Could an Open Access model transform healthcare?

“Openness is not binary; information or processes are not open or closed. They sit on a broad continuum stretching from closed to open, based on their accessibility and responsiveness”. So concludes the latest report from the Committee for Economic Development (CED)

The not-for-profit and nonpartisan organisation has recently published a report (Harnessing Openness to Transform American Health Care) which examines how utilising an open access (OA) model would benefit healthcare and medical research in both the US and wider world

Comprising of business and education leaders from a wealth of backgrounds  and with donors ranging from Pfizer and GsK to Yahoo and McKinsey and company, the CED’s report helpfully defines the criteria of what they suggest constitutes ‘open’ information.

Ultimately they say it boils down to two things; the first is that information must be accessible, this means that data should be both available and free from restrictions while secondly responsiveness of that information refers to how malleable or redistributable the information is and therefore the more it can be considered ‘open’.

The report is interesting in how its findings suggest the open information will lead to benefits to healthcare systems in general as well as to the wider biomedical research field. Obviously the report has a sharp US skew, but there are global implications in there for researchers and information professionals to consider. 

For example it recommends a greater disclosure of biomed research results and calls for issues such as when and what data is made public need to be addressed. I thought the suggestion of aggregating Electronic Health Records (HER) offers a plethora of opportunity. “The aggregation of such records could facilitate the achievement of genuine ‘evidence-based’ medical system. Such records provide far richer data than clinical trials, and could serve as the basis for predictive models similar to those used in other scientific domains”, the report says.

The argument is that there will be an improvement in treatments, preventing the duplication of testing through accessibility to a patient or even a family’s medical history. Reassuringly, the report notes the ‘fundamental issues of privacy and security’ will tend to limit openness, as well they must, considering recent information security fiascos particularly on this side of the pond.

The opportunities to be had from the disclosure of research findings and the process of evaluating drugs and medical devices from greater and more responsible data-sharing will improve both care and scientific medical research. For a summary of the report, go here  or for the full version with end-notes here. 
   

Here’s hoping Open Text stays Swiss (and Canadian)

I must admit that I was among those who thought that Yahoo would cave in, and sell out, to Microsoft. Having predicted a deal for some time, it’s human nature that I would want this pair to go ahead and combine. Now it looks like Yahoo will rebuff the world’s largest software company – at least for now, anyway.

Another prediction that I have been making for some months (OK, years) is that Open Text would sell out, with SAP quite likely to be the buyer. It hasn’t happened yet and, as another strong Open Text financial quarter goes by, you could argue that it’s becoming less likely to happen.

Let me say that even an eventual vindication of my forecasting powers is not enough for me to wish Open Text to join the rush to consolidate, and admit that there are good reasons for it to stay neutral. Some buyers will prefer a Switzerland of ECM that will not automatically try to push its own database, applications or other stack components.

Another reason is focus: Open Text has broadened its reach with deals of its own (Ixos, Hummingbird et al) but it is the one large-ish company that can still fit under the capacious umbrella branded ECM.

And, as long as Open Text stays away from the negotiating table, it can still market itself as a best-of-breed player in a sector dominated by one-stop-shops. A David surrounded by Goliaths, for the romantically minded.

That said, I still don’t buy the argument, well argued though it is in the is Big Men On Content blog, that Open Text is not attractive to a buyer because that would mean extensive duplication of assets. Modern business software deal-making, as evinced by Oracle’s capture of PeopleSoft, is largely about being able to monetise customer base rather than worrying about having too much code that was written to do the same stuff.

So I hope for the sake of competition in the ECM sector that Open Text stays solo, but I still think it more likely that a sale will come.

Kevin Kelly: Better Than Free

Kevin Kelly, a Wired co-founder, recently wrote a very interesting piece about the digital economy called Better Than Free. It starts from the postulation that the internet is a giant copying machine. Anything that can be copied and distributed for free becomes worthless (in a financial sense). And, therefore, anything that can't be copied acquires value.

