December 07, 2006
Final Farewell to MIDS 301
It's been a long road this semester. I have learned a great deal of things and have been exposed to a new perspective on ideas that I would have never given a second thought about before. The class had an interestig way to put a spin on just about everything we covered.
One of my favorite segments of the class came from the discussion on Net Neutrality. Before the class, I did not even know this was an issue. It is hard to believe that something as vital as this flys under the radar the way it does.
The class was very enjoyable. It promoted discussion based learning. I have always been a fan of this style of learning, simply because it does a good job of keeping my attention longer than a lecture based course. The class topics were well picked for discussions. I thought it was neat to be able to see different people's perspectives on controversial issues.
The projects were another interesting twist. They gave great freedom to the students to express themselves how they saw fit. They all got to pick from blogging, web design, and video editing. Within each project catagory, they were also allowed freddom of thought. I appreciated being able to take this blog in whatever direction I was thinking that particular week. It made the overall experience better.
I have learned many skills to improve my bloggins (such as writing mini paragraphs instead of long ones and inserting pictures to draw attention). I will be able to use these skills in the future not only for personal gains but to better understand the world around me. I believe I have gained a grasp of what IT is all about from this course.
The end has come. It is bittersweet. I have always been pleased to have classes end. This is primarily because I am looking forward to vacation after four stressful months. This class was very enjoyable, and I hope my future classes are able to capitivate and motivate me in the same ways.
November 21, 2006
Wikipedia is Definitely Helpful
So there is a big debate as to the validity of Wikipedia as an information source. My opinion on the matter is that it is a completely valid source to gain "good" information. Think about it this way, if you don't know the answer to a question and you ask your friend, would you really question their answer? You probably won't be asking them a life or death question, just something you are curious about. They would have no reason to lie to you, so you would take their word.
Wikipedia basically works the same way. You search for a topic. The topic has already been written about by someone else. On top of this general helpful mentality of the site, it is critiqued by the millions of users in the Wikipedia world. I highly doubt many people hope to find a cure for cancer on the site. If you are curious as to what the capital of Uganda is, Wikipedia will work just fine.
I wouldn't recommend making life decisions based on the information found on the site, but who in all honesty would make an important decision based on the information from one source. That is just plain dumb. If you start looking at other sources and find conflicting information, then one of your sources are definitely wrong. That is a simple concept. If you use a little common sense, you will be OK surfing the web for information.
People put a lot of hard work ensuring there is quality information on Wikipedia, and I feel for day to day use it is an excellent source of information. Even if by some chance incorrect information is posted to the site and not corrected, MOST of the information on it will be valid. I think you would be hard pressed to find information at the rate you can on the site without making a mistake here or there. No system is truly perfect. There are probably mistakes in the actual encyclopedia as well. Why would they release new versions if they were perfect? If 99.9+% of the information is good, I say use it as a quick way to get information that you aren't basing life decisions on.
November 20, 2006
Can Google Really Take Over the World?
Well, no not really. The beauty of the American capitalist system is that it would not allow that. Any business model that shows an above average economic return entices new competition. Creating a new web page isn't like creating a new satelitte radio company. There are no multi billion dollar barriers to entry. Almost anyone can purchase a server and host a fairly powerful website with almost infinate room to grow.
So if there is ample financial reasoning to support entering the business and not a dramatic barrier to go into it, the business will grow in number of competitors. So Google can't take over the world, but it can most definately revolutionize it. As many companies in the past have done, Google has brought something new to the table and is being rewarded for being the pioneer.
Google has been a very "easy" company to work with. That is their strength. It allows anyone to use their service for free (not including oportunity costs). If you like how it works, there are a few services you can purchase. Advertisers also see this reputation are drawn into the picture in similar fashion. It won't be long before other companies begin to mimic or improve upon this behavior. I would not be suprised to see a better version of Google being used on a regular basis within the next 10 years. Google won't go away or even stop growing, but there will be the next new hot site everyone uses. That's the power of the college student with a little too much free time on their hands and a lot of will and creativity.
Take Yahoo for example, it was thought of in the same light as Google is today. It had amazing features that no other company could provide. Hmmmm, doesn't it make sense that another group of people will come out with something Google doesn't yet? You might say, what doesn't Google do? Then you would conclude that no company would replace them. But if you could think of something, you would be the company that replaces them and I would be writing this article about how awesome company X by you is! To wrap it up, Google won't take over or destroy the world. It has helped revolutionize the way we see and use the internet, but it will be remembered just like all the other techinical innovations of this millenium.
November 08, 2006
Why Data Flows are Natural to People
If you have never seen an alpine tower before, they look similar to this.
The consist of various pieces of wood, rope, hinges, and plastic that create a tower. The goal of the course is to find a way to the top. It's not quite like climbing a ladder though. There are obstacles and various ways around them all the way up the tower. I had the opportunity to ascend one of these recently, and when we discussed this topic in class the similarities began to appear to me.
