Blog

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.

Orbital RPM was part of a recent IT outsourcing project in the role of Global Change Management.  As part of that project we conducted a stakeholder analysis to determine the extent to which key stakeholders were engaged and informed on the areas of the project that interested them.

The ongoing communication plan at the time included activities such as a monthly newsletter, a weekly email from the project lead (an outsourcer), posts to an internal portal page, multiple Power Points and a large variety of other communication vehicles.

The results from the stakeholder analysis were very clear.  There were essentially two audiences in the organization; a) the general end-users to whom the change in outsourcers meant very little save for some basic process changes and b) the IT workforce or those that serve as a liason between their department (i.e. Finance, HR, etc.) and IT whose jobs were significantly altered (or eliminated) by the move.

The above mentioned communication vehicles were mandated by the organization but were useful only to the general end-user audience.  The IT audience was requesting very project specific information - the kind that can not be bottled and distributed in the form of emails or newsletters.  Rather they needed regular interaction with key project team members so that they could ask questions, discuss potential solutions and just stay updated on the project overall.

Specific recommendations were made to the client to address the IT group of the stakeholders such as reinstating a weekly status meeting where different team members presented each week and anyone could attend, Executives working from various locations and walking the halls with free time, and project leads hosting weekly global conference calls where any of their team across the globe could join in to ask questions or just listen. 

None of our suggestions were taken.  We muddled through the laborious effort of creating static communications while many opportunities for rich, informal communication passed by.  And, the informal route would have consumed far fewer resources.

What projects are occuring in your organization where an audience could benefit from a less structured approach to communication surrounding the project?  Most people will appreciate less email and less copies of a rarely read company newsletter.  Make it so that people can get the information they need when they need it.

I am a proud Alumni of the University of Florida.  Monday night the Gators beat Ohio State to win the National Championship in basketball just a few months after they beat Ohio State to win the National Championship in football. 

Even better, the Gators won the basketball tournament last year as well.  One of the announcers Monday night explained what Billy Donovan (Florida’s head coach) had done in the months leading up to last night’s victory while in the shadow of last year’s win…

He talked to others that had done it too.  Bill Bellichick of the New England Patriots was a common confidante along with Rick Pitino - both of which have secured their back-to-back wins. 

Stellar coaches are not the only ones that can benefit from this tactic because this is how all people learn.  What opportunities are there in your organization to put people in contact with others that have been through what they are going through, that have solved the challenges they are facing or that are utilizing a similar strategy? 

This can be in the form of a full-blown community of practice or a simple introduction among peers that may just last through lunch. 

Leave it to me to find a parallel between this great acheivement in sports and informal learning but hey…it’s what I do. 

At current count I am subscribed to 12 magazines (most of them work related).  Many years ago I didn’t subscribe to any.  I regret that today, though, as the various subscriptions provide a steady stream of knowledge nuggets that is much different than what I’ve gotten in all the books I’ve read.  This is not to discount the value I’ve gotten from books.  I just realized that they each contribute a unique piece to how I learn. 

Books (the good ones) usually provide a deep level of understanding on a given topic.  Beyond that they’re static.  Other than new editions every few years, the information stays exactly the same. 

Magazines are full of the newest ideas and discussions on any variety of topics.  It’s tough to think of a magazine article that has allowed me to gain a deep level of understanding on a complex topic, though.

In a loose comparison, books remind me of formal learning.  They don’t change very often but they’re good at providing a conceptual foundation on which you can build and refine your own opinions and applications of given topics.

In the same loose comparison magazines remind me of informal learning.  They are the perfect complement to a concept that I’ve cemented in my head.  I love to read quick-hit articles that I can layer on top of the foundations I’ve built through other reading.  I can skim through a magazine looking only for the topics that are relevant to my interests at the time.  The topics are new every month so I know I’m getting the most up-to-date insight on that idea (except for blogs of course). 

Books are good for in-depth learning of the fundamentals but they’re static - magazines provide more surface level information that is constantly updated. 

Having a good mix of both is what it takes.  Just like learning in organizations - there is plenty of static information in organizations that is best disseminated in a formal medium.  Offering informal opportunities for participants to deepen their understanding of the concepts is what successful learning organizations are implementing.

Review the knowledge that your workforce needs.  What fits in the category of ‘books’ and what is more suitable for a ‘magazine’?  Once you’ve determined that, think of the best way to deliver it.  Is it through a formal avenue that costs more to design and is not cost-effective to change often (formal learning) or would it be better through a model that is made to change and morph constantly (informal learning)?

Some mediums to consider for each:

• Formal (book) learning: seminars, workshops, elearning modules, simulations
• Informal (magazine) learning: podcasts, nano-learning, rapid elearning, wikis, communities of practice

There is no right answer and no panacea.  Some material lends itself to one model while other material is more appropriate for the other.  Think of the information at hand and wonder - would this be better as a book or as a magazine article?

Yes - billion. 

This was the headline of Training Magazine in their December 2006 issue.

I have a quick  question.  If, as countless studies and experts have proven, formal training accounts for only 25% of the information that people need in order to do their job (while informal learning provides the remaining 75%) does that mean that $168 billion is earmarked for informal learning?

