I’ve been working at the National Archives for the last year or so. Thanks for the SCANS competencies reference. We have been using a customized version of the OPM competencies for awhile within the agency but I have some trouble with the application of the models as built. Many of these are aspirational statements without much in the way of practical guidance or “touchable measures”.
http://www.archives.gov/careers/competencies/

These are used for building job announcements, interview questions, etc. but don’t seem to be used beyond this. We’ll be using these as a starting place for development exploration (since it’s something we have) but asking folks to explore potential and strengths, applying insight to distill specific capacities they need / want to develop. This’ll help map to opportunities and connect folks with starting points that aren’t exclusively focused (but don’t exclude) on formal training activities. This seems to be one of the sticky points in the process.

I haven’t written for over a year. There are a few loosely connected thoughts at androidgogy.com. I’m working up outlines to convey the stuff I’ve been focused on the past few months.

Steve, thanks for the thoughtful reply, and let me resoundingly encourage you to write this up (and more; I want diagrams!). By point, I meant identified recipients (rightly or wrongly). I like you thinking about one to one, one to many, many to many, etc. Though I guess I was thinking slightly differently: one to specific, or one to general. And you’re right I haven’t thought about the flip side (is many to one an individual choice of selecting who to follow, or…?).

Your capacities are interesting and I agree are ‘meta’; these are more success factors or meta-learning characteristics, I think. I’d also add in: ability to research, ability to experiment, systematicity, persistence, the list goes on. (See the SCANS competencies.) I also like your emergent categories. Remind me: who’s ‘we’?

Where can I find more about your thinking on this?

*Point* in the top row seems to be “fleeting” or “touch and go” to me. Fitting into the social context of solo, one-to-one, one-to few, and many-to-one.

Chat – Dig it! Though these can also be multipoint / broadcast.
Email – Also dig this one, though these have some buried persistence and can be multipoint and threaded.
Media File – Starting to go off the tracks for me. A media file can be broadcast. Perhaps a non-recorded Webcast would be more “point” under the fleeting | touch and go definition?
Doc – Yes. It’s a single thing. But the very concept of a doc is changing a bit with cloud-based collaboration. Maybe a printed doc would be more “point”?

Broadcast seems to be “persistent”, “connected”, and “living”. Fitting into the context of many-to-many, team, community, association, and world.

Microblog – love it.
Blog – Yep!
Media Portal – I like the variety angle as an extension. But a single file could also meet the definition I’m grokking from the matrix.
Wiki – Yes! However, as mentioned, the lines are blurring. A document can be living, connected, and persistent! Spitballing, maybe adding “open” as a condition could be more exclusive? Maybe it doesn’t matter as a thought exercise:)

Overall, I really like the direction. It aligns with some of the mindset crafting we’re trying to do. Cracking the concrete expectations folks have around experiences (namely those that contribute to development of capacities) and their relationship with tools, resources, and media is a tough job. I have a couple of models that we’re using to articulate “thought bearing”, different ways to consider opportunities, and ways to break the training==development default. One is similar to one of the axis you seem to allude to here.

Social context:

– Solo (this is the new default, not always a good default – LMS context)
– One-to-One (this is powerful with the right match but it’s not used nearly enough)
– One-to-Many (another default right behind solo, also not a fantastic default – LMS context)
– Many-to-One (also can be powerful but underused – want to know what people need? Try asking them.)
– Many-to-Many (under used in the enterprise and often with half-measures and tom-foolery. The network amplification effect is undeniable if allowed to grow naturally)
– Team (Many-as-One — team focused opportunities are intentional in some organizations. Others… not so much)
– Community (one-to-many, many-to-one, many-to-many mix. Actually quite a bit of this ad hoc. These are the connections we need to encourage and for the sake of all that is holy not block)
– Association (A touch and go community. Ties with varying gravity. These are powerful as well. We haven’t figured out how to best leverage and encourage these either)
– Society (One of Us – I think of this as the larger circle to how we fit together. Could overlap with association and community. But society is much more than that)
– World (All of Us – the circle within the atmosphere -for the moment. How can we use this to our benefit in each of the categories above?)

The other two axis are capacities and opportunities. Skills (so we can do), confidence (so we feel better about doing), perspective (so we can balance the value), experience (so we can compete), connections (so we can amplify others and others can amplify us), grit, empathy, insight, etc. are things I add as categories under capacities. General, yes. Definitely. I think of these as *meta* to the stuff normally modeled in competencies. Some overlap. This is used to convey the message that training for S&K isn’t everything. Articulated by breaking down the components that people aspire to grow. It also helps when each of the axis are wired together.

For opportunities, we crowd sourced with a question “How do you develop skills?” I didn’t lead with “capacities” because it needed to relate to a current expectation. With all of the activities that we got back, an extensive list, we distilled 6 categories:

– Discover
– Achieve
– Create
– Lead
– Connect
– Apply

Each category contains a list of general types of opportunities, activities, and challenges. Again, for breaking the mindset that training=development. It’s working. Slowly. I plan to write some of this up. It’s probably familiar. Someone may already have formulated some of this. If it does seem familiar, I’d love to know what’s related!

Thanks for getting me thinking, Clark.

Steve