Posted on

Free Project Management Software

ProjectLibre

In our interview with Marc O’Brien, co-founder of ProjectLibre, we featured a tool with support for task management, resource allocation, tracking, Gantt charts, and much more. ProjectLibre is a good alternative to a commercial software product like Microsoft Project.

In December 2013, ProjectLibre released version 1.5.8, and a full rewrite of the codebase towards an Open Services Gateway Initiative (OSGI) modular architecture is ongoing. This will allow connector modules for better integration with enterprise solutions such as Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP).

ProjectLibre is a Java based client tool. During their 2014 Q1 this year, they will release version 2.0. It is not clear yet when the SaaS version will become available.

ProjectLibre was awarded InfoWorld’s “Best of Open Source” in 2013 and ranks in my personal top 3 favorite open source project management tools.

WBS Tool is a free web software for building Project Work Breakdown Structures (WBS), WBS Charts, Organograms and other types of hierarchies. The Tool works with any webbrowser with the adobe flash plugin installed.

5 Free Mind Mapping Tools to Create a Work Breakdown Structure
by Dennis Reilly on Jun 21, 2013

Project Managers have been increasingly using mind mapping software to help manage projects. One area in particular is the creation of a work breakdown structure (WBS). Mind mappers are great for brainstorming and can aid your team in understanding the information by providing a visual representation.

If you are interested in using mind mapping, but do not want to shell out the $300 to buy one of the higher-end tools, you should consider trying one of the free mind mappers that are out there. I will take a look at five options in this blog, considering key features such as ease of use, features, and export options.

Posted on

Role Theory

Role Theory proposed that human behavior is guided by expectations held both by the individual and by other people. The expectations correspond to different roles individualsperform or enact in their daily lives, such as secretary, father, or friend. For instance, most people hold pre-conceived notions of the role expectations of a secretary, which might include: answering phones, making and managing appointments, filing paperwork, and typing memos. These role expectations would not be expected of a professional soccer player.

Individuals generally have and manage many roles. Roles consist of a set of rules or norms that function as plans or blueprints to guide behavior. Roles specify what goals should be pursued, what tasks must be accomplished, and what performances are required in a given scenario or situation. Role theory holds that a substantial proportion of observable, day-to-day social behavior is simply persons carrying out their roles, much as actors carry out their roles on the stage or ballplayers theirs on the field. Role theory is, in fact, predictive. It implies that if we have information about the role expectations for a specified position (e.g., sister, fireman, prostitute), a significant portion of the behavior of the persons occupying that position can be predicted.

What’s more, role theory also argues that in order to change behavior it is necessary to change roles; roles correspond to behaviors and vice versa. In addition to heavily influencing behavior, roles influence beliefs and attitudes; individuals will change their beliefs and attitudes to correspond with their roles. For instance, someone over-looked for a promotion to a managerial position in a company may change their beliefs about the benefits of management by convincing him/herself that they didn’t want the additional responsibility that would have accompanied the position.

Many role theorists see Role Theory as one of the most compelling theories bridging individual behavior and social structure. Roles, which are in part dictated by social structure and in part by social interactions (see the two approaches outlined below), guide the behavior of the individual. The individual, in turn, influences the norms, expectations, and behaviors associated with roles. The understanding is reciprocal and didactic.

Posted on

wagon-wheel effect

The wagon-wheel effect (alternatively, stagecoach-wheel effect, stroboscopic effect) is an optical illusion in which a spoked wheelappears to rotate differently from its true rotation. The wheel can appear to rotate more slowly than the true rotation, it can appear stationary, or it can appear to rotate in the opposite direction from the true rotation. This last form of the effect is sometimes called thereverse rotation effect.

The wagon-wheel effect is most often seen in film or television depictions of stagecoaches or wagons in Western movies, although recordings of any regularly spoked wheel will show it, such as helicopter rotors and aircraft propellers. In these recorded media, the effect is a result of temporal aliasing.[1] It can also commonly be seen when a rotating wheel is illuminated by flickering light. These forms of the effect are known as stroboscopic effects: the original smooth rotation of the wheel is visible only intermittently. A version of the wagon-wheel effect can also be seen under continuous illumination.

