SXSW Takeaway: We Are So Behind
One of my favorite sessions at SXSW was the inspirational keynote by Jennifer Pahlka, founder and executive director of Code for America, which “helps governments work better for everyone with the people and the power of the web.”
Code for America helps governments become more connected, lean, and participatory through new opportunities for public service — both inside and outside government — so we’re not only making a direct impact everyday, but also creating the relationships and network for lasting change.
Her message was inspiring. But as I sat there rapt, I couldn’t help but think about higher ed and wonder, “Why not us?”
#highered, we are falling behind *government*. We need to get on this.
— Georgy Cohen (@radiofreegeorgy) March 13, 2012
In higher ed, we constantly complain about bloated enterprise software — whether it’s a CMS or an LMS — that doesn’t serve our needs. Projects take eons. Procurement drags on. Processes and programs are outdated. People are disconnected and overstretched. And our users suffer.
A CFA app for helping Boston parents figure out schools for their kids took 2 mos. to build. Thru procurement, would have taken 2 yrs. #sxsw
— Georgy Cohen (@radiofreegeorgy) March 13, 2012
Why, I thought, couldn’t the Code for America model extend to higher education — or, more broadly, nonprofits in general?
What if there was a Code for America equivalent for #highered? Committed to current, sustainable and mission-driven technical solutions.
— Georgy Cohen (@radiofreegeorgy) March 13, 2012
The mission of Code for America aligns with the needs of higher ed. It’s not just about building apps; it’s about creating a better environment internally that translates to better service for our community.
Code for America is about creating a demand for better, faster, cheaper, says @pahlkadot. We can do a lot with open, usable data. #sxsw
— Georgy Cohen (@radiofreegeorgy) March 13, 2012
CFA fellows helped government employees realize that they had the magic in them all along, while spreading awareness of digital realm. #sxsw
— Georgy Cohen (@radiofreegeorgy) March 13, 2012
RT @TWalk: “At its core, gov’t is what we do together.” CFA helps us think of shared problems & shared solutions, not ossified institutions.
— Georgy Cohen (@radiofreegeorgy) March 13, 2012
When I returned from SXSW, I saw this post from the University of Wisconsin-Waukesha’s Liz Gross (with whom I thankfully got to spend some quality time in Austin – she’s a smart one). She wrote about a session on next generation student support technologies she attended during the SXSWedu prelude to the interactive festival.
During the seven years I’ve worked on college campuses, very rarely have I seen vendor technology successfully implemented in a way that changes how we work, or reaches the full potential impact on student success. By and large, I don’t think this is the fault of the vendor or the product. I think it’s our fault.
On many college campuses, the policies, procedure, and infrastructure that make up our student support services have not changed much over the last 15-20 years. In many cases, the people in mid-level and senior positions haven’t changed much either. Neither have the associated job descriptions. Entrepreneurs are pitching products at us constantly, some of which truly have potential to change the way we serve students. But, changing the way we serve students requires us to change how we do things.
I was glad to read this post for many reasons, particularly coming on the heels of Pahlka’s keynote. Gross makes clear that change cannot be dropped into an organization like a baby from a stork. Apps don’t magically cure systemic problems. Change has to come from within. We have to be willing to evolve, whether that includes partnering with an external organization or simply revisiting the way we do business internally.
I still think that a higher ed equivalent or offshoot of Code for America could be a boon for our field. But the reason Code for America has shown such promise is because of the willingness of city governments to take a chance, embrace change and pursue innovation. Can we follow their lead?
