Disrupting+Class

Christensen, C.M., Horn, M.B. & Johnson, C.W. (2008). Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation will Change the Way the World Learns. Jossey-Bass. ISBN: 0-7879-7787-X

Roleplays for Wednesday 4/15/09:

Please visit: the Google Document [|Disrupting Class] for a summary & analysis of this text.

Clayton Christensen's [|website].

In anticipation of our conversations about the book "Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns", we would like to class to consider the following questions before we begin our discussions on Wednesday, March 25:
 * 1) What is "Disruptive Innovation"?
 * 2) How does "Disruptive Innovation" occur? What are the three stages/areas that are impacted to make the most effective change?
 * 3) Can Disruptive Innovation be an opportunity for Bowling Alone, Ohio? Where can Disruptive Innovation take place?
 * 4) How can we help support or encourage the community to embrace disruptive innovation in its classrooms? Is there a tangible or specific manner in which we can present this change to Bowling Alone, Ohio?
 * 5) Has anyone seen or experienced a direct form of Disruptive Innovation in their work? How can this experience be an asset to our work with Bowling Alone, Ohio?
 * 6) Which of Howard Gardner's 8 intelligences and learning styles most closely resonate with your own education? How do you learn best?
 * 7) Is the idea of customizing education a reality for Bowling Alone, Ohio? If so, what ideas can we recommend?
 * 8) According to Christensen, Horn, and Johnson, computer technology is the way of the future for diplacing the current eduation system? Do you believe this? How can this be beneficial or not for customizing education?

Text Analysis: **Introduction:** Christensen, Horn, & Johnson’s describe their view of what is wrong with our public school system and present a model on how to fix it. The authors start by outlining what they feel the common expectations of schools are and give, “The four common aspirations of schools,” which are:  After establishing these aspirations as the purpose for schools, they explain why other issues such as: are often blamed for contributing to the disfunction of our classrooms, but in fact are not the real problems. The authors assert that, in fact, the problem with the education system in the United States is intrinsic motivation. Students lack it as a result of the teaching methods being used. They go on to assert that: Students who excel in the current system do so because they identify with the teaching methods being used, and excell as a result.
 * 1) Maximize human potential.
 * 2) Facilitate a vibrant, participative democracy in which we have an informed electorate that is capable of not being “spun” by self-interested leaders.
 * 3) Hone the skills, capabilities, and attitudes that will help our economy remain prosperous and economically competitive.
 * 4) Nurture the understanding that people can see things differently and that these differences merit respect rather than persecution.
 * Underfunding
 * Too few computers
 * Unprepared students & parents
 * The teaching model here in the United States is simply broken
 * Teachers' unions
 * Or a combination of all these things
 * Text Analysis & Questions:**