Rushton (1967[5]) observed the wagon-wheel effect under continuous illumination while humming. The humming vibrates the eyes in their sockets, effectively creating stroboscopic conditions within the eye. By humming at a frequency of a multiple of the rotation frequency, he was able to stop the rotation. By humming at slightly higher and lower frequencies, he was able to make the rotation reverse slowly and to make the rotation go slowly in the direction of rotation. A similar stroboscopic effect is now commonly observed by people eating crunchy foods, such as carrots, while watching TV: the image appears to shimmer.[6] The crunching vibrates the eyes at a multiple of the frame rate of the TV. Besides vibrations of the eyes, the effect can be produced by observing wheels via a vibrating mirror. Rear-view mirrors in vibrating cars can produce the effect.

Truly continuous illumination

The first to observe the wagon-wheel effect under truly continuous illumination (such as from the sun) was Schouten (1967[7]). He distinguished three forms of subjective stroboscopy which he called alpha, beta, and gamma: Alpha stroboscopy occurs at 8–12 cycles per second; the wheel appears to become stationary, although “some sectors [spokes] look as though they are performing a hurdle race over the standing ones” (p. 48). Beta stroboscopy occurs at 30–35 cycles per second: “The distinctness of the pattern has all but disappeared. At times a definite counterrotation is seen of a grayish striped pattern” (pp. 48–49). Gamma stroboscopy occurs at 40–100 cycles per second: “The disk appears almost uniform except that at all sector frequencies a standing grayish pattern is seen … in a quivery sort of standstill” (pp. 49–50). Schouten interpreted beta stroboscopy, reversed rotation, as consistent with there being Reichardt detectors in the human visual system for encoding motion. Because the spoked wheel patterns he used (radial gratings) are regular, they can strongly stimulate detectors for the true rotation, but also weakly stimulate detectors for the reverse rotation.

There are two broad theories for the wagon-wheel effect under truly continuous illumination. The first is that human visual perception takes a series of still frames of the visual scene and that movement is perceived much like a movie. The second is Schouten’s theory: that moving images are processed by visual detectors sensitive to the true motion and also by detectors sensitive to opposite motion from temporal aliasing. There is evidence for both theories, but the weight of evidence favours the latter.

Discrete frames theory

Purves, Paydarfar, and Andrews (1996[8]) proposed the discrete-frames theory. One piece of evidence for this theory comes from Dubois and VanRullen (2011[9]). They reviewed experiences of users of LSD who often report that under the influence of the drug a moving object is seen trailing a series of still images behind it. They asked such users to match their drug experiences with movies simulating such trailing images viewed when not under the drug. They found that users selected movies around 15–20 Hz. This is between Schouten’s alpha and beta rates.

Other evidence for the theory is reviewed next.

Temporal aliasing theory

Kline, Holcombe, and Eagleman (2004[10]) confirmed the observation of reversed rotation with regularly spaced dots on a rotating drum. They called this “illusory motion reversal”. They showed that these occurred only after a long time of viewing the rotating display (from about 30 seconds to as long as 10 minutes for some observers). They also showed that the incidences of reversed rotation were independent in different parts of the visual field. This is inconsistent with discrete frames covering the entire visual scene. Kline, Holcombe, and Eagleman (2006[11]) also showed that reversed rotation of a radial grating in one part of the visual field was independent of superimposed orthogonal motion in the same part of the visual field. The orthogonal motion was of a circular grating contracting so as to have the same temporal frequency as the radial grating. This is inconsistent with discrete frames covering local parts of visual scene. Kline et al. concluded that the reverse rotations were consistent with Reichardt detectors for the reverse direction of rotation becoming sufficiently active to dominate perception of the true rotation in a form of rivalry. The long time required to see the reverse rotation suggests that neural adaptation of the detectors responding to the true rotation has to occur before the weakly stimulated reverse-rotation detectors can contribute to perception.

Some small doubts about the results of Kline et al. (2004) sustain adherents of the discrete-frame theory. These doubts include Kline et al.’s finding in some observers more instances of simultaneous reversals from different parts of the visual field than would be expected by chance, and finding in some observers differences in the distribution of the durations of reversals from that expected by a pure rivalry process (Rojas, Carmona-Fontaine, López-Calderón, & Aboitiz, 2006[12]).

