Blog

Jay Cross, one of the biggest proponents of the power of informal learning, is releasing a book on the subject in November titled, Informal Learning: Rediscovering the Natural Pathways That Inspire Innovation and Performance. 

It is now available for pre-order through Amazon.

I am part of the inaugural class of both the CLO Academy and the CLO Institute and am summarizing my experiences to date through a comparison and contrast of the two programs for anyone that is considering attending either or both.

As I’ve said before, kudos to the founding members of both for elevating the status and visibility of the Chief Learning Officer role in organizations.  I am of the opinion that we are amidst a transformation in the way that organizations can use learning and development to enhance the performance of their company.  This isn’t done by putting people through more content and more training sessions - it’s done by giving people access to the information they need to succeed or helping develop new skills or mindsets for success.  Chief Learning Officers are the people to make that happen.

I’ll start the review with a bit of background.  The CLO Institute was the first to market.  I received word of it in November of 2005 and attended classes in January of 2006.  I heard of the CLO Academy in May of 2006 and attended the first class in September of 2006.

The CLO Institute was started and is heavily led by Doug Harward - the founder of TrainingOutsourcing.com.  This is an important detail as some of the content is influenced and benefits from his expertise.  The CLO Academy was started by the team at MediaTec Publishing; also the creators of Chief Learning Officer Magazine. 

Format - How the two programs approach the development of learning leaders

• CLO Institute:  The CLO Institute has different Learning Programs for participants to choose from.  They include a Certified Chief Learning Officer (CCLO), a Certified Learning Strategist (CLS) and a Certified Learning Architect (CLA).  Participants take classes according to which Learning Program they select.  Once all classes for a Learning Program are completed, participants must do a real-world project in order to be certified.  Currently all classes are conducted face-to-face although they mentioned that on-line classes will be held in the future.
• CLO Academy:  The CLO Academy also has choices to make.  Theirs are Certification Tracks [cannot embed a direct link] and are called Learning Leadership, Learning Effectiveness and Learning Management.  The CLO Academy begins with a 2.5 day face-to-face session (called a Colloquium) regardless of which Track is selected and then all following Track-specific courses are conducted on-line through a partnership with Capella University.

Content and Style

• CLO Institute:  The CLO Institute classes were that…classes.  We were instructed from 9-5 and then went to our respective hotels to return the next day.  This is not all a complaint, though.  In an environment where people are hungry for the knowledge I don’t think presentations are all that bad.  The classes were small enough that we could ask questions at any point. The advantage of this format is that we received a lot of great information. The CLO Institute helps learning leaders view and analyze learning as an investment; this requires a good deal of foundational content for participants and that’s what they provided.  The CLO Institute is where I was began to apply concepts such as net present value (NPV) and economic value added (EVA) to learning expenditures.  The disadvantage of their format was the lack of informal networking and peer-to-peer collaboration.  To their credit, the CLO Institute has since set-up a place on their site as an on-line resource for the community of past participants.
• CLO Academy:  The CLO Academy Colloquium was a very different experience from the first classes of the CLO Institute.  We were borderline sequestered on the sprawling campus of the Conference Center in VA.  I ate all of my meals with participants and faculty and joined them for drinks and conversation in the late evening.  For the informal learning and relationships between peers and with faculty, the CLO Academy has it nailed. Most of the CLO Academy was in a ‘case-based’ environment.  This was a term I heard there which basically meant we had an in-depth interactive case study that we were put into that mimicked a real company.  As I put in an earlier post, the components of the case study need a little tweaking in order to be completely relevant for a learning executive.  Once these are made I’m sure it will be much more satisfying for participants.  The great part about the case study, though, was that our stellar faculty rotated among teams and gave some insight into their roles and specific methodolgy.  I did take away some nuggets from their informal talks that were not directly related to the case study.The CLO Academy also had three formal lectures from the faculty.  I had many ideas validated in the lectures but the agenda was so tight that we only had time for about two questions total following each of the structured presentations.  Some faculty were available during evening ‘fireside chats’ and meals which provided an opportunity to ask follow-up questions but I would have preferred more time with them in the front of the room for a Q/A. In terms of content and new ideas, I haven’t gotten much (yet) from the CLO Academy.  In their defense, though, the Colloquium was to establish the basics that will be built on by the on-line Capella courses (which for me begin in January due to my vacation).  According to the literature, the purpose of the Colloquium was to “provide a solid foundation for the shift from tactical to strategic thinking.”  I think that the CLO Academy is making a dangerous assumption that all participants are walking in as tactical thinkers.  At least that is how the messages were delivered to participants - that we would make this transition to being strategic thinkers.  Even if this is true for the majority of participants, I don’t know that people want to be told so outright because most people would probably like to think of themselves as strategic. 

 Faculty

• CLO Institute:  The CLO Institute went for variety.  They want to expand the view of learning professionals to include CFOs, COOs, etc. so they brought that expertise into the classroom.  Our presenter for “Level 6: Beyond ROI” was a financial consultant that happened to know about learning expenditures.  She was on a mission to teach us to speak to CFOs and I appreciated that perspective.
• CLO Academy:  The CLO Academy went for star-power.  If you want to interact with and hear from some of the top CLOs and learning executives in the field, this is the place for you.  I had one-on-one conversations with learning executives from Microsoft, General Mills, IBM, EDS, EMC, Delta and Defense Acquisition University.

All in all, I felt that both programs were well worth my time and money.  They were both very different and each had their unique advantages.  I hope that the above review helps anyone trying to determine which to attend.  Please write with any specific questions if you’re still struggling with your decision or are just curious.

Days 2 & 3 of the CLO (Chief Learning Officer) Academywere excellent.  We spent most of our time working through a case study as teams in separate rooms while CLOs and Learning Executives rotated throughout the rooms.  At the end of Day 3 (a half day), all groups presented on their portion of the case as the facilitators observed and then gave their thoughts at the end.

The case study will need some tweaking before the next group of participants arrives but this was the first time it had been conducted - and something as complex as what they assembled is not easy to pull off the first time.  With some slight modifications it will be an outstanding exercise. 

We had another fireside chat on Evening 2.  This time there wasn’t a moderator.  There were several of the facilitators present and they all took turns asking questions and interacting with the group. 

I talked to all fellow participants and most of the faculty one-on-one at some point.  I was able to discuss some very specific topics I had questions about.  As with most conferences, the informal learning that took place between sessions is where I personally got the most value. 

As promised in a past post, I am compiling a compare/contrast look of the CLO Institute and the CLO Academy - it will appear in my next entry.

I have just returned to my room after the first day of the CLO Academy in Lansdowne, VA.  The sessions started at 5pm so I’ve only seen a glimpse of what we’re we will be experiencing but so far so good.

At the orientation session we were told that our time here will largely be playing the role of consultant’s with a fictitious firm.  I don’t know much more about it yet but if I did I wouldn’t write about it - you’ll have to experience it for yourself. 

Following orientation we were introduced to Frank J. Anderson who is the President of Defense Acquisition University.  Frank talked about his experience at DAU and how he has guided this organization (with a budget of $120 billion - yes billion) to be a world-class learning organization.  His stories and examples were amazing yet somehow easily understandable to an audience that cannot comprehend overseeing a budget, staff and responsibility the size of Frank’s.  I was thilled to hear Frank mention terms such as Communities of Practice and Action Learning - he told the group he had not come from a learning and development background but had surrounded himself with people that were experts in it - he clearly selected a talented team.

CLO Academy is really taking advantage of the informal learning opportunities here.  During dinner I ate at a small table with other participants and with a faculty member that is also a learning executive with Microsoft. 

The final activity was a ‘Fireside Chat.’  A voluntary session where we sat in a circle, drank wine and did a freeform exchange of ideas from all of our different sets of experience.  Frank Anderson loosely led the discussion but the group largely set the course of what we talked about. 

More to come from me - but not tonight.  It’s late and I still have my consulting homework to do…

A friend of mine sells large-scale consulting services for a big firm.  She was extremely frustrated with the company’s President on Friday because he refuses to invest in some up-front costs that would payoff down the line in the form of more deals won and more projects delivered effectively.

In her mind he is “an idiot” for making these decisions and I don’t blame her for feeling that way.  She and others on the frontline are the ones that are impacted the most.  It’s her covering for a lack of resources during the sales cycle and her still when necessary resources are absent from projects.

Further into the conversation she mentioned, “all he cares about is NOI” (net operating income).  How much do you want to bet that NOI is a big factor in how much money he makes?  I’d bet big if I were you.

I’ve never met the man so I can neither confirm nor deny whether he’s an idiot or how his pay is calculated.  I can say that based on the decisions he’s making in regard to NOI, he’s probably performing to the metrics that were given to him.  He knows that increasing NOI translates into a much bigger paycheck.  Who wouldn’t be tempted to do the same thing?

What does this have to with learning and development?  Before I begin projects with clients I have them take a hard look at what type of behavior their measurement/incentive policies are encouraging.  You can have the best learning strategy ever conceived but if you are measuring and rewarding behaviors that contradict with the ones you want, you’re fighting a losing battle. 

Start by developing metrics and incentives that reward the behaviors or results you want to see.  Then provide the tools, resources and knowledge for people to perform to those metrics.  Metrics will influence people’s motivation and goals while learning and development is there to make it easier for people to attain their goals.

A method I was introduced to at the CLO Institute is Economic Value added (EVA) which provides the incentive for the behavior that is in the best interest of the overall organization and its shareholders. 

EVA is “a financial performance method to calculate the true economic profit of a corporation.  EVA can be calculated as net operating after taxes profit minus a charge for the opportunity cost for the capital invested.”

Whatever model is used, it’s up to the organization to ensure that the metrics that are in place to reward employees are aligned with the behaviors that will create value for shareholders.  Otherwise, no amount of learning and development will make the difference you want to see.