The first thing anyone does when they approach something like this is try figure out where all different combinations up the tower will take you. People basically create a flow chart in their heads. People also go one step further and analyze what all the obstacles will require. They look at how difficult it will be to get past them or if they can be circumvented.
Thinking of this abstractly, it is pretty clear as to why people natural use flow charts. Similarly to the system think (inputs and outputs), people have a cause and effect sense that makes then think in terms of data flows. I think the Alpine tower is a good representation of how humans naturally think fairly logically when it comes to interpretation of data.
October 30, 2006
Project Integration
I think I can share an interesting story that would help relate the topics of last week's class to the business world. Currently, I'm working on a project that will be implemented on a large scale. There are many challenges involved in the development of all the processes. I can't completely divulge what the nature of the project is due to legal liabilities, but needless to say it has many integration issues.
The first issue I run into on my work is how to turn the old system's outputs into the new system's inputs. Since the new system is being designed to be more informative than the previous one, there is a challenge to develop a systematic way to match more information to the output accurately and quickly.
The next problem is then taking your new input and turning that into meaningful output. This sounds like a very straightforward task. If you take a step back and look at it from the macroscopic level, all the systems and processes feed into other systems and processes. Any setback on the input side will occur on the output side as well (since that becomes the input to another system).
These first two steps are basically your actual process development steps. At this point you have a working, albeit completely non-integrated, system. Here is where I believe the contents of the class come in. How do you effectively transition into a system described above? The complete system is in the middle of a chain that cannot be abrupted for more than a few days at the absolute worst. One solution that I believe most closely falls under the hybrid method would be to employ the strategy that we are using.
We create and entire mock up of the system. This is sort of like running it parallel but only behind the scenes. We feed the information into this and the real system at the same time. Afterwards, we analyze how the output is coming out of both systems to see if it's compatible. Once the outputs match up, we know we have a system that is ready to be switched over.
Even at this step you do not have an integrated system. No one other than the people creating it knows how to use it properly. So more mock-ups are made. These are mini versions of what the complete package will look like. Everyone who will use the system is trained on his or her own customized mock up of the system.
The last piece that needs to be addressed after all this is done is the maintenance of the system. Technical staff must be involved in the whole setup. Luckily, they can be involved in the actual creation of the process so they do not have to be individually trained. They will work on it for a long time making it work right from the get go.
Basically, what I’m getting at in this story is that “Abrupt” implementation projects are not always quick or cheap. The project I am currently working on has been in the works for years and has had several employees working on it. While the implementation (and hopefully integration) will be abrupt, the creation is anything from it. I believe any truly abrupt project is destined to fail in a true competitive business setting. Failure to plan is definitely not a good way to succeed at business.
October 21, 2006
Systems
Systems are very prevalent in everyday life. I would go as far as to say it would be difficult to find someting that couldn't be classified as a system. Even writing this post is part of a system. Information is the input. My brain analyzes it and passes its conclusions to my hands. Then afterwards, my hands type it into this blog. This is a slightly generalized description of what actually happens, but it shows the concept. Perhaps this is why people thinking in terms of systems is so natural to people. Systems are what we do.
A day in anyone's life is like a giant system. You wake up and your eyes input the weather information to you. Your stomach tells you how much you should eat. You go through your day reacting to inputs and creating new outputs, which in turn are inputs for the next step. With this being so natural, I find it odd that people spend so much time thinking about how to create them. It should come naturally after all.
How come something so natural doesn't come naturally to people? My guess is because they are trying to create a system for something that isnt' natural to them. I would imagine if the very same person was trying to map out the process of something they are naturally inclined to do, it would become a much easier task for them.
October 19, 2006
Blackboard Learning vs. Teaching
I would just like to point out that mid terms are finally over!! I attribute a decent amount of my study success to BlackBoard. In my previous posting, I talked about how BlackBoard is effective for getting notes. Today in class we discussed whether the site was better used as a teaching tool or a learning tool.
After some careful thought, I really think it is a matter of perspective. Does a teacher teach the material to the students, or do the students learn the material the teacher presents? Your answer to this question ultimately affects what you will think of BlackBoard. If you think students take it upon themselves to learn the material, then anytime someone gives the student another medium to use they will. Visa Versa, if you think professors are the primary source of knowledge flow, BlackBoard is another means for them to instill knowledge into their students.
For my study style, I would say it's a learning tool for me. For the majority of my classes, the professor will go over a problem set in class to show how problems are completed. I prefer just to see it worked out (a BlackBoard posting) and work backwards to see where everything came from. I'm just more of a top down thinker I suppose.
BlackBoard also has many other useful features which could be used to supplement classroom activities. If they were more widely implemented, it would be more of a teaching tool. For example, in an English class comments to stories were posted on the internet for general viewing. People would gather ideas from each other for their own papers they had to complete. So I guess how the site is used along with the student's personal motivations to use it determine how you could view BlackBoard.