In 2008, Kline and Eagleman demonstrated that illusory reversals of two spatially overlapping motions could be perceived separately, providing further evidence that illusory motion reversal is not caused by temporal sampling.[13] They also showed that illusory motion reversal occurs with non-uniform and non-periodic stimuli (for example, a spinning belt of sandpaper), which also cannot be compatible with discrete sampling. Kline and Eagleman proposed instead that the effect results from a “motion during-effect”, meaning that a motion after-effect becomes superimposed on the real motion.

Dangers

Because of the illusion this can give to moving machinery, it is advised that single-phase lighting be avoided in workshops and factories. For example, a factory that is lit from a single-phase supply with basic fluorescent lighting will have a flicker of twice the mains frequency, either at 100 or 120 Hz (depending on country); thus, any machinery rotating at multiples of this frequency may appear to not be turning. Seeing that the most common types of AC motors are locked to the mains frequency, this can pose a considerable hazard to operators of lathes and other rotating equipment. Solutions include deploying the lighting over a full 3-phase supply, or by using high-frequency controllers that drive the lights at safer frequencies.[14] Traditional incandescent light bulbs, which employ filaments that glow continuously, offer another option as well, albeit at the expense of increased power consumption. Smaller incandescent lights can be used as task lighting on equipment to help combat this effect to avoid the cost of operating larger quantities of incandescent lighting in a workshop environment.

 

rotatingwheels

 

Posted on

education system

“The world economy no longer pays for what people know but for what they can do with what they know.”
– Andreas Schleicher, OECD deputy director for education

[ted id=66]

Sir Ken Robinson makes an entertaining and profoundly moving case for creating an education system that nurtures (rather than undermines) creativity.

http://thelearningcurve.pearson.com/2014-report-summary/

East Asian nations continue to outperform others. South Korea tops the rankings, followed by Japan (2nd), Singapore (3rd) and Hong Kong (4th). All these countries’ education systems prize effort above inherited ‘smartness’, have clear learning outcomes and goalposts, and have a strong culture of accountability and engagement among a broad community of stakeholders.
Scandinavian countries, traditionally strong performers, are showing signs of losing their edge. Finland, the 2012 Index leader, has fallen to 5th place; and Sweden is down from 21st to 24th.
Notable improvers include Israel (up 12 places to 17th), Russia (up 7 places to 13th) and Poland (up four places to 10th).
Developing countries populate the lower half of the Index, with Indonesia again ranking last of the 40 nations covered, preceded by Mexico (39th) and Brazil (38th).

South Korea demonstrates the interplay between adult skills and the demands of employers. In South Korea young people score above average for numeracy and problem-solving skills, but are below average over the age of 30. According to Randall S Jones of the OECD, this skills decline is explained by many graduates “training for white-collar jobs that don’t exist”. This leads to a higher than average proportion failing to secure employment, and a quicker diminishing of their skills.

Developing countries must teach basic skills more effectively before they start to consider the wider skills agenda. There is little point in investing in pedagogies and technologies to foster 21st century skills, when the basics of numeracy and literacy aren’t in place.

Technology can provide new pathways into adult education, particularly in the developing world, but is no panacea. There is little evidence that technology alone helps individuals actually develop new skills.

Lifelong learning, even simple reading at home and number crunching at work, helps to slow the rate of age-related skill decline; but mainly for those who are highly skilled already. Teaching adults does very little to make up for a poor school system.

Making sure people are taught the right skills early in their childhood is much more effective than trying to improve skills in adulthood for people who were let down by their school system. But even when primary education is of a high quality, skills decline in adulthood if they are not used regularly.

In recent years it has become increasingly clear that basic reading, writing and arithmetic are not enough.
The importance of 21st century non-cognitive skills – broadly defined as abilities important for social interaction – is pronounced.

The OECD estimates that half of the economic growth in developed countries in the last decade came from improved skills.

Posted on

growth–share matrix

The growth–share matrix (aka the product portfolio,[1] BCG-matrix, Boston matrix, Boston Consulting Group analysis, portfolio diagram) is a chart that was created by Bruce D. Henderson for the Boston Consulting Group in 1970 to help corporations to analyze their business units, that is, their product lines. This helps the company allocate resources and is used as an analytical tool in brand marketing, product management, strategic management, and portfolio analysis.[2] Analysis of market performance by firms using its principles has recently called its usefulness into question.[3]

Bruce Doolin Henderson (1915–1992) was the founder of the Boston Consulting Group (BCG). Henderson founded BCG in 1963 in Boston, Massachusetts. He headed the firm as President and CEO until 1980 and stayed on as Chairman until 1985.

Posted on

SMART

SMART is a mnemonic acronym, giving criteria to guide in the setting of objectives, for example in project management, employee performance management and personal development. The letters S and M usually mean specific and measurable. The other letters have meant different things to different authors, as described below.

SMART criteria are commonly attributed to Peter Drucker’s management by objectives concept. The first known use of the term occurs in the November 1981 issue ofManagement Review by George T. Doran.[2] The principal advantage of SMART objectives is that they are easier to understand, do, and be confident that they have been done.

SMARTER gives two additional criteria. For example, evaluated and reviewed are intended to ensure that targets are not forgotten.

SMARTTA is a variant of SMARTER with the last two letters TA in the place of ER. T is Trackable with clear measures of success and A is Agreed to ensure understanding and commitment.

he November 1981 issue of Management Review contained a paper by George T. Doran called There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management’s goals and objectives.[2][3] It discussed the importance of objectives and the difficulty in setting them.

Ideally speaking, each corporate, department, and section objective should be:

  • Specific – target a specific area for improvement.
  • Measurable – quantify or at least suggest an indicator of progress.
  • Assignable – specify who will do it.
  • Realistic – state what results can realistically be achieved, given available resources.
  • Time-related – specify when the result(s) can be achieved.

Notice that these criteria don’t say that all objectives must be quantified on all levels of management. In certain situations it is not realistic to attempt quantification, particularly in staff middle-management positions. Practicing managers and corporations can lose the benefit of a more abstract objective in order to gain quantification. It is the combination of the objective and its action plan that is really important. Therefore, serious management should focus on these twins and not just the objective.

—George T. Doran, There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management’s goals and objectives
Posted on

learning management systems

A learning management system (LMS) is a software application for the administration, documentation, tracking, reporting and delivery of e-learning education courses or training programs.[1]

LMSs range from systems for managing training and educational records to software for distributing online or blended/hybrid college courses over the Internet with features for online collaboration. Colleges and universities use LMSs to deliver online courses and augment on-campus courses. Corporate training departments use LMSs to deliver online training, as well as automate record-keeping and employee registration.

The key to understanding the difference between LMS and other computer education terms is to understand the systemic nature of LMS. LMS is the framework that handles all aspects of the learning process. An LMS is the infrastructure that delivers and manages instructional content, identifies and assesses individual and organizational learning or training goals, tracks the progress towards meeting those goals, and collects and presents data for supervising the learning process of organization as a whole.[4] A Learning Management System delivers content but also handles registering for courses, course administration, skills gap analysis, tracking, and reporting.[5]

Most LMSs are web-based to facilitate access to learning content and administration. They are also used by educational institutions to enhance and support classroom teaching and offering courses to a larger population of learners. LMSs are used by regulated industries (e.g. financial services and biopharma) for compliance training. Student self-service (e.g., self-registration on instructor-led training), training workflow (e.g., user notification, manager approval, wait-list management), the provision of on-line learning (e.g.,computer-based training, read & understand), on-line assessment, management of continuous professional education (CPE), collaborative learning (e.g., application sharing, discussion threads), and training resource management (e.g., instructors, facilities, equipment), are all-important dimensions of learning management systems.

Some LMS providers include “performance management systems”, which encompass employee appraisals, competency management, skills-gap analysis, succession planning, and multi-rater assessments (i.e., 360 degree reviews). Modern techniques now employ competency-based learning to discover learning gaps and guide training material selection.

For the commercial market, some Learning and Performance Management Systems include recruitment and reward functionality.

The focus of an LMS is to deliver online courses or training to learners, while managing students and keeping track of their progress and performance across all types of training activities. An LMS is not used to create course content.

By contrast, a learning content management system (LCMS) is a related software technology that provides a multi-user environment where developers, authors, instructional designers, and subject matter experts may create, store, reuse, manage, and deliver digital e-learning content from a central object repository. LCMS focuses on the development, management and publishing of the content that will typically be delivered via an LMS. Users can both create and re-use e-learning content and reduce duplicated development efforts.