Sounds like common sense, right? But it strikes at the heart of the old order where people were willing to pay for mass-produced copies of stuff. Of course, it is still possible to pay for the convenience of a book, for example. Inexorably, though, online is trumping offline in an increasing number of situations.

But Kelly proposes eight categories of valuable and non-copyable activity. If he's right, and he's thought about these things more than most, then his suggestions provide a series of guiding lights for those of us who are still floundering in the internet economy.

He calls these values 'generatives'. To quote him:

A generative value is a quality or attribute that must be generated, grown, cultivated, nurtured. A generative thing can not be copied, cloned, faked, replicated, counterfeited, or reproduced. It is generated uniquely, in place, over time. In the digital arena, generative qualities add value to free copies, and therefore are something that can be sold.

His categories are: immediacy; personalisation; interpretation; authenticity; accessibility; embodiment; patronage and findability. Most of them probably make intuitive sense to you, but do read his explanations, they deliver real insight and understanding. To clarify a couple of the more obscure ones: 'Embodiment' means an analogue version of the digital entity - a book or a musical recital for example; and 'Patronage' relates to paying a reasonable amount to the originator.

In this new world, value is being derived from essentially human skills rather than mechanical processes. We are not talking about a new bandwagon for wheeler-dealers to jump on, we're talking about being rewarded for genuine intellectual or physical effort which delivers real value to the buyer. Something which should resonate with most IWR readers.

(Hat tip to Jack Rickards for the tip-off.)

Finding meaning in Microsoft and Yahoo

While the rest of us are worrying about whether we should be worrying about the credit crunch, Microsoft slaps down a cool $44 billion in its bid to buy rival Yahoo writes Peter Williams.

Timing is all in business (as in much else in life). Of course, part of the reason for the bid now was that stock market nerves on the likelihood of a US (if not world) recession had made Yahoo look, well if not cheap, then certainly better value.

The idea of a Microsoft and Yahoo forming some sort of alliance is not new; it was being discussed around Wall Street back in May 2006. The theory back then was that Microsoft was behind with its core search technology and Yahoo was struggling with its paid search service. That may have been the thinking then but it only works if you are convinced that there is some mutual benefit in coming together. The danger (the point is general not particular) is the chances are that you just compound the problems not solve them. Research from accountancy firms suggests that a majority of mergers destroy shareholder value rather than add to it. And the number one difficulty in getting it right is integrating the cultures of the acquired and acquiree. Cultural similarities between Yahoo and Microsoft? To be discussed.

In yesterday’s (6 Feb 2008) email to Yahoo staff (sent on for regulatory reasons to the US takeover regulator, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)), “jerry” (that’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Yahoo Jerry Yang to you and me) said the bid wouldn’t distract from the task of “pursuing our transformation strategy.”

Well maybe. But while the poor investment banker community are relieved that an M&A deal of substance (i.e one which will take some time and lots of fees to sort) has come onto the table, the question for information professionals is what does this mean (if anything)? At this stage it is not an easy question. Perhaps the best answer can be found in the Google generation report which my colleague Dan Griffin has talked about. The research tried to separate myth from reality for the Google generation. One idea posited by the research is that the Google generation thinks everything is on the web and it’s all free. Anecdotally, says the research, this appears to be true and certainly there is much evidence that young people are unaware of library-sponsored content or are at least reluctant to use it.

One consequence of the battle between the search giants is that in time we may all end up paying more (in one way or another, such as exposure to advertising) to take full advantage of the digital age. While being aware of access issues, if paying can mean an increase in the quality of content and search, then maybe information professionals would be among those who would see that as a good move.

Information professionals guiding you to the best bits of the blogosphere

Josie Fraser runs the Edublog Awards, develops Web 2.0-based research communities, and reckons that blogging is the perfect cure for procrastinators and perfectionists

Q: Who are you?
A: I'm a social and educational technologist, a role that certainly didn't exist when I was checking out the careers guidance advice at school. Most recently I've been working on a JISC-funded project called Emerge, which is exploring the benefits of Web 2.0 tools to develop research communities. I'm also currently completing guidance on the benefits, risks and opportunities of using social networking services within education.

