Blog

94% of human resources professionals do not feel their personnel are adequately prepared to meet their companies’ future goals according to the State of the Global Talent Nation.  That number was 86% in 2007 and 64% in 2006…so it’s moving in the wrong direction.  The study was conducted by Softscape and discussed in CLO (Chief Learning Officer) Magazine.  A copy of the report is available by request through Softscape’s site.

The report looks at a variety of areas relating to human capital management.  I grabbed the following notable quotes that IMO reinforce the sense of urgency for reform in how learning and development is executed by most organizations:

1. Many HR professionals (35%) indicate that the majority of their employees have complex multi-function roles. This is also driving the need for more real-time employee development.
2. Most HR professionals (81%) say the lack of regular employee development opportunities is impacting overall employee retention.
3. Strategic HR functions are becoming more integrated and increasingly outsourced (41%). This includes functions for performance, compensation, succession, learning, and recruiting.

My thoughts…

#1  In an age of “complex multi-function roles” things change fast and formal training can’t carry the entire load.  With the pace that many organizations run and adapt, content is often obsolete upon receipt if it’s produced and distributed within the traditional timeline. 

This supports my belief that a change in how we define learning and development is needed before we can make significant strides in improving them.  First and foremost I see the two (learning and development) as two separate strategies with different definitions and distinct methodologies for executing successfully.

In the age of the knowledge worker, learning is more about providing easy access to necessary information than it is presenting content and hoping that it sticks around until the time it’s needed.  This is accomplished through incorporating social network analyses, communities of practice, a learning supply chain that can quickly distribute content on-demand (i.e. rapid elearning + SME), etc. into a diversified learning portfolio.  These more informal approaches better mimic how today’s workforce gets what they need - through their network and at the moment they need it. 

Development defined below…

#2  Development is long-term changes in mindset and/or behavior.  Many companies fall short of acheiving true development in their workforce because their tools consist of workshops and not much else.  Some companies tack on a personality assessment (i.e. DiSC, MBTI) but usually without any direct connection to how that information can be applied.  For true development to occur people must be given the opportunity to play with concepts, make decisions according to their new learning…they have to see the impact of their decisions and actions in order to drive new behavior.

Development programs rooted in action learning contain the elements needed for lasting change but they’re rare.  For the organizations that do leverage the power of action learning, they are not only exposing their teams to the best type of development possible, they’re also grooming leaders to perform at their best within the unique conditions of that organization and none other.

It’s these types of projects where participants feel real value and development - and therefore are more inclined to stick around.  If they feel the development they’re getting at your organization is better than what they would get elsewhere, you have a powerful retention tool.

#3  Another item mentioned in the report was the rise in learning outsourcing.  I take this as a sign that organizations are more and more seeing learning and development as strategic imperatives for success.  Expectations of learning and development have changed to the degree that traditional, formal training programs are no longer adequate on their own. 

Of course I’m biased but I do believe deeply that partnering with an external organization that is an expert in a service that isn’t your core function is a good idea in many scenarios.  This includes payroll, benefits, IT and of course…learning and development.  Outsourcing allows an organization to focus on their strengths while leveraging the core strengths of experts in fields that support their operation. 

Finally… 

The great news is that we’re watching an industry evolve.  Learning and development programs will look drastically different in just 10 years.  As workers that grew up on Facebook and MySpace enter the workforce they’ll have unique demands as we transition even further into becoming a knowledge workforce.     But we’re not there yet.

When I read that 94% of HR professionals felt they’re workforce wasn’t prepared to meet the company’s goals I was shocked at how high the number truly had gotten but, ultimately, wasn’t phased for too long.  We’re addressing 21st century challenges with a 20th century method and it’s not a fair fight.  The pace of business isn’t predicted to slow or revert anytime soon so guess who gets to adapt?

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.

A dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow.

This is the basic underpinning to the concept of Net Present Value (NPV) in finance.  Given the option, businesses are going to want their money in their own hands until the last possible second.  The more time a company can hold on to their money, the more of a return the money can generate for the company. 

This is the reason for some magazines offering subcriptions that steadily reduce as the years go on if you pay for them today.  They want that money now!  Even if it’s less than the full subscription you would have paid in three years, they would rather have it today to improve cashflow, invest, etc.

We discussed NPV in the Level 6: Beyond ROI class while I was at the CLO Institute in January.  Ever since then I’ve been playing with the idea of NPV and how it relates to methods of learning that don’t fall under the category of ‘traditional.’ 

I decided to write after reading the July edition of Education Signals.  One section of the report was about the ’Top 20 Companies in the Training Outsourcing Industry’ that is compiled by TrainingOutsourcing.com.  In it, the authors share the following data points:

“The largest percentage of revenue from the leading players came from content development (35%) and training delivery (30%) services.”

Content design/development obviously comes at or near the beginning of a training outsourcing initiative.  That means that over 1/3 of the money of contracts is in the hands of the training supplier soon after the project begins.    

If I were in a position to be hiring a training outsourcing firm, I would look for a deal where the fees weren’t so front-loaded.  I would want to keep my money as long as I could and let it make more money for me. 

Enter informal learning (i.e. communities of practice, blogs, wikis, podcasts, etc.).  As illustrated in this post from Jay Cross, and as others have been preaching, much of learning doesn’t come from ‘content.’  It comes through the informal and unscheduled channels of an organization.

Informal learning may have an additional advantage.  Since there isn’t near the level of design/development required for informal methods as there is for more formal events such as workshops and e-learning modules, a company that was buying these services from an outsourcing company would pay less up front.  This allows them to keep their money longer and let it make more money for them.

Although I’ve only cited one report that I’m basing this post on, I came from the instructional design world.  We charged crazy fees (usually way more than 35% of the total contract) for design/development at my old firm and that was the first thing the client paid for.  I also realize that there is a need for some structured content in a company’s learning and development plans - I just think it should be provided in minimal chunks.

I’m suggesting services that would be a double win for companies purchasing training outsourcing.  With more informal elements in the mix to create a more diverse learning portfolio the client would not only receive more effective learning and development, they would pay less up front and get to make money from the money that they would have spent on instructional design and development fees.

Note:  I’m consciously not addressing the area where training outsourcing firms make the second most amount of money - the 30% from delivery of training services.  Informal learning, by nature, requires less delivery than its traditional counterpart.  For this post, though, I wanted to emphasize the benefits of not paying design/development fees up front.

I have subscribed to Chief Learning Officer Magazine nearly since its inception.  In the July 2006 issue, there was a brochure touting the launch of the CLO Academy.

Back in November of 2005 I received an email from a different organization announcing the launch of the CLO Institute.

If nothing else, it is exciting to see the visibility and credibility that is being given to the strategic role that learning leaders can play in organizations.  Beyond that, though, I’m curious as to how the CLO Academy and the CLO Institute will differ in their approach to developing leaders of strategic learning.

I took the first three classes ever offered by the CLO Institute in January and am currently working on the client project required for certification.  The classes were very insightful and well worth my time. 

The CLO Academy opens its doors in September and I plan to be in attendance.  Check back for a compare and contrast of how these two institutions approach this much needed track for professionals in the learning community.