Most of us know that we all learn differently. But there is considerable uncertainty about what those differences are. The purpose of the book isn’t to classify the differences or to argue the semantics between them. Rather the purpose is to allow readers to visualize how students might learn in different ways what ever the domain, field, or subject is. Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner has led research on this known as Multiple intelligences. Gardner basically says that Intelligence, IQ is much more than a numeric score//. · The ability to solve problems that one encounters in real life. · The ability to generate new problems to solve. · The ability to make something or offer a service that is valued within one’s culture. Since we all learn differently and have different strengths those prominent strengths need to be classified if we intend to cater to those strengths. Gardner classified eight different intelligences. While most people have capacity in each of the eight intelligences most people only excel in two or three of them. They are: 1. **//Linguistic://** Ability to think in words and to use language to express complex meanings: Walt Whitman 2. **//Logical-Mathematical://** Ability to calculate, quantify, consider propositions and hypotheses and perform complex mathematical operations: Albert Einstein 3. **//Spatial://** Ability to think in three-dimensional ways; perceive external and internal imagery; re-create, transform, or modify images; navigate oneself and objects through space; and produce or decode graphic information: Frank Lloyd Wright 4. **//Bodily-Kinesthetic://** Ability to manipulate objects and fine-tune physical skills: Michael Jordan 5. **//Musical://** Ability to distinguish and create pitch, melody, rhythm, and tone: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. 6. **//Interpersonal://** Ability to understand and interact effectively with others: Mother Theresa 7. **//Intrapersonal://** Ability to construct and accurate self-perception and to use this knowledge in planning and directing one’s life: Sigmund Freud 8. **//Naturalist://** Ability to observe patterns in nature, identify and classify objects, and understand natural and human-made systems: Rachel Carson What all this has to do with teaching and learning is fairly obvious, and if material is presented to us in the form of our dominant intelligence, we will understand and learn it better and faster. The authors assert that the real key here is that when information is presented to us in this manner we become intrinsically motivated to learn it. It is important to remember that the intelligences are only one dimension of learning; within each there is a second dimension of different learning styles, a nd within this second dimension there is a third dimension of learning pace. Given that we all learn in such different ways we might assume that we would teach in different ways. But think back to your experience in school, and it probably didn't happen that way. Use the example of algebra: If you as a student didn’t learn at a medium or faster speed, through a written and/or oral style, and by a logical mathematical intelligence, you probably either struggled to get through the class or just sank deeper into bewilderment. Changing schools can be likened to a room with cords tying everything in the room together. You just want to put the phone on the other side of the desk but it’s tied to the file cabinet and the file cabinet is tied to a picture on the wall which is tied to a chair and so on. While you want to move just the phone, half the room gets rearranged when you move it. There are so many points of interdependence within the public school system changing just one thing can become very dificult or even impossible. The students who succeed do so largely because their intelligence happens to match the dominant paradigm used in a particular classroom and it creates a viscous cycle, the students who naturally enjoy the teaching approach they encounter in a given class are more likely to excel in that class and further pursue that subject, ultimately creating “intellectual clicks” composed of curriculum developers, teachers, and the best students in that area because their brains are all wired consistently. //**Chapter 2**// Contrary to widespread perception, and despite the obviouse problems in schools, on average public schools have a steady record of improving on the metrics by which they are judged. Similarly c ompanies typically improve their products at a much faster pace then customers need so that products, which at one point were not good enough, ultimately pack in more features and functions than customers can use. The products don’t change the market they just show the current users there is something better than what they have. But from time to time, things get shaken up when a different type of innovation emerges in an industry- a disruptive innovation. A disruptive innovation is not a breakthrough improvement. Instead of sustaining the traditional improvement trajectory, it disrupts that trajectory by bringing to the market a product or service that actually is not as good as what companies historically had been selling. Because it isn’t as good, the existing users/customers can’t use it, but by making the product affordable and easy to use, the disruptive innovation benefits people who had previously been unable to consume the product. Because original users don’t benefit from the disruptive innovation the companies have a difficult time engaging simultaneously in the disruptive innovation and their existing products. On page 48 the book uses the example of the Apple IIe and the DEC mini computer. Other examples might be: - Wal-Mart and Target disrupting department stores - Sony disrupting RCA with the transistor radio - Apple disrupting recording companies with the ipod How does this relate to education? America followed the assembly line to industrialize and achieve global strength, and we followed the same assembly line model for the educating our children, and with the advent of standardized tests a fixed assembly line education was further cemented as the way to educate. But as other countries have caught up and the need to provide specialized education to remain competitive, society has asked schools to pursue a new metric of improvement from within the existing organization, which was designed to improve along the old performance metric. So while businesses struggle to adapt to a disruptive innovation, schools have been forced to. Most school administrators and teachers are strongly motivated to improve, and while people have spent billions of dollars putting computers into US schools it has resulted in little change in how students learn, the result has been that educators have catered to the intelligence type that has been historically privileged in each subject. **//Chapter 3//** The reason for this disappointing result is that the way schools have employed computers has been perfectly predictable, and logical, but wrong. They are used to sustain and only marginally improve the way subjects are already taught. While teachers are limited by the time they teach the subjects they can teach, and the intelligences they can cater to, computers are not constrained by time and intelligences. Examples of Sony using disruptive innovation to get in and ultimately lead in a field. Powerful software and hardware often get used in limited ways to simply maintain rather than transform prevailing instructional practices. By migrating instruction delivery to custom-configured vehicles able to meet the individual students’ needs, schools can realize the dream of transforming the classroom from a monolithic one into a student centric one where all students can learn in the ways their individual minds are wired to learn. **//Chapter 4 - "Disruptively Deploying Computers"//** p. 90 "Up until this point in time, student-centric technology in the form of computers hasn't had much impact on mainstream public education. But as is the case with all successful disruptions, if you know where to look - competing against nonconsumption - computer-based learning is methodically gaining ground as students, educators, and families find it to be better than the alternative - having nothing at all."
 * //Chapter 1//**
 * IQ is:**//
 * Dimension 1 – The material was probably only presented in the manner that corresponded best to how the teacher learned and understood it, probably Logical-Mathematical.
 * Dimension 2 – The material was probably only presented in one or perhaps two styles probably written on the board and/or spoken out loud.
 * Dimension 3 - There was a set amount of time dedicated to a concept: if some students didn’t master it in the two class periods allotted, the class still moved on. Likewise, if some students only needed 15 minutes of the period to master the concept, they still had to spend the rest of the period in boredom.

