLPC laptop.

The article that sparked this posting, which is one of the best overviews of OLPC that I have read, is in this month’s (April 2007) IEEE Spectrum magazine “The Laptop Crusade” by Tekla S. Perry. As noted in this Spectrum article and its “sidebar” on “Other Roads to Computing for All”, there are several other projects focused on producing low cost, low power computers for the masses throughout the world. It is a fascinating set of stories, and I’d strongly encourage you to read them and be informed of the truly admirable progress that is being made.

Personally, I think the concept of “One Laptop Per Person” rather than “Child” is even more powerful and pragmatic. Negroponte himself noted right from the beginning that “It's an education project, not a laptop project.”  This project is NOT just about technology nor it is just for geeks and technical interests. Rather it is a VERY HUMAN story and one with huge potential to bring great change to our world. There is, for example, an interesting timeline in the OLPC “Progress” section which traces back to 1967 when Seymour Papert introduced Logo, the first programming language for children, and his 1980 publication Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas.

However, it is important for us to understand that all these promising outcomes of the OLPC initiative are currently “just” potential. I don’t say this to knock the project, but just to remind the rest of us that the very real challenge is how can we convert potential into reality and what role can we play to do so?! This theme and question of actually changing the world is what I want to focus on today.

I’ve been noting for several years now that in 10 years or less we will look back and see that a large part (perhaps even a majority) of innovation will come from the most unlikely and unexpected sources, particularly underdeveloped and underserved markets and regions of the world. With this context in mind, let’s look at “One Laptop Per Child” and other programs to see what opportunities for true innovation they can provide:

• Innovation of software paradigms and interfaces
• Mass learning for masses of teachers
• Bottom up or grass roots innovation and development

SUGAR: Software that is SO Sweet!

First is the development of whole new metaphors for human computer interaction and specifically the software interface. The desktop metaphor is not only very dated (going back hundreds of years), it is also limiting our abilities to think and work effectively. We’ve noted this effect and limitation here in previous postings and podcasts, such as “Perfecting the Irrelevant” and "Unlearning".

Furthermore let’s remind ourselves of two other fundamental problems with the “desktop” metaphor:

• Many people in the world have never had a desk and millions don’t even know what one is
• Even those who do have desks are more often wanting and needing to be AWAY from them! Think about your own situation and how many hours per week you spend (or want to spend) working at a desk versus being away from it; traveling, walking, socializing, and spending time outside.

So if the majority of people want to be independent of desks, then let’s create ways of interacting with technology and our world that are equally divorced and distanced from the desktop.
The OLPC initiative is developing a whole new approach, one that is worth following and building upon. The OLPC interface called “Sugar” has no software applications; rather it is focused on what they refer to as “activities” and the notions of Presence, Expression and Journaling.

You can read more on the OLPC site and you can try out this demonstration  of the interface, or click on either of the images on the OLPC “Interface” page which are screen shots of the new Sugar interface like the ones shown here. The IEEE Spectrum article also includes an excellent overview of the innovative work being done on the interface as well as equally impressive creativity with hardware, low power consumption and overall laptop design.

As noted on the OLPC site:

“Activities are distinct from applications in their foci—collaboration and expression—and their implementation—journaling and iteration.”  These are not only cognitively powerful laptops with very low electrical power demands, but they are also seriously focused on the social and play aspects of life and learning.

Each OLPC laptop has a built-in innovative and powerful Wi-Fi capability and game buttons. These features, combined with basic human nature (especially in children) will lead to a great deal of interaction among those using these laptops, and their ability to create mesh networks. You can acccess a fun and simple interactive demo of the power of mesh networks from their “hardware” page. I think you will immediately start to see the power and possibilities this produces. It sounds like some “serious fun” to me!