Rather than developing entire courses and adapting them to multiple audiences, an LCMS provides the ability for single course instances to be modified and republished for various audiences maintaining versions and history. The objects stored in the centralized repository can be made available to course developers and content experts throughout an organization for potential reuse and repurpose. This eliminates duplicate development efforts and allows for the rapid assembly of customized content. Some systems have tools to deliver and manage instructor-led synchronous and asynchronous online training based on learning object methodology.

LCMSs provide tools for authoring and reusing or re-purposing content (mutated learning objects, or MLOs) as well as virtual spaces for student interaction (such as discussion forums, live chat rooms and live web-conferences). LCMS technology can either be used in tandem with an LMS, or as a standalone application for learning initiatives that require rapid development and distribution of learning content.

While LMS and LCMS products have different strengths and weaknesses, they generally address the following areas of functionality:[6]

LMS Functionality

  • Course Content Delivery
  • Student Registration and Administration
  • Training Event Management (i.e., scheduling, tracking)
  • Curriculum and Certification Management
  • Skills and Competencies Management
  • Skill Gap Analysis
  • Individual Development Plan (IDP)
  • Reporting
  • Training Record Management
  • Courseware Authoring
  • Resource Management
  • Virtual Organizations

LCMS Functionality

  • Template-driven, Collaborative Content Development
  • Facilitated Content Management (i.e., indexing and reuse)
  • Publishing
  • Workflow Integration
  • Automated Interface with an LM

In the higher education market as of fall 2013, Blackboard is the leading provider with 41% market share, with Moodle (23%) and Desire2Learn (11%) being the next two largest providers.[7] In the corporate market, the six largest LMS providers constitute approximately 50% of the market, with SuccessFactors Learning, Saba Software and Sumtotal Systems being the three largest providers.

Most buyers of LMSs utilize an authoring tool to create their e-learning content, which is then hosted on an LMS. In many cases LMSs include a primitive authoring tool for basic content manipulation. For advanced content creation buyers must choose an authoring software that integrates with their LMS in order for their content to be hosted. There are authoring tools on the market, which meet AICC and SCORM standards and therefore content created in tools such as these can be hosted on an AICC or SCORM certified LMS. By May 2010, ADL had validated 301 SCORM-certified products[8] while 329 products were compliant.[9]

Because there is no licensing cost involved with open source solutions, its easy for organisations to just jump in and set up the first solution that comes along. There is however a cost to installation and support, either financial or time related. Anyone setting up an LMS has a responsibility to research and choose the solution that is right for the learners and the organisation.

As a starting point here are 10 open source alternatives to Moodle. These are deliberately brief descriptions, and I would encourage you to visit these sites and explore each solution in some detail.

Docebo In use in corporate and higher education settings. Offers support for a number of different learning models and is compatible with SCORM 1.2 and 2004. It offers interfaces to external systems such as video conferencing and HR systems.

eFront The base install is quite minimalist, but this is easily extended with modules available from the site. Commercial versions with additional features are also available.

Dokeos A very well featured LMS that also offers content authoring and video conferencing tools. Supports converting Office documents into Learning Paths. Offers user synchronisation with HR management systems such as Oracle and SAP.

Claroline Aimed more at the educational than corporate arena, this system is based around specific pedagogical principles (as is Moodle). Supports SCORM content as well as a built in Wiki and other online content tools.

ATutor Actually an LCMS, ATutor also offers tools for the management of learning. The “A” stands for Accessible and it has excellent support for key accessibility standards as well as support for SCORM, IMS etc.

ILIAS Provides testing and assessment tools as well as collaboration tools such as chat and forums, and distribution technologies like RSS and podcasts.

OLAT A well featured system in its tenth year of development. Recently the winner of the “IMS Learning Impact ‘Leadership Award’ 2009 for best open source learning platform”.

Sakai Aimed at Universities, this project has a clear roadmap and has seem considerable development in the last few years. Backed by the Sakai Foundation which manages relationships with educational and commercial supporters.

.LRN Originally developed at MIT, .LRN claims to be the most widely adopted enterprise class open source LMS solution.

openelms Marketed specifically as a business solution, and claims a diverse customer base that ranges from Merrill Lynch to Queens Park Rangers football club.

Ganesha This LMS developed by Anema, has been around since 2001 and is in use in several large organisations. The site, and the LMS itself, are in French but it can be translated.

The following is a list of learning management systems. See also Category:Learning management systems

Moodle (acronym for Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment) (stylised in lower-case as moodle) is a free softwaree-learning platform, also known as a Learning Management System, or Virtual Learning Environment (VLE). As of June 2013 it had a user base of 83,008 registered and verified sites, serving 70,696,570 users in 7.5+ million courses with 1.2+ million teachers.[3]

Moodle was originally developed by Martin Dougiamas to help educators create online courses with a focus on interaction and collaborative construction of content, and is in continual evolution. The first version of Moodle was released on 20 August 2002.

The Moodle project comprises several distinct but related elements, namely

  • the software.
  • Moodle Pty Ltd (also known as Moodle.com and Moodle Headquarters, based in Perth, Western Australia), an Australian company which performs the majority of the development of the core Moodle platform.
  • the Moodle Community, an open network of over one million registered users who interact through the Moodle community website to share ideas, code, information and free support. This community also includes a large number of non-core developers, with Moodle’s free source license and modular design allowing any developer to create additional modules and features that has allowed Moodle to become a truly global, collaborative project in scope.
  • the Moodle Partner network, which forms the commercial arm of the Moodle environment and provides the bulk of the funding to Moodle Pty Ltd through the payment of royalties.

ATutor is a FREE Open Source LMS, used to develop online courses and create eleaning content.

Posted on

Synectics

Synectics is a problem solving methodology that stimulates thought processes of which the subject may be unaware. This method was developed by George M. Prince (April 5, 1918 – June 9, 2009)[1] and William J.J. Gordon, originating in the Arthur D. Little Invention Design Unit in the 1950s.

The process was derived from tape-recording (initially audio, later video) meetings, analysis of the results and experiments with alternative ways of dealing with the obstacles to success in the meeting. “Success” was defined as getting a creative solution that the group was committed to implement.

The name Synectics comes from the Greek and means “the joining together of different and apparently irrelevant elements.”[2]

Gordon and Prince named both their practice and their new company Synectics, which can cause confusion as people not part of the company are trained and use the practice. While the name was trademarked, it has become a standard word for describing creative problem solving in groups.[3]

Theory

Synectics is a way to approach creativity and problem-solving in a rational way. “Traditionally, the creative process has been considered after the fact… The Synectics study has attempted to research creative process in vivo, while it is going on.” [4]

According to Gordon, Synectics research has three main assumptions:

  • The creative process can be described and taught;
  • Invention processes in arts and sciences are analogous and are driven by the same “psychic” processes;
  • Individual and group creativity are analogous.[5]

With these assumptions in mind, Synectics believes that people can be better at being creative if they understand how creativity works.

One important element in creativity is embracing the seemingly irrelevant. Emotion is emphasized over intellect and the irrational over the rational. Through understanding the emotional and irrational elements of a problem or idea, a group can be more successful at solving a problem.[6]

Prince emphasized the importance of creative behaviour in reducing inhibitions and releasing the inherent creativity of everyone. He and his colleagues developed specific practices and meeting structures which help people to ensure that their constructive intentions are experienced positively by one another. The use of the creative behaviour tools extends the application of Synectics to many situations beyond invention sessions (particularly constructive resolution of conflict).

Gordon emphasized the importance of “‘metaphorical process’ to make the familiar strange and the strange familiar”. He expressed his central principle as: “Trust things that are alien, and alienate things that are trusted.” This encourages, on the one hand, fundamental problem-analysis and, on the other hand, the alienation of the original problem through the creation of analogies. It is thus possible for new and surprising solutions to emerge.

As an invention tool, Synectics invented a technique called “springboarding” for getting creative beginning ideas. For the development of beginning ideas, the method incorporates brainstorming and deepens and widens it with metaphor; it also adds an important evaluation process for Idea Development, which takes embryonic new ideas that are attractive but not yet feasible and builds them into new courses of action which have the commitment of the people who will implement them.

Synectics is more demanding of the subject than brainstorming, as the steps involved imply that the process is more complicated and requires more time and effort. The success of the Synectics methodology depends highly on the skill of a trained facilitator.[7]