This passage is the essence of chapter 4 as the authors break down ways that disruptive innovation can be successful by
 * 1) finding a need for a new technology (which in the case of education is a new methodology for giving students the opportunity to learn in a way that best meets their intelligences, learning styles, and learning speeds)
 * 2) the steps in which a disruption can occur, which is to 1st develop software for computer based learning and 2nd to specialize in student-centric technology. (Create it, then specialize it to meet individual needs)
 * 3) identifying the areas in which a market has begun to take root and can continue to grow

In addition, chapter 4 addresses how research and trends can predict where disruptions have the potential to occur by following patterns within the current market and then identifying ways in which to accelerate the pattern so that a substitution of one type of technology for another can happen.

Then lastly, this chapter looks at the future of our classrooms - specifically citing examples of what those classrooms can look like physically, how these changes could change the way students learn, and the way in which we need/can shift assessing students' learning. For example the Virtual ChemLab allows students to go at their own pace and practice experiments that could be too costly or dangerous if conducted live. A potentially huge benefit of student centric learning through computer based programs is that students get to go step by step moving through a program until it is mastered instead of being forced to stay in pace with the class and only mastering portions of the material.

Questions to consider as we discuss Chapter 4:
 * 1) Christensen mentions 7 areas where computer-based courses are taking root (AP Classes, rural schools, urban secondary schools, homebound/homeschooled students, credit make-up courses, private tutoring, and pre-kindergarten). Is it a reality for Bowling Alone, Ohio to institute these methods for students in their communities? What would be the benefits? What could be the disadvantages?
 * 2) Are there other areas of non-consumption in Bowling Alone, Ohio where we could recommend that the community be innovative with testing new technology as a way to embrace change, create social capital, and utilize student-centric learning in addition to the 7 possible areas mentioned by Christensen?

This chapter examines the details of a commercial system and why it's essential to have a new commercial system replace an existing one in order for a disruption to be successful. Additionally, this chapter reviews three basic business-models in relation to a commercial system and how the potential of student-centric learning directly correlates to these models. Education is primarily a "value-chain" system in which experts write information in books and then teachers use that information to "add value" to the students all within a commercial system where the fundamental purpose is to keep costs low and profits high. The education system at present is designed to mass-produce students and so there is limited opportunity for individualized attention or individualized tools with which to teach because it is less cost effective. Christensen discusses that books are written by the dominant intelligences, which in turn resonates most with those students who possess those dominant intelligences and therefore are most likely to excel in the current system. In relation to the commercial aspect of education, books that serve the majority are what sell because that is what decision makers push to set better prices (in essence it is cheaper to produce more of the same then less of many). So we're mass-producing tools to place in the classroom because it is cheaper and creates the greatest profits (or in the case of education, keeps costs the lowest). The system is not designed for individualized attention, so the current commercial system needs to be replaced in order for a new teaching methodology to take place. At present the same is true for computers. It's expensive to individualize computer software, so computers are not taking root to "advance education" because in the current commercial system it is not cost-effective.
 * //Chapter 5 - "The System for Student-Centric Learning"//**
 * 1) __Solution Shops__: employ "experts in a field" that offer solutions to problems they diagnose. (i.e.: consulting firms, lawyers, medical specialists, etc.) (p. 126)
 * 2) __Value-Chains__: take in a product, improve it, and deliver a better product after their work with the original is done. Such is the case with our current education system. Students enter school hopefully are transformed through the experiences and leave better (more educated) after they leave. (p. 126-127)
 * 3) __Facilitated User Networks__: host a venue for an exchange or interaction amongst the consumers. Examples include insurance companies, telecommunications, and banking systems. The businesses are a venue for transactions to occur. (p. 127)

While the technology exists to create software that meets individual students’ needs, it does not necessarily comply with current forms of assessment, such as standardized testing, which is the primary measure for most schools to receive funding. So placing new technology – with student centric learning programs – is not optimal or as effective unless a disruption occurs within both the business model and the commercial system. So what Christensen is saying is that the technology must change just as the “way of doing business” in education must change in order for a shift to occur. The authors state that switching to “tutorial products” rather than “course material”, a disruption will occur as the business model moves from a “value-chain” model to a “facilitated user network.” In the new system, students, parents, and teachers can self-generate technologies that meet students’ needs and offer tools to one another through a system that facilitates a platform for sharing knowledge and programs can occur. The chapter ends by citing examples, such as Merrill Lynch and Southwest Airlines, as having success in an industry by offering something competitors could not in a way not examine by the current system, which in turn disrupted the system and made a shift into something new being offered. Questions to consider as we discuss Chapter 5:
 * 1) If the benefit of “user generated content” is that students have the power to master that which they are learning, and teaching it to others, how can we embrace this idea or leverage it to help the students, parents, teacher, and other community members of Bowling Alone, Ohio to find their passions?
 * 2) Thinking back to our discussions on Kotter's //Leading Change//, can we create urgency in Bowling Alone, Ohio to institute "student centric learning" by expressing the benefits of “user generated content”?

This chapter emphasizes that a child’s ability to begin developing their cognitive skills before the age of one will directly relate to their educational success. Specifically, the more that can be done to: the greater the chance of a student’s success in school and ultimately the easier the job will be for “school systems” to educate. The authors discuss how neuro-scientific research and other observations indicate that “language dancing” can have direct correlation to a child’s IQ, vocabulary, & reading comprehension because of the number of times that neurotransmitters are released create “more efficient” synaptic connections. In essence, the more we use our brains, the better they function. Language Dancing is defined as that “extra talk” that parents speak to their children separate from the “come do this” or “it’s time for that” type of business talk. It’s adult language directed at the child and engages the child to be attentive to the speaker. <span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; msofareastfontfamily: 'Times New Roman'mso-ansi-language;">The unfortunate piece is that less educated adults tend to speak this “adult talk” or engage in “language dancing” less often the more advantaged or educated parents. Therefore creating a greater gap of disparity and disadvantage to lower-income or impoverished communities such is the case in many urban areas. <span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; msofareastfontfamily: 'Times New Roman'mso-ansi-language;">One suggestion by the authors is to teach children to be parents before they are parents. For example, offer courses in “methods of early cognitive development” during high school much like used to be the case with home economics or other trade options. <span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; msofareastfontfamily: 'Times New Roman'mso-ansi-language;">Questions to consider for chapter 6: <span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;"> Building Descriptive Bodies of Understanding, see **__Christiansen’s Pyramid (pp. 164, 169)__** INDUCTIVE LOOP (Up the Right side of pyramid)—p. 164 Descriptive [ e.g Chapter 1 concept of different types of intelligences] DEDUCTIVE LOOP (Down Left side of pyramid)—p. 169 Prescriptive 1. Use anomalies to improve the model/theory e.g. of Manned flight’s early attempts that looked to birds as experts and ignored the anomalies (bats=wings without feathers; ostriches=birds without flight. Strap wings to a person or bicycle because birds can do it did not work. Online once the airfoil was discovered did it provide ability to give lift.
 * //Chapter 6 - "The Impact of the Earliest Years on Students' Success"//**
 * 1) <span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; msofareastfontfamily: 'Times New Roman'mso-ansi-language;">create intellectual capacity,
 * 2) <span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; msofareastfontfamily: 'Times New Roman'mso-ansi-language;">cultivate a strong, positive self-esteem, and
 * 3) <span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; msofareastfontfamily: 'Times New Roman'mso-ansi-language;">stimulate intellectual curiosity,
 * 1) <span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; msofareastfontfamily: 'Times New Roman'mso-ansi-language;">Can we create or encourage social capital as a way to bring the community of Bowling Alone, Ohio together at the exigency of their children’s well being/education?
 * 2) <span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; msofareastfontfamily: 'Times New Roman'mso-ansi-language;">What ways can we create urgency to encourage parents to begin a child’s education before the age of 1? How can we help facilitate Language Dancing or other forms of cognitive development?
 * //Chapter 7 - "Impoving Education Research"//** (pp. 159-177)
 * 1) Step 1: Observation
 * 2) “describe phenomenon as accurately as possible” (p. 163)
 * 3) Create constructs “Abstractions that help us understand the essence of the phenomena being studied.” (p. 163)
 * 1) Step 2: Classification
 * 2) E.g. Small v. large school definition—operationalized based on given number of students
 * 3) Private v. public
 * 4) Urban v. suburban v. rural
 * 5) “Researchers categorize in an attempt to highlight **__possibly meaningful__** relationships between the characteristics of these categories and the outcomes of interest.” (p. 165) emphasis mine
 * 6) Step 3: Defining Relationships
 * 7) Show correlations
 * 8) **__ Remember: correlation is not causation! __**
 * 9) Correlation can not predict for specific students, just averages
 * 10) “While correlative studies such as these are preliminary steps on the road to robust bodies of understanding, most educational research is trapped in this stage and does not progress beyond it.” (p. 166)
 * 11) Disservice when researchers stop here.

2. Trick is knowing the exact circumstance that allows for improvement: a. ‘On average, teaching reading using Phonics produces better results,’ (p. 170) v. b. ‘If the student is strong in this intelligence, then teaching reading with Phonics produces better results; but if the student is strong in this other intelligence, then teaching reading with a Whole Language approach produces superior outcomes.’ (p. 170)

3. Research should focus on taking “predictably successful actions that are appropriate for their situation.” (Honig, 2006, as quoted in Christensen, p. 172)

Research should focus on what is implementable and what works for: a. Whom b. Where c. When d. Why

Without the specificity, not very helpful to have full correlative studies, because the optimal action, on average, doesn’t work best in each situation (p. 173). Avoid taking the “inappropriate” action for the circumstance.

KEY DEFINITIONS: 1. Reliability-increase sample size to minimize probability to improve chances that relationship is not statistical chance 2. Internal validity-Conclusions can be logically derived from study premises with no other interceding explanation of correlations. Very hard to weed that second part out. 3. External validity—Great reliability (e.g. large n) does not assist. Have exhaustively and mutually exclusively categorized every possibility: “I’m in //this// situation, and I need to do it //this// way to be successful. But when I find myself in //that// circumstance, the same approach won’t work. I’ve got to do it //that// way.” (p. 173) Questions to consider for CHAPTER 7: 1. How can the citizens of Bowling Alone, OH use inductive and deductive reasoning on Christensen's pyramid model? What might this look like in real world application?

2. What level of specificity in regard to education might be acceptable to tradtionalists?

Similar to Kotter’s Leading Change discussion of the guiding coalition and Bolman & Deal’s political framework FIGURE 8.2 The tools of cooperation (p. 187) Extent to which people agree on what they want X Extent to which people agree on cause and effect (4 quadrants) Christensen's Tools of Cooperation (from [|webpage link])
 * //Chapter 8 - "Forgin a Consensus for Change"//** (p. 179-196)

Mechanisms of motion: success and common language shift up and rightword. Failure and disunity shift downward and left.

Power tools (structural/unhealthy political) Leadership tools (roughly/healthy political) Culture tools (symbolic) Management tools (Human resource/ some structural)

Separation strategy can be useful

1. Under what frame does your organization operate?
 * Questions to consider for CHAPTER 8:**

2. What quadrant does Bowling Alone, OH occupy?

2. Under what context is separation a good strategy?

FIGURE 9.1: Relationship between the type of task and the type of organization **(see p. 203)**
 * //Chapter 9 - "Giving Schools the Right Structure to Innovate"//** (p. 197-221)

Functional/departmental—component level (product) and step level (process)

Lightweight/coordinative/matrix—when a predictable level of interdependence must take place for success/transformation

Heavyweight—enables transcendence of structural boundaries and interact in new ways—they bring their departmental expertise, but their mindset is not representative. Collective responsibility to improve and bring everything together. Unlike the lightweight group, needed when interdependence is unpredictable. For innovating. Expensive and coordinative overhead. If maintained indefinitely, redundant and unnecessary. “If executives kept heavyweight teams in place after they had defined a product or process architecture and worked out the interfaces among the pieces of the system, they would create redundant, unnecessary overhead cost.” (p. 207).

“When managers mandate creating a new architecture for a product or a process and then expect their people to achieve this from within the confines of their departmental units, it becomes frustrating to work in a functional silo. This is because team members become encumbered with functional details before they resolve system-level choices."(p. 207).

In education/schools: Heavyweight teams 1. Chartered schools i.  “If a student comes from a certain background nad has these life circumstances, then that student should attend this type of school that is designed to work with and fit that particular circumstance.” (p. 211) ii. “It’s OK if one tpe of school does not work for all students. We need different types of schools.” (p. 212). 2. Project-based learning schools (e.g. The Met in Providence, RI) i.  Real-world internships ii. Advisers v. teachers iii. Valuable skills beyond the tests/curriculum. iv. Test scores show they are doing well. v.  Project-based learning is not for all students 3. Student-centric curriculum/technologies (e.g. High Tech High in San Diego, CA) i.  Not technology attached to current practices ii. “To allow school to be like the students’ real world…. Sure, technology is all over the place here. But it’s for production—not consumption. We actually have kids here who’ve received patents over the past couple of years.” (Rosenstock, quoted in Christensen, p. 215) iii. Teachers are more like coaches and were specifically selected because of that interest iv. No correlation between credential and competence, Rosenstock runs a School of Education along with the HS  v.   “Team taught, group learned, and assessed experientially.” (p. 215)—e.g. hovercraft that flies? 4. Boston Public pilot schools—allows a lot of freedom within each school i.  Idea is to create heavyweight teams to rewrite curriculums
 * 1) functional/lightweight=
 * 2) academic departments. Science dept. does not need approval from Spanish dept. to introduce a new lab experiment.
 * 3) High school subject heads of each dept.

Heavyweight team recommendations: Public traditional notions of what school is: “This public sentiment often arises because the more influential members of society with voices in the political arena often are those who are the most successful in traditional schools. They therefore tend to be suspect of these ‘flimsier’ notions of schools. But new types of schools should be able to get around this historical problem if they do two things They should openly acknowledge that these innovative schools are not for everone; instead, they are for specific groups of children who historically have not succeeded in the traditional schools. And, by submitting to rigorous standards of accountability…” (pp. 218-219).
 * 1) Aggressively codify (like Toyota) what makes them work, and under what circumstances organization will use them
 * 2) Effectively utilize these teams in the right circumstance and to the right result
 * 3) “Codification could eliminate much of the ‘overhead’ in time and effort that teachers take to create redundant solutions, which is a significant cost.” (p. 217).
 * 4) Figure out circumstance and causality (If-then statements)
 * 5) School districts will do more of the replication of chartered schools’ best models—change in charter school business model—Districts would treat Chartered schools as heavyweight teams of the district v. competition

Criticism of geographically-based schools re: assumptions in likeness of learning styles and preparation/ “Generally speaking, elementary schools’ structure is much better suited to accommodating children’s different needs than is the structure in the upper grades because of its more flexible nature within the classroom. But as students progress in age, georgraphic categorization makes less sense…. Do we really think that just because someone lives a block away from someone else that he or she automatically has the same schooling needs?” (p. 211)

Incremental changes can be handled by lightweight and functional groups, but “When the architecture of a product or process needs to change, however, unpredictable interdependencies often arise. Components need to ineract with different components in ways that people cannot anticipate or specific in advance…. Resolving these unpredictable interdependencies often means that people must trade off one department’s interests in favor of another’s in order to achieve an optimal system level performance. Sometimes people create new components that eliminate the need for others.“ (p. 204)

Autonomous—for disruptive business model innovations. “A project is disruptive if the existing business units in a company cannot prioritize it relative to other inversments they have the option of making. In such cases, an autonomous team is a tool to create a new economic model that can prioritize and profitably serve the new target market.” (p. 205). For tackling disruptive models (e.g. regular Toyota cars are functional teams v. hybrid Prius). Hybrid competitors designed with lightweight teams

Shortcoming with this chapter is that it is situated only in the structural frame. Though Chapter 8's chart introduces other frames, the heavyweight team concept does not address the human relations, symbolic, or political frames. Specifically, speaking, when someone innovates and fails, are they punished? Is it easier just to play it safe? What role does the concept of innovation play symbolically? How does the structure of the heavyweight team mitigate against those operating in the political frame? From a human performance perspective, how can we train people to innovate?

Example of Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) v. Data General (DG).

DEC had minicomputer out first. DG thought they were licked. Upon inspecting the internals, DG could see a roadmap of silo’d or compartmentalized processes. The framework had been laid based on DEC’s earlier successes, making it more difficult for DEC engineers to redo the whole system.

1. Under what type of team structure for component/product and process do you operate? For how long?
 * Questions to Consider for //Chapter 9//**

2. In the educational arena of Bowling Alone, OH where would we suggest the usage of heavyweight or autonomous teams to innovate or handle disruptive innovations in the market place?

Related video: Sir Ken Robinson - TED video on Education media type="custom" key="3010824"

**Additions for Context/Supporting & Relevant Issues**
Colorado comes to its senses: **__[|BREAKING NEWS: 1ST TIME IN HISTORY SENATE REJECTS LONG BILL!]__** Article from 9news.com about the Secretary of Education's comments to students. If you read down they talk specifically about the Bruce Randolf School, the first autonomous public school in Colorado. Many public schools went 'autonomous' last year. I believe this article was first posted on Tuesday. []

Denver Post article from 4/8/09. Supports premise of __Disrupting Class__: =[|Aggressive Schools to Reap Reward: U.S. Grants Will go To Those Taking Novel Risks that Work, Educators are Told]=

[] (How Colorado is considering cutting about 50% of state support to higher education and risks losing stimulus money because of that). If we look on the bright side, the fact that Colorado already provides such a small amount of support to higher education means the cuts won't be as bad as other states (percentage wise), but it would still be bad. **The comments are more alarming than the actual article in my opinion--Ari.**

[] (Adams State College in Colorado is considering a 32% tuition hike)

Christensen, C.M., Horn, M.B. & Johnson, C.W. (2008). Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation will Change the Way the World Learns.New York, NY. ISBN: 978-0-07-159206-2

Nice way for even the bus driver to feed into education goals: [].