Comments on: Why P2PU should be a platform and not a product http://sharing-nicely.net/2011/10/platform/ Philipp Schmidt's shared learnings Mon, 12 Aug 2013 14:10:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.8 By: Sharing Nicely – Learning Good » Blog Archive » Eureka. It’s a lab – not (just) a platform. http://sharing-nicely.net/2011/10/platform/#comment-395 Wed, 19 Oct 2011 07:50:47 +0000 http://sharing-nicely.net/?p=709#comment-395 [...] and learning innovation made me think more about the platform conversation we’ve been having (here and on the mailing list). Besides giving an elite university a lot of cash, what are other ways we [...]

]]>
By: Philipp http://sharing-nicely.net/2011/10/platform/#comment-394 Wed, 19 Oct 2011 06:39:23 +0000 http://sharing-nicely.net/?p=709#comment-394 @Karen – you are absolutely right that being a platform is hard, hard work, and potentially expensive.

What are some of the platforms in this space we should learn from?

And yes – just platform isn’t enough. We originally agreed on three core values for P2PU: open, community, peer learning. I think the platform idea is related to the original thoughts about open and peer-learning, but the community aspect is crucial and needs to be front and centre.

And I’m not sure that “platform” is really the right term. I think you and I have a similar understanding of what a platform is, but I find myself having to explain it to people outside of the tech-world. I’ll do a follow up post about reframing it slightly.

An open platform for peer-learning? Maybe. A community? Definitely!!! ;-)

]]>
By: karen http://sharing-nicely.net/2011/10/platform/#comment-386 Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:56:16 +0000 http://sharing-nicely.net/?p=709#comment-386 If you’re deciding to be a platform, you better be a really good one. There are a lot of platforms out there. Being a platform means a commitment to serious and ongoing development ($). And yes, I agree that it must be “extendable, hackable, malleable” and customizable. (API)

To be a top-rate peer learning environment in the way I think P2PU construes seems integrally tied to content and methodology and even worldview. In peer learning, all of this may be more important than “platform.” If you have a great platform but don’t monitor content and it turns into a giant Pokemon site, you probably haven’t won. So how do content, community, and methods tie into this? Perhaps this relates to the “one great product” you talk about? I’m not sure, but it seems to me that P2PU needs to be more than a platform.

How does being a platform help with sustainability? Will you sell or license the platform to organizations? If that is the plan, see paragraph #1. For organizations I work with in education, I am highly recommending free, open platforms, because a) many are superior to propriety/fee-based platforms and b) most organizations I work with can’t sustain paying for platforms. (Even if they could, they’d be better off spending money on people and content.)

Just my thoughts. It will be interesting to see how this moves ahead. These are critically important issues.

]]>
By: John Britton http://sharing-nicely.net/2011/10/platform/#comment-385 Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:27:43 +0000 http://sharing-nicely.net/?p=709#comment-385 Spot on. We’re building the platform for peer learning.

]]>