Mass Learning for massive numbers of teachers

All of this, of course, raises the question about teachers and their roles and reactions. Will teachers see this as an advantage or a threat? How will teachers figure out how to use these new tools and how to integrate them into their teaching methods, curriculum, and classrooms? These are not new questions. What is new is that this is all going to happen extremely quickly and without much warning or planning.
Imagine “classrooms” in many of these countries that are in extremely remote locations, without power, desks or most other basics, and yet literally the next day, each student walks in with one of these laptops in hand. The children, with the combination of their great gifts of constant curiosity and so little to “unlearn”, will likely take to these laptops with great ease and speed. But what will be the reaction of teachers and other adults in the community?

There is no current funding or plans for any associated teacher training programs to go with the OLPC project. Is this foolish or brilliant? Should such teacher training and “train the trainer” programs be formally developed or will it be better to leave this to the teachers and adults themselves? Will teachers learn (and teach) best by doing so with their students and adopting a “guide on the side” type approach?

Grass Roots Innovation

Going back to my prediction that innovation will increasingly come from the most unlikely, underdeveloped, and underserved sources, there is also this question of how to strike the balance between top down and bottom up innovation and implementation. The OLPC initiative is trying to strike such a balance with the “top down” development of the project itself and the technology. However, they are equally dependent upon bottom up or grass roots development of what will become the deciding factor for how well OLPC is realized. This includes the use of an “open source” type of approach to the continued development of the hardware and the software platforms, but so too will be the development of teachers and other members of the communities and support structure necessary to make this all work.

I really hope that by bringing these initiatives to your attention and by provoking some of these questions, all of us will choose to join forces with these initiatives, and contribution individually and in groups to our mutual and overall success. I’ve peppered the text above with lots of questions, but to spice up your thinking even more, consider some of these additional key questions and PLEASE post more of your own.

• What will happen when children start graduating from schools with regular access to such technology into societies and economies that are not ready to or have not changed accordingly?
• Will they choose to leave and go to other places that have changed?
• Will they stay and cause the change to occur?
• Or will these types of initiatives cause economies and societies to change along with them?
• Is this any different than the recent and current situation in our own communities that have had access to this type of technology for years and how we are seeing similar challenges with the new graduates entering the work force and the dynamics between various generations of users?
• Will the necessary support structure be developed to surround this massive influx of laptops and technology?
• Will these laptops go to those who need them or will they still only get into the hands of those who have money, however little?

There is no question that technology will continue to play a pivotal role in changing our world, for better and for worse. However, we get to decide how quickly and how well these changes will progress. It is our choice, both individually and collectively, as to whether initiatives such as OLPC and the concept of “One Laptop Per Person” will bring about any significant change, have a negative impact, or truly change the world for the better. Believing that we truly are given this choice, I choose the latter. I hope that most of you will choose the same, turning our words into actions and deeds. Here’s to better learning, loving, and living.

w
a
yne

=====

Trust is good!

In a previous posting, I talked about “trust as a competency” and my discussions with Stephen MR Covey about his recent book The Speed of Trust: the One Thing that Changes Everything. So I was intrigued by a recent article “Corporate Philanthropy Inspires Trust: Does It Also Prompt Higher Profits?”  on the Knowledge@Wharton web site. This article also ties in nicely with two topics that I will cover more in the future—trust and “doing good to do well”.

As summarized in the article's introduction:

"Wharton finance professor Vinay B. Nair and two other researchers looked at whether being charitable -- such as donating money to medical research or to organizations that promote economic self-sufficiency -- helps a company's financial picture. They concluded that it all depends on the type of industry.” 
And “They cite a survey last year by the Economist on corporate giving. Of the 135 executives and 65 investors who responded, 85% said corporate social responsibility was a "central" or "important" consideration in investment decisions. That figure was almost double the 44% who responded similarly five years before.  But Nair and his colleagues theorize in the paper that charitable giving may be good for the bottom line because it helps to convince consumers that a company and its products are trustworthy. Trust factors into many purchases, particularly when it is not obvious why one product is better than another. Nair uses the example of "natural food" products, which typically are priced higher than standard items even though they may not taste any better. Natural foods are a rapidly growing business."

