Clearly we have an insight which is not shared by the users and we can see that our approach will ultimately benefit the user, or are we just being rather arrogant and un-user focused?

Moving users from POP to IMAP, arguing that users should not be allowed to download corporate data into locally held spreadsheet or local databases,  insisting that users should enter their own data into University corporate systems are all examples where we attempt to persuade users to change their preferred approach.

Sometimes we justify this on the grounds that the University will benefit or that the alternatives are not supportable (lack of resources, impact on others, users being saved from themselves),  but we regularly struggle to persuade them that we are right.

The following is a quote from some Sybase marketing material I came across which suggests that we should stop fighting and accommodate the user more.   It made me wonder when we should bend and when not – I’m not sure we really know why we hold out sometimes but not others?

“…Of course, back here in the real world, it doesn’t really matter what any of these folks [IT managers and other technical staff] say when it comes to the iPhone making its way into the enterprise. End-users, including many executives, love the iPhone, and ultimately – like it or not – that’s what matters. IT managers are just going to have to love, or at least accept it, because the iPhone as an enterprise device is already a done deal. Fighting this juggernaut is pointless….”

http://marketing.ianywhere.com/forms/EMEAUKQ209MOWPDownload?

Some examples that merit further consideration here at Kent include:

The LSE has outsourced it data centre provision and backup (http://www.ucisa.ac.uk/events/2009/conference/posters.aspx)

A number of universities have rolled out cloud-based service offerings from Microsoft (http://get.liveatedu.com/Education/Connect/) and Google (http://www.google.com/a/help/intl/en/edu/) including Leeds Met, Aberdeen, SOAS.

Whilst the history of outsourcing IT services within HE is somewhat limited. These recent initiatives are more numerous, are starting to be taken up by more than a single institution and appear to be delivering tangible benefits to the universities concerned including benefits directly realised by end users.

Historically academic Computing Science departments were slow to give up their service elements and it could be that Computing Service departments are now dragging their feet and holding on to services increasingly available through commercial providers, delivering or at least promising levels of user service that exceed those offered by universities.  (http://www.ucisa.ac.uk/events/2009/conference/programme.aspx)

7.5-10 Gbyte quotas, e-mail hosting, web apps, faster service development than we can achieve internally - why should we be trying to compete with this?

Data on the uptake of Web 2.0 technology and participation rates amongst different age groups suggests that, to date at least, those of us beyond the age of 40 prefer a more solitary mode of engagement with  IT.  (see http://michael.wilcox.net/2009/03/17/the-groundswell-figures-for-uk-2008/)

A fact that I was reminded of today when reviewing the data on the uptake of our University’s pilot staff blogging service which shows a very significant reluctance amongst academic staff to share their thoughts in this way. 

Is it fear of the technology, or the realisation that worthwhile contributions might require more effort and time than they can afford to spare?  Or is it that those of us beyond our teens have become accustomed to delivering hour-long lectures or presenting 20 page reports and simply aren’t geared up to condensing our thoughts into one or two paragraphs, let alone 140 characters?

One of the questions that arises for me as a provider of IT services to the University is how much resource should I put into developing services based on these technologies.  A possible view is that we cannot keep pace: the students will do what they want using cloud-based services and our staff will not exploit the technology even if we provide it.  Perhaps the real benefit to the institution comes from promoting the technology and how it can be exploited, advising on its safe use and providing for its integration into the university technical environment but stoping short of hosting.  The possible exception to this is where we can use web 2.0 to build new services.  Examples in the area of library services are discussed by Maness in http://www.webology.ir/2006/v3n2/a25.html#15.