I doubt it.

This month’s Big Question on Learning Circuits Blog is: 

Are ISD, ADDIE and HPT relevant in a world of rapid elearning, faster time to performance, and informal learning?

In a world where products, targets and strategies adjust constantly the application of these models (ISD, ADDIE, HPT) will be greatly diminished.  As the roles of knowledge workers expand and require them to use information that changes quickly it will be more important for the workforce to have easy access to information rather than them be required to retain it as the result of a well-designed course. 

I use the term ‘greatly diminished’ because I don’t feel the models will become obsolete or completely irrelevant.  The in-depth analysis and often time consuming design and development associated with these approaches can still be leveraged for content that is not likely to change.  For an organization to invest the time, money and resources required for formal training it must be for something that will prove relevant for a long period of time.  For topics that meet this criteria, there will still be relevance for the models of traditional training.

For all other learning required by employees (what Jay Cross and many others consider to be 80%) a new approach to learning is required.  The models used by learning professionals will need to expand to include cultivating communities of practice, managing knowledge, facilitating open-ended dialogue, creating performance support tools and embedding their deliverables seamlessly into the workflow of their workforce.

The models listed in this month’s Big Question were designed for a type of training that was relevant for the needs of an environment different from today’s.  As times have changed our approach as learning professionals must as well so that they provide the learners what they need for success.

I recently spent a weekend in Washington D.C. to make a vacation out of the inaugural CLO Academy that was being held in Lansdowne, VA.

It was a quick trip in D.C. so we were rushed to see the major sites. We started at the National Archives building where they have on display the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence along with access to countless other historical documents.

While up close and personal with these very elaborate and elegant documents, I wondered what the process would have been had our country been formed when the Founding Fathers had access to some of today’s Web 2.0 tools that we’re now using for learning and collaboration.

Imagine Benjamin Franklin and John Adams developing their ideas for the Constitution on a wiki, Thomas Paine keeping citizens informed about the American Revolution via his blog rather than the pamphlet ‘Common Sense’ or all of the Founding Fathers forming a community of practice that keeps in touch about their progress via an online portal.

What they would have gained in efficiencies back then is perhaps what we would have lost in enjoyment today. It’s tough to imagine throngs of people gathered around and craning their necks to sneak a peek of the final wiki page of the Constitution. Would John Hancock’s digital signature have the same impact as the pen and ink version does?  Probably not.

Don’t mistake my tone, though.  I’m all for these Web 2.0 tools and enjoy the efficiency they bring to offices and homes each day.  It just seems that the more efficient we get, the less that opportunity for nostalgia exists. 

On the other hand, perhaps these advacements will serve to make the historic documents all the more rare as times go by so that in several decades our societies will just appreciate the fact that they’re on paper - let alone written by hand.  If this serves to create more awareness and interest in our history, I say that’s one more benefit of the progress we’re making.

It’s obvious that our world is undergoing changes that are far beyond advances in organizational learning and development…but some of the similarities are apparent.

Business 2.o’s recent cover read “The Next Disruptors:  Meet 11 Companies Whose Breakthroughs Will Change Everything.”  In it we meet businesses that are tackling everything from software to lending to advertising.

The common thread through all seems to be individualization.  Consumers today are becoming more and more catered to and as a result are receiving products and services that are more refined to meet their needs.  We get what we want instead of taking what we’re given.

• Advertising:  Most people were forced to watch commercials on TV breaks because they didn’t want to miss what was “up next” - TiVO has changed that forever and advertisers are now forced to rely on products placed in the actual shows.  Think there’s a market there?  Hamet Watt does.  His company NextMedium “automates and standardizes the process of product placement in TV shows, movies, and videogames.” 
• The two players mentioned in the technology space are Coghead and NetVibes.  Both are built on the philosophy of end-users creating exactly what is right for them.  With NetVibes, more for the individual, “users can rapidly change the look of their start page, select content, add RSS feeds, and custom-build features from other Netvibes users.”  While with Coghead, more for organizations, users “who can code a simple Excel macro should have little trouble using Coghead to create even sophisticated enterprise apps like logistics trackers, CRM programs, or project management systems.”
• And then there’s lending.  A company by the name of Zopa has created a peer-to-peer model for people to lend and borrow money that cuts out the bank, gives lower rates to borrowers and a return to individuals as lenders.  Brilliant! 

These three examples reflect the progressive trends bubbling up in learning and development.  No longer do participants want to sit in a class when much of the information being presented doesn’t pertain to them.  They want to ‘fast-forward’ to what matters.  They want the option to customize things just they way they need or like them.  And, they get most of what they need from their peers. 

Hence the popularity of podcasting, social networking sites, nano-learning, workflow learning, mobile learning and communities of practice.  Take out the middle-men, edit out the commercials, let us get the information to do our jobs when we need it and how we like it.

In the coming years I’m sure we’ll see this trend of customer customization only grow.  As societies figure out that they control what the market gives them, more and more we will be demanding just what we need.  The field of learning and development is paralleling these changes and what is now considered traditional training will be so 1.o.

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.