While I’m very supportive of this notion of “doing well by doing good”, I think this article unfortunately exemplifies a very traditional approach to corporate philanthropy. In doing so, they miss an alternative model that can have much more impact for both sides and provide a very sustainable way for corporations to be very philanthropic. This alternative model is characterized by “enlightened self-interest” and is what I like to refer to as “strategic philanthropy”.

The Wharton research missed an opportunity when they specifically excluded from consideration:

“… good deeds that could also have the effect of boosting a company's productivity and, in turn, its profits. For instance, a company's decision to operate an environmentally friendly plant could increase efficiency. Likewise, a company that offers flex time and good maternity leave benefits may reap the benefits of a more loyal and productive workforce."

Strategic philanthropy is not an oxymoron!  Some define it as "how companies can provide money, capabilities, and partnerships to charitable causes in ways that sharpen their own competitive edge.”  One of the best explanations of this different approach to philanthropy was in a 2002 Harvard Business Review article “The Competitive Advantage of Corporate Philanthropy” by Michael Porter, University Professor, Harvard Business School, and Mark Kramer, Managing Director, Foundation Strategy Group.

In their article, they asked "Should corporations engage in philanthropy at all?" and argued that companies might be better off NOT engaging in traditional philanthropy if it is done in an ad hoc way, (such as a small amount of dollars being given to a charity or local cause) or is used just for public relations, advertising, or high profile sponsorships. However, Michael and Mark believe that when the philanthropy is strategic and tied to companies' social and business objectives, there are greater benefits.

Porter and Kramer found that only a few companies actually engage in strategic philanthropy. At the time, they cited Cisco as a company that has truly maximized the value of philanthropy by focusing on both its economic and social objectives through the development of the Cisco Networking Academy Program.

Since this Harvard Business Review article can only be ordered as a reprint , here is a good synopsis of the article:

“When it comes to philanthropy, executives increasingly see themselves as caught between critics demanding ever higher levels of "corporate social responsibility" and investors applying pressure to maximize short-term profits. Increasingly, philanthropy is used as a form of public relations or advertising, promoting a company's image through high-profile sponsorships. But there is a more truly strategic way to think about philanthropy. Corporations can use their charitable efforts to improve their competitive context—the quality of the business environment in the locations where they operate. Using philanthropy to enhance competitive context aligns social and economic goals and improves a company's long-term business prospects. Addressing context enables a company not only to give money but also leverage its capabilities and relationships in support of charitable causes. Taking this new direction requires fundamental changes in the way companies approach their contribution programs. Adopting a context-focused approach requires a far more disciplined approach than is prevalent today. But it can make a company's philanthropic activities far more effective.”

With this different model in mind, you might want to check into the “what and how” of your organization’s philanthropy.  I suspect that most of you will find that the traditional model is being practiced. And while I want to be clear that just about any form of philanthropy should be applauded (and certainly there is no end to the need for such giving back), I’d like you to consider how much more effective and lasting it could be if we were to adopt the model of strategic philanthropy. Wouldn't this approach be more effective, sustainable and able to increase over time?

As I mentioned at the outset, this topic of “doing well by doing good” and specifically this model of “strategic philanthropy” is one that I will return to in future postings. In the interim, please let me know if you have any examples or comments to support or refute this model.

For now, I’ll leave you with a great summary of philanthropy that I found on the web site of a company called Strategic Philanthropy:

An Effective Giving Strategy:

• Meets personal, corporate or organizational interests and passions
• Defines an essential mission, purpose and priorities
• Addresses/responds to real needs in local and world communities
• Incorporates clear, established rationale and operational procedures
• Integrates an ongoing evaluative component that is meaningful, flexible and accessible to all involved
• Benefits from, and contributes to, the experiences of others by connecting to the larger philanthropic community
• Is a journey of learning and listening

And…most importantly…is fun and deeply fulfilling.

w
a
yne
=====