Blog

Of all of the various groups in which you’re involved, be they social, professional, religious or otherwise, have you noticed that there is typically a core group of people that keep the momentum of the group? 

That’s precisely what Tony Burgess of Company Command noticed was happening in his learning community.  In this community of practice (CoP) with thousands of members Tony noticed a very small group (i.e. 20) were generating most of the activity and sustaining the momentum.  So he decided to dedicate his doctoral thesis to taking a closer look at the inner workings of this core group.

Tony was generous enough to share his findings with some member of CPSquare in an online discussion that lasted about a week and also via a conference call where he talked about his findings.

In his research Tony discovered that the members of a community’s core group have similar characteristics.  He boiled them down into four areas:

• Who are they?  What are their values? 
  • Driven to learn
  • People person
  • Service and ‘giving back’ ethic
  • Hard wired to develop others
• What do they do as core group members?
  • Contributor
  • Connector
  • Facilitator
  • Social Catalyst
  • Steward
• How do they become core group members?
  • Find and use the community of practice
  • Initial interaction in the community
  • Assuming a role
  • Participating
• What is meaningful to them
  • To contribute
  • To connect
  • To develop

Tony’s findings resonated with me professionally - we typically focus our initial efforts just on building a strong core when setting up CoPs with organizations and that foundation provides solid footing for the rest of the community to morph. 

A big thank you to Tony for the insights and generosity of time and knowledge for sharing with us.

Check out a real-time Digg Swarm. 

This is a fascinating view of the chaotic rhythm of a crowd seeking the information it wants.  It’s messy, it’s unpredictable and it’s reality.  And it’s precisely the reason that formal training programs account for (at most) only 20% of how people get the information they need to do their job. 

 If you’re not familiar with Digg it’s a website that allows its users to select (digg) things that they find interesting on the net.  Those nuggets are read and rated by other Digg users and this determines how popular an item is.  This results in a community that relies on the recommendations of the greater whole to select content for the individual.  It’s an effective system at weeding through the reams of information the Internet spews daily.

Watch as people ‘hop’ from article to article on a journey to their chosen destination at the speed that’s right for them.  You’re seeing self-directed learning in its purest form.  How effective would training classes be for these folks?  They’re obviously accustomed to getting the info they want when they want it, is a classroom the best venue for them to get info regarding their job?

With the social network craze and the ‘we are smarter than me’ philosophies we’re hearing about quite often, the way in which we gather, share, find and use information has permanently changed.  Most of us are now full-fledged knowledge workers whether we think so or not and the toolboxes of training and development departments need to reflect the shift. 

Communities of Practice, Web 2.0, and the myriad other learning and development terms that are in heavy rotation are evidence that some progressive approaches need to be thrown into the traditional mix.  Classroom training isn’t dead - it will always serve a unique niche in the learning portfolio - I think it will just diminish to the point that it matches it’s impact on participants (<20%).

 Embracing informal learning in organizations will become a necessity in just a few years due to us becoming a knowledge society.  There are tons of articles out there that will tell you so - if you happen to run across one, Digg it!

Here’s an interesting video with some Googlers talking about knowledge and the economic impact: 

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=h8XDceL8jd0[/youtube]

I had an opportunity today to have the dedicated ears of 18 mid-level managers at a large organization where we are just at the launch phase of creating a community of practice.  This is a group of sales people in a competitive environment and the suggetion of sharing ideas with one another has to be approached very carefully.  Last night I began assembling slides and this morning I went back to put on some finishing touches - I checked my email and saw this article from CLO magazine. 

I included a screen shot of the article as a way to illustrate to the group that learning in organizations is moving away from just formal content delivery and more toward enabling easier access to necessary information.  These ideas really resonated with them and some of the responses were, “like MySpace” or like an “eBay seller rating” for peer reviewed content and also “like Amazon.” 

I wrote recently about how there was a seeming disconnect between some Chief Learning Officers (CLO) and these progressive modes of learning but it’s encouraging to see the gap gradually narrow with entries such as this.

As organizations begin to find the collective intelligence of their workforce through social network analysis and tap their full potential through communities of practice and the software to support them, they will be poised to unleash the true potential of knowledge workers.

In a recent article from CLO magazine, they profile an organ procurement organization that shares information across the country to ensure that patients are getting what they need in time to save their life.

It’s this approach that I think many more organizations could adopt and apply some structure too which would translate into tremendous value.  In today’s world we can not inject people with the information they need…there’s too much.  We must make it easy for them to find.

A community such as it sounds has been formed in organ donation group, serves as an ongoing conversation of ideas and information that is always easily accessible.  What opportunities does your organization have to increase the access to your information?

Enjoy your holiday weekend!

I just read a great article in Fortune magazine about Social Network Analysis (SNA) and the benefits it can yield in an organization.

To me this is further fodder on what have been relatively obscure tools coming more into the mainstream and being refined for use with progressive learning and development departments.

Orbital RPM has just launched a SNA with one of our large clients as a way to find the best candidates to make up the ‘core group’ of a community of practice.  This is being implemented in a very large, traditional organization that has always relied on traditional training for its team members. 

 We will be using the same amount of money the organization would have spent on designing, developing and delivering a one-time course…an event…but instead we will be engaged with them for a year.  Helping sustain their learning community, manage the knowledge that’s flowing and integrate new-comers.  What a bargain!

It’s projects like these and articles like the one in Fortune that will allow us to chip away at the conventional mindset commonly applied to the training arena.

Just yesterday I wrote a post lamenting about the seeming divide between the world of CLOs and the implementation of informal learning methodologies such as communities of practice (CoP).

I have to eat a little crow on that one - not too long after I posted I received an email newsletter from CLO magazine and one of the segments was titled ‘A New Vision for Communities of Practice.’  In it is a case study about a United Way project as well as many insights from Etienne Wenger, considered to be the guru of CoPs.

Although small it’s great to see these two worlds begin to intertwine.  Follow the link above for a downloadable case study on the project while I sit here and enjoy the irony of timing.

Professionally my circles encompass both the competencies traditionally linked with a CLO (i.e. strategy, outsourcing, etc.) and the world of progressive learning & development (i.e. communities of practice, action learning, etc.). 

Given all of the research and data out there showing the impact of the more informal approach to learning it’s ironic to me that these two worlds rarely overlap…but they don’t.

That was reinforced yesterday when Trainingoutsourcing.com announced the “2007 - Top 20 Companies in the Training Outsourcing Industry.”  When you look down the list they are mainly software-based training content providers.  This is no fault of trainingoutsourcing.com - they are clear on the metrics that it takes to make the list.  I’m wondering about the buyers.  If 80% of learning comes from the informal side of the house, where are the outsourcing purchases associated with it?

Granted, it is the ‘training’ outsourcing industry and not ‘learning’ outsourcing but that should just be semantics in 2007.  It seems that, regardless of the data that shows what’s effective, people want something tangible.  The components of informal learning are a little grayer, a little messier, tougher to predict and certainly more difficult to price appropriately.  It is possible though.  I know because I’ve done it. 

Oh well - forgive the rant because this is actually one of the things that I enjoy about being in the field that offers the more progressive approaches to something.  It’s not an easy sell and I like that.  I feel like we are the little guy (looking at the list linked above I’d say that’s an appropriate feeling) and there’re many mindsets to be changed before our wares are in the mainstream…and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

CLO Media has just released their 2007 Business Intelligence Report.  In the Executive Summary they include ‘Trends in Informal Learning’ and report the following:

“Compared to formal workplace learning, informal learning tends to be unplanned and unstructured. Because informal learning can take a variety of forms, it is difficult to define and even harder to measure.  While the BIB reports that on average 58 percent of the learning occurring in their organizations is informal, fully 36 percent place that figure at 70 percent or more. However, only 20 percent of the BIB actually tracks informal learning in their organizations. Given this low number, it is not surprising that only 8 percent of organizations have a comprehensive strategy in place to manage informal learning.”   The report did go on to say that more than half of the organizations surveyed “expect informal learning to receive increased support” while 14% expect to receive a “significant increase in support” for informal learning. 

I see this as progress and great news.  Embracing informal learning is a major mindset shift for organizations that have been going the formal/traditional route for so long and it won’t happen overnight. 

Beyond the mental shift that needs to happen, significant investments have been made in processes, procedures and systems that are more aligned with formal/traditional learning.  It simply isn’t feasible to abandon what is currently in place for something new - I’m sure many will take a cautious, phased approach to integrating more informal learning into their learning portfolio.

For those of us in the field the shift can’t happen fast enough but as a business owner I understand the cultural and financial questions that must be vetted before supporting what many consider to be a radical approach.

I’m a day late on April’s Big Question from LCB but here are my thoughts to the following question:

ILT and Off-the-Shelf Vendors - What Should they Do?

In the age of Google, informal learning, mobile learning, social networking and the countless other areas that are being explored as avenues for learning, what does the future hold for those in the business of instructor-led training (ILT) and off-the-shelf courseware?

The diversifying portfolio being utilized at progressive organizations presents a wealth of options and an infinite number of combinations that can be used by a learning professional. 

If I were the owner of a company that solely provided instructor-led training and/or off-the-shelf coursework the quick answer would be to diversify my offerings to match what learning professionals are using in the market.  But - there is still risk associated in diversification, namely in lack of focus for my internal organization as well as brand confusion in the marketplace.  Plus it’s too easy to write…

There will always be a market for face-to-face training and mass produced content and I would make it my goal to determine the right business model for these services to be successful. 

The first step in doing so would be to determine which scenarios in the quickly changing field of learning would continue to sustain ILT and off-the-shelf material.  What unique features or benefits do ILT and off-the-shelf coursework provide?

ILT:  real-time access to an expert; face-to-face collaboration with peers; etc.

Off-the-shelf coursework: can provide superior delivery for content that won’t change often; can be used to provide content to large populations; etc.

What situations would benefit from these unique characteristics?

How about new-hire orientation programs where you want to impress new-hires with content that won’t change often and establish connections with their new peers?  ILT and off-the-shelf material may be a fit.  How about certification courses that leverage the same or similar information year after year?  The off-the-shelf model could be the answer.

After completing this analysis I would look for opportunities to re-brand my company as one that excelled in these niches (i.e. new-hire orientation, certification, etc.)

Additionally, I would seek out strategic partnerships with other organizations that offered complementary services (i.e. communities of practice) and present that package to the market. 

Although ILT and off-the-shelf are known not to contribute to the majority of how people learn in the corporate world, they are still viable modes of instruction and therefore will remain as something that organizations will seek to purchase.  Therefore there will continue to be a market for these services - it will just take savvy strategic planning to position a company to win in the new market.