"Savvies" vs "Unsavvies": What web skills should contemporary professionals possess?

What web skills should contemporary professionals possess? To hear many educators, you would think that "web-savviness" was something that could be outsourced to a personal assistant or some other "non-professional". This view is just plain wrong and the consequences for Australian professionals will be disasterous.

There is a great deal of interest in online and blended learning in the higher education sector. However, many of the complacent views about web technologies are held by those in positions of power - often the same people who do not know how to use the technologies.

There is nothing new about some people lagging behind others in terms of "tech-savviness", but there is a divide in higher education between the "savvies" and the "unsavvies". The "unsavvies" want to make sure the pedagogy is sound and that there is some theoretical approach to the use of web technologies in the classroom. The "savvies" know that these normative questions have already been answered. The trick is how to implement new technologies in a setting which is not geared up to do so.

What is not clear is what web skills contemporary professionals should possess. Clearly, the higher education sector is the place where most of this skills development will occur. But why are web skills desirable?

With Australian broadband lagging the rest of the developed world, the time-lag between infrastructure development and skills development is ever-widening. This means that Australian professionals are already at a disadvantage in comparison with professionals from abroad. Further, a quick glance at the higher education sector and the state of Australian "Government 2.0" initiatives demonstrates that web interactivity is far from being a priority in Australia. But it should be.

Why? The first reason is productivity. The rise of neoliberalism in the West saw not only the end of free tea and coffee at work, but executives operating photocopiers and using fax machines. Just about every minute detail of day-to-day administration is now conducted by the professional - the once-ubiquitous personal assistant is reserved for only the very-well-to-do.

Web technologies enable more minute-to-minute tasks to be undertaken by professionals, rather than by a throng of support staff. Professionals might not be happy about this for a while, but who remembers when it was a "right" to have free tea and coffee at work? [International Roast Caterers Blend was hardly something to cry about losing anyway!] The point is, the efficiencies which were produced by reducing administrative staff were consumed by the system the same way web technologies would be - I am surprised the closet neoliberals haven't discovered this one yet.

Second, there is a growing need for professionals to establish a Net identity. Like it or not, it is only the few at the end of their work life cycle who can hold out to retire before web technologies are just plain normal. Think of Sir Robert Menzies - avoiding television and retiring before it was the political norm. Now imagine a politician who avoided television because they weren't familiar with the technology. Now imagine the inefficiencies created by a professional who needs to pay someone to set up their blog, social networking sites and so on. Can you even imagine paying someone to set up a Facebook account? But watch the "unsavvies" trying to do it by themselves.

Third, technology has changed. Again. Imagine a professional who refused to use a word processor, favouring the humble pen. Granted, there are a few of these people around, but they are either VERY senior or VERY VERY rich. But what about using a wiki for collaborative work? Why would you use a MS Word document when you could use a wiki? Maybe because you don't know how to use a wiki? Now watch how long it takes a handful of people to put a MS Word document together from 50 or more other Word documents. Days. Sometimes weeks. A wiki would have solved this dilemma in real-time but only if people know how to use a wiki.

I haven't even mentioned the non-organisational/non-administrative good bits yet. I could go on but I won't. The simple answer to the question posed here is that professionals need all the web skills they can reasonably get. If they don't, someone else will. But in the meantime, our productivity could improve at a rate that beggars belief. And that is the trouble - some people just won't believe it.

The trick now is to get universities geared up to teach web skills. Maybe not as a matter of direct teaching, but as a generic skill (or an assumed skill like the ability to use a word processor). But before we get ahead of ourselves, we need the infrastructure to teach these skills.  Think of the "Medieval Helpdesk" but this time the helpdesk is behind the technology curve. This brings us full circle - if the dominant professionals are not also "savvies", are they best placed to make the right decisions about what skills contemporary professionals should possess? I think not.

Time for a Specialist Comms Regulator

With the ACCC increasing its staff ahead of NBN Co's ownership of the wholesale communications network, it is timely to consider a new, specialist communications regulator for Australia to tackle the issues of technological convergence which are largely being ignored in the detail of the NBN.

In 2001, the Productivity Commission found little evidence to suggest that a specialist regulator works any better than a generalist regulator. However, using a comparative approach at the industry level, researchers suggest that a specialist regulator generally produces better outcomes in the communications industry.

The current laws governing Australia's communications industries are outdated, and competition is better seen as occurring across all media communications industries rather than just '"telecoms" or "media".

The ACMA already has this mandate, but the regulator is really the ACCC's poor cousin when it comes to its impact on the communications sector.

Canada's policy and regulatory model provides an important example of how the Australian framework might function, with the ACMA or a similar body taking on the specialist role adopted by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). 

Already, NBN Co is creating a few challenges for the ACCC:

ACCC Commissioner Ed Willett: This is something of an uncommon process for the ACCC, [having to assess] an undertaking for a company which currently has no market power and no network. What rules should govern this new company to ensure a healthy competitive industry and positive outcomes for consumers are some of the questions we are grappling with.

Far be it for me to suggest that the ACCC cannot do its job, but comparison with other jurisdictions suggests that specialist regulators are not so focused on competition theory and are better able to take on a more active regulatory role in the industry. This is particularly important during interconnection negotiations which will no doubt take up a great deal of the regulators time and effort.

Why change to a specialist regulator? According to Roehrich & Armstrong (2002):

[A]n active regulator is more likely to produce an active negotiation [in interconnection arrangements].

At $43 billion, a little bit of the pie spent on a specialist regulator is surely a good investment. Why this issue never enters the debate over the NBN is certainly a reflection of the interests that are being protected, rather than a focus on the interests which should be being served.

3D television just a far-off dream for most Australians

While sitting in my lounge room last night enjoying less-than-broadband speeds at the price of a 1.5 Gbps connection, SBS News mentioned that 3D televisions would be available in Australia from as early as next month. 

The big problem is that there is no 3D content broadcast by Australian providers. But SBS may have other plans.

According to the Australian newspaper, the SBS is considering broadcasting a FIFA World Cup soccer match in 3D. The Australian also reported some findings of an Ipsos survey:

This week, a study from research firm Ipsos found 70 per cent of Australians were aware of 3D TV and 22 per cent said they would "definitely or probably" buy one. "There is definite excitement about 3D TV, which is interesting considering 53 per cent of the respondents haven't seen a 3D movie, let alone 3D TV," Ipsos executive director of media Mark Grunert said.

Movies and computer games are expected to drive demand for 3D televisions. But where does it all end? And is it really that simple?

This is how I have reacted to the slow implementation of new technologies:

1. After paying more than $350 per typical month for home telephone, Foxtel, broadband, two mobile phones  (which included an iMate JAS-JAM - like a pretend iPhone) a few years ago, I ditched the mobiles and Foxtel. I also waited to see what would happen with the "Big Box". The result has been a more peaceful life (people called my mobile when they wanted something from me, rarely did I need it for me). Now, when I am away from my desk - well, now I am really offline. Try it sometime!
2. An inexpensive Bush digital set-top box fixed the old television problem, and a PC to TV adaptor means I can watch anything on the Net on my old TV - as long as the rest of my suburb is asleep because the broadband is always dialup at peak periods.
3. I am glad I didn't spend a cent on a big television now that 3D TVs are on the way. I will either save a fortune buying an "old"  new flatscreen TV or a second-hand unit.

Assuming Australians are rational economic actors, it would simply be irrational to purchase a 3D television unless you were either very rich, or you happen to really need to see soccer in 3D. The figures from Ipsos certainly suggest that Australians are interested in the technology (even if they haven't seen a 3D movie), but will they pay for it?

My guess is they will not. And why? Because in terms of communications technologies, Australia is now caught in the past. Convergence is largely ignored and the traditional boundaries continue to dictate the structure of the media communications industry.

It is obvious that competition is the answer to the current state of the industry. But this doesn't just mean Telstra. The ABC and SBS are the only providers delivering full-length television shows via the Net. There is no incentive for the other networks to do so.

Competition requires a number of competitors. If the boundaries which currently separate the traditional communications industries in Australia were removed, there would instantly be more competitors and therefore more competition. No longer could the old players dominate their peculiar and protected markets.

3D television provides an opportunity for the old rules to be re-written. Television networks, pay TV providers and telecommunications companies could all compete with movie-makers and even computer game companies once the new game is played.

But until policy-makers choose to recognise that each new communications technology is another nail in the old game, policy will be the reason Australians are still dreaming about watching affordable 3D televisions in the years to come, and not a lack of demand.