* Reader responses concerning the future of user groups
In a recent newsletter http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/frame/2005/0704wan2.html, we observed that several years ago we had an abundance of user groups both for advancing technology and for jointly advocating for new and improved services. At the end of the newsletter, we asked whether you felt there was still a need for these organizations, and we’ll begin sharing those responses today.
One response came from our longtime associate, Michael Finneran. Michael wrote, “I too have watched the disappearance of users groups, and limits on the time of in-house experts is clearly to blame. The good people simply are too busy doing their jobs to ‘donate time’ outside of their organizations.
“While having a place to talk shop and build a network of contacts is important, the educational opportunities that user groups provided is still critical. Users need accurate, objective, and unbiased information to help in decision making. While vendors can provide ‘training,’ anyone who thinks they’re getting an unbiased view from someone who has something to sell them is way too naïve to be working in this field.
“I draw a clear distinction between ‘training’ and ‘certification’ programs. Vendor certification programs essentially deal with the hands-on processes of getting a particular vendor’s equipment to work in the configuration you have specified. Basically it assumes that the important decisions (i.e. What carrier and network service will be used, what the network configuration will be, and whose equipment will be used) have already been made!
“As someone who has worked in network training for 25 years, I see that network professionals are not getting access to the type of ongoing training they need to stay proficient in their field. Time pressure is partly to blame (i.e. When they finally get to attend a class, they’re called out repeatedly to address pending catastrophes), but it is also a matter of budgets. Far too much of the paltry training budget is being consumed by certification classes rather than developing the type of broad-based, business-oriented background that network analysts and managers need.
“The one successful model of a viable user group is the Wall Street Technology Association (WSTA) http://www.wsta.org. Dealing with a very specialized market (financial services firms), the WSTA gets its funding primarily from vendors (i.e. sponsors) and they can then employ a professional staff who arranges speakers and conferences. They also define the amount of ‘airtime’ the sponsoring companies will get. This unique sponsor arrangement frees up the users’ time while providing the type of services user groups traditionally provided. Vendor-sponsored user groups do much of the same thing, but WSTA has managed to construct a model that involves multiple vendors who address a specific and very specialized market. I don’t know if could be replicated elsewhere, but WSTA has found a way to keep the user group viable.”
Many thanks to Michael for sharing these thoughts. We certainly agree that there is a need to differentiate between certification (“skills-based”) and training (“knowledge-based”) education. And while the skills-based programs serve short-term tactical needs, there needs to be more of a balance with longer-term strategic planning needs.
In the next newsletter, we’ll provide a response from another organization similar to the WSTA.
