Blog

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!

Interestingly enough I am rushing to respond to January’s Big Question on Learning Circuits Blog relating to speed or quality:

What are the trade-offs between quality learning programs and rapid elearning and how do you decide?

Will the quality of my post suffer as a result of the speed at which I’m trying to get it in while it’s still January?  Or will my tight deadline keep me focused, lean and providing just the necessary information?

The same questions can be applied to organizational learning.  Is it worth it for companies to offer training programs that have been piloted, tested, tweaked, etc. or is it better to provide information in a more raw, unrefined mode.  The answer?  What else…it depends.

There are elements of a learning solution that should be well-designed and refined.  These elements should be used for information that isn’t likely to change.  For the ‘informational’ parts of a new-hire orientation, for example, it may be a worthwhile investment of time and money to strive for a module that looks and runs like a well-oiled machine.  It could provide newcomers with a sense of organization and structure in the fragile interaction with their new employer. 

As these newbies progress in their positions, though, they will come to know most of the static information they need to do their jobs.  It’s the complex, constantly changing environment about which they need up-to-date knowledge. 

For knowledge workers it’s nearly impossible to impart all of the information they need to do their jobs.  It’s vast, tacit and always evolving.  A well-oiled ‘quality learning program’ for people that are well entrenched in their role is many times obsolete by the time it is rolled out.  Rapid elearning allows organizations to put information that will change often into a format that lends itself to extremely fast design time.

So to answer the Big Question I’m taking the Consultant’s Amendment (It depends).  You must assess the content to be delivered:  how likely is it to change, can it be used enough times to justify the costs, what effect will the quality of the module have on the audience, etc.

I’ve written this post quickly.  There are many more examples I could have used and my writing could probably be a little better but this is time-sensitive information.  I have to get it posted in January so I’ve chosen to convey the thoughts that come to me as I sit and write.  Could I have made it better ‘quality’ by spending all month on it?  Sure.  Would that have been worth my time?  Probably not. 

I was able to express myself just by sitting down and quickly writing.  Other topics will not lend themselves to that speed - I will have to do some due diligence before publishing.

I recommend using the same criteria for learning solutions.

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.