Q: Where is your blog?
A: SocialTech (http://fraser.typepad.com/socialtech) is my current professional blog. It's just reached its first birthday! I blog at a few places and I'm at Twitter a lot at the moment, micro-blogging.

Q: Describe your blog and the categories on it
A: It sticks to information and discussion on social networking, social media and social software. There is a lot of EdTech stuff in there since I work a lot in the education sector, and stuff that relates to the broader issues of digital literacy and social participation. I take a very relaxed approach to my personal blogs. I try to have fun with blogging and enjoy it rather than stress about the length of posts (they're getting longer, I'm afraid) or how often I post.

Q: What started you blogging?
A: I started working in educational technology and it became clear to me very quickly that there were a lot of amazing people in my sector who were sharing resources, holding open conversations and exploring ideas. It was fantastic to be able to think through issues and make discoveries within a lively, smart and pretty funny international community. I've always been someone who thinks things through too much given half a chance. Blogging is great for whatever you want to call that: perfectionism or procrastinating. It's quick, dirty and iterative. The context is far more conversational. To me, blogging is about working through things, contributing your opinion to the pot. I'm dyslexic too and it's great to have a context where the odd mistake just doesn't matter.

Q: Do you comment on other blogs?
A: I love to and wish I spent more time doing it. There is a huge value opening up discussions or just letting people know you are paying attention. Comments are the life blood of blogs.

Q: How does your organisation benefit from your blog presence?
A: I've worked for several employers where blogging has been a part of my job. Any employer is hiring your ability to operate effectively within your networks, and to develop them. My employers and clients have benefited by having someone who is in touch and involved with what people are thinking and discussing, the interesting things people are getting up to, and the innovative ways they are solving problems.
Q: How does it help your career?
A: Blogging is probably one of my primary sources for continuing professional development. Working and thinking publicly pushes you to try to represent your ideas clearly and to critically examine those ideas. It's a great showcase for your ideas, connections and conversations. Also, in my line of work online presence is an important thing.

Q: What good things have happened to you that could only have happened because of blogging?
A: I've met people from all over the world and I've made some really great friends. I've also run the Edublog Awards for the past three years; that certainly wouldn't have happened without being actively involved in blogging myself. I'm incredibly proud of what we achieve: every year we get people participating internationally to create a resource for everyone that showcases the breadth of innovative work being done using weblogs and other social software to support learners and educators.

Q: Which blogs do you read for fun?
A: I like art and tech blogs. I love We-make-money-not-art.com, and graffiti/street art blog Wooster Collective. Like most people, I read Post Secret. I also run a not-work blog, A Girl and a Gun, which is a film diary; it's been very successful and I get invited to a fair few premieres and festivals because of it.

Q: Which bloggers do you watch and link to?
A: Loads! My aggregator has made grown adults cry! Also, there are all the people I keep track of within trusted community aggregators. I use Twitter, Flickr and Facebook in that way. I'd like to give a heads-up to some of the UK edublogging contingent who are doing some really interesting work:
Graham Attwell
www.pontydysgu.org/blogs/waleswideweb
Frances Bell
http://eduspaces.net/francesbell/weblog 
Helen Keegan
http://eduspaces.net/holla/weblog 
Scott Wilson
http://zope.cetis.ac.uk/members/scott 
Brian Kelly
http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com 
Stephen Warburton
http://warburton.typepad.com 
Steve Wheeler
http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.com 

Not surprisingly, my relationships with all of them have been either started or augmented via our blogs.

MS-Yahoo shows that search trumps portal

Briefly, as is its wont, fame beckoned for your blogger last week when he did a tour of duty at the BBC to talk about the likely effect of Microsoft’s bid to buy Yahoo.

There’s no need to go into deep details about that putative transaction here, although, if you’d like to see what I think, you could look here, here, here, here and here. No, what struck me most forcibly was the extent to which search had beaten its old enemy, the portal. At the Beeb, headlines suggested that Microsoft was buying a leading “search engine”. I must admit raising a quizzical eyebrow as it’s a long time since I heard the term used to describe a company.

And yet…

In the mid-1990s I edited a web site that shared office space with Yahoo UK. A manager there berated me for referring to Yahoo as a search engine. No, it was a gateway to the web -- a portal, no less, he insisted.

But the company that differentiated on search quality, Google, has been the winner so far on the internet. Having a string of great properties like Mail, Flickr, Delicious and Finance has helped prop up Yahoo in hits; Microsoft has had the tie-in to a massive brand and OS; but Google’s search has been the most powerful means of making hard cash.

There is a lesson here for all those web sites that don’t deliver the search results you wanted, and even for enterprise search and content management camps. At least for many ways to search and control data, unless you have an excellent core search capability, the other guy probably has a better product.

The boundaries are different with learning 2.0

One of the key issues currently being debated by information professionals is the validity of Web 2.0, writes Peter Williams.

Gurus are suggesting that the new use-driven web environment is spawning a new form of learning, learning 2.0. Learning 2.0 is the antithesis of learning which those of us who pre-date the Google generation would know as formal learning. Indeed learning 2.0 even seems to throw away the rule book that learning over the internet (e-learning) or the mixture of internet-based learning and traditional face-to-face learning (blended learning) were prepared to obey.

Learning 2.0 seems to be approaching anarchy, it is open, distributed, networked complex and fuzzy. Speaking at the recent Learning Technologies 2008 conference, Stephen Downes – one of the leading proponents of Learning 2.0– shared his thinking on what learning 2.0 is and what it might be. Those of you who tut tut at the old fashioned idea of  a leading guru on Web 2.0 giving a one-to-many presentation will be pleased to know that he did not deign to hit the delights of Olympia in West London, instead staying in his homeland of Canada and joining the audience virtually. Downes argues that learning is moving from a centrally controlled provision to a barely controlled group activity. In many spheres the internet is seen to be switching our behaviours from ‘push’ to ‘pull’ and this in one place where it is actually happening.

Individuals are using Web 2.0 technologies to interact and learn with whatever is available whether it is designed as learning content or not (and many times it will be not).

The question for information professionals working across all types of sectors and organisations is what will the impact be on them and their work is learning 2.0 in all its proliferations does turn out to be something more than marketing hype. One cast-iron reason why it may stay the course is the simple reason that people (and especially younger learners) appear to enjoy the freedom, interconnection, and interactivity that is on offer. A few years ago one of the ways that the internet was fostering learning (especially informal learning and knowledge sharing) was through communities of practice (CoPs). These CoPs are individuals which technology could connect and bring together so that they could share knowledge and improve both individual and organisational performance through sharing of experience in an unstructured way. Just by belonging to the community your experience, knowledge and expertise was assumed and accepted. Learning 2.0 can be seen as the young cousin of CoPs. Learning 2.0 is social network transformed for a learning purpose.

Part of the attraction of learning 2.0 is the barriers that it breaks down. We are usually defined as learners by the class we are in, or the educational institution or corporate learning activity to which we belong. Forget those sorts of boundaries with learning 2.0: the group is infinite, self-selecting, open and self-defining. The breaking down of these boundaries – a deconstruction which in learning terms some see as significant as the tearing down of the Berlin Wall – does raise some serious questions. For information professionals the question has to be what does this do to the use of the library resource and the scholarly approach in the process of learning?

Downes says we should think of learning as something that flows rather than static, with the use of tools such as Twitter and Facebook learning is partly about being immersed in a community. Crucially he says that learning 2.0 is not based on objects and contents – the sort of elements we may expect to find stored in a library and which therefore may not be immediately accessible. Instead learning 2.0 is learning where you need it and when you need it. This is more than just in time it is just in time PLUS what you want. It is learned-centred because it is both owned by, and of interest to, the learner. As learners we are moving away from being passive consumers to creating learning as we learn. Who could argue against such an appealing vision of learning? Learning 2.0 may have some of the answers to learning in the digital age but it does not yet offer the complete answer.