Want to know how other learning and development professionals would respond to your questions?

TDF (Training Director’s Forum) e-Net is a free newsletter put out by Training Magazine.  In each edition they ask for input from readers on a question posed by a reader.  The following edition will have some of the responses by individuals as well as some vendors. 

In today’s edition the topics were ‘Getting Managers Involved’ and ‘Sales Training Resources.’  One characteristic of collective group intelligence is that you have to sort out what works for you - I sometimes require a grain of salt as I read but I have found many useful nuggets in past issues.

Subscribe here if interested.

In an e-seminar hosted by CLO Magazine yesterday, presenter Josh Bersin of Bersin and Associates facilitated a talk titled, “Increasing the Strategic Value of Learning Organizations.”  You can find the slides here - the recording should be available here shortly.

Note: If you wish you had known about this e-seminar, we keep an up-to-date calendar on Orbital RPM’s site where you can search for events (big as small) throughout the learning and development field and send reminders directly to your calendar or email.

There are many good nuggets of information contained in Josh’s talk but in the interest of focus I will highlight one.  Bersin and Associates is known for their quantitative research in the field of learning and development and the statistics from one of Josh’s slides was intriguing to me.

The following percentages indicate how much more effective or efficient organizations were (in the areas listed) that have a highly effective Cheif Learning Officer (CLO) in their ranks:

• Partnering with Lines of Business: + 12%
• Measuring the Impact of Learning: + 20%
• Developing Innovative e-Learning: + 14%
• Sharing Best Practices: + 15%
• Making the Most of Resources: +12%
• Developing High Job Satisfaction: +10%

These numbers are compelling.  As the strategic role of learning and development continues its climb up the ranks of organizational credibility, it’s studies like these that will give it a boost.  Everybody loves data and these are numbers that any Executive would like to see.

I stumbled across the site Word Spy today which tells about the first uses of new words or terms.  They list the earliest use of the official term ‘Chief Learning Officer’ as being in 1993 with the following quote:

“So, just as some companies have a vice-president for total quality or an officer in charge of safety, Argyris explains, the CEO decided to have an executive in charge of organizational learning. He divided the HR function into two sets of tasks: record-keeping tasks and other duties that could be placed in a database, and tasks that involved employee education and retraining. The latter functions were to become the purview of a chief learning officer.”
—George F. Kimmerling, “A place at the top for trainers,” Training & Development, March, 1993

I also learned about such terms as ‘wikiality‘, ‘fridge Googling‘ and ‘peoplerazzi.’

Word Spy is worth a peek for a quick brain break.

In a Chief Learning Officer magazine article titled “People, the Neglected Part of Technology”, author David Miller explains his perspective on how learning and knowledge management should be integrated with the implementation of new technologies, such as a new ERP package (i.e. SAP).  He even provides a specific statistic from the Gartner Group that says, “when 17 percent of the total program budget is spent on these initiatives the chances of success go up significantly.”

I found David’s points to be applicable beyond tech implementations and to all of organizational learning.  I like reading articles where I find myself subconsciously nodding my head in agreement as I read and that happened numerous times throughout this article.

David calls on the combination of the usuals for learning such as “telling the learner, showing the learner and letting them try” and adds to that the elements that will support the more informal channels that allow people to build on what was formally designed for them.  He suggests strengthening the network, cultivating communities of practice and providing just-in-time access to information that people can call upon at the moment it is needed. 

Doing the above creates what David calls a “culture of shared experiences” allowing organizations to capture the often elusive tacit knowledge of how work really gets done.  This results in people having access to the information they need as opposed to “sterile, clinical information found in manuals and training courses.”  This concept can be applied to any training, regardless of the topic.

Follow David’s advice and you’ve got the diverse learning and development portfolio that will do more than just allow you to implement technology effectively - it will put you on the fast track to being a true learning organization.  How will you know if you’ve done it correctly?  David advocates the use of a balanced scorecard for establishing and assessing the metrics associated with the learning initiative (nod, nod).

It turns out there are quite a few.  Some organizations are relying on the collective brainpower of participants to deliver value in gatherings rather than a rigid agenda.

I was reminded of this today when I read the Performance Express Newsletter from ISPI (scroll down to the article titled “Sharing is Good”).  Many of the benefits the author experienced in her trip to Zurich are the drivers behind what are being called unconferences, unworkshops, brain jams, or mind camps.

I came from the instructional design world and can remember looking at evaluations of courses where participants consistently rated their time with peers during breaks and at meals as providing the most value for them.  The approaches listed in the paragraph above have taken this feedback and designed sessions that cater to people’s natural tendency to learn from one another.

Organizations can save money and provide greater value by utilizing some tips in designing an unconference instead of relying on the traditional models of talking heads and flimsy action plans.  They also serve as a great seed for cultivating a community of practice.

Dreading desiging the agenda for an upcoming session?  Consider doing away with it all together.