For reasons that aren’t quite clear (even to me), I was thinking about where, on a continuum, do L&D elements fit? Where does performance support go? Formal learning? Informal learning? I began to think that it depends on what focus you’re thinking of. So here’re some nascent thoughts on emphasis and effort.
To start with, I generally think of formal learning as the starting point. For instance, in thinking about performance & development (as an alternative to learning & development), I put training first. Similarly, in my strategy work, I likewise suggest the first step is to put learning science more central in training. Here, the order is:
- Formal Learning
- Performance Support
- Informal Learning
I’m looking as much as where we typically start. This may well be because training is always the line of first-response (throw training at it!). Also perhaps because it’s familiar (it looks like school).
However, in another cut at it, I started with performance support. Here, I was thinking more about the utility to achieve goals rather than the way L&D allocates resources. That is, from a performer’s perspective, if the answer can be in the world, it should. I can use a tool to achieve my goal rather than have to take a course. Still, taking a pre-digested course is easier than having to work together to collaborate and solve it. Of course, if someone else has the answer, just asking and getting it is easier than working to create an unknown answer. (So, do I need to separate out communication from collaboration? Hmm…) Thus, the list here might be:
- Performance Support
- Formal Learning
- Informal Learning
However, if I look at it from the effort required from L&D, a new order emerges. Here, formal learning is hardest. That is, if you’re doing it right. To successfully get a persistent change in the way someone does something is harder than even facilitating informal learning, and performance support is easiest. Not saying that any are trivial, mind you, designing good job aids isn’t easy, it’s just not as hard as designing a whole course. Then the list comes out like this:
- Performance Support
- Informal Learning
- Formal Learning
I guess there isn’t one answer. To do this successfully, however, requires an understanding how to do all of the above, and then apply as priorities demands. If you’ve expert performers, you’ll do something different than if you have high turnover. If you’re doing something complex, your design strategies may differ from something important. However, you do need to know the tradeoffs in emphasis and effort to make the right calls. Am I missing something important here?
David Shoemaker says
I think the order depends in some part on the scope of the behavior or skill change you’re needing to achieve; and on the degree to which you have buy-in from your audience to that change.
For example, if my audience is auto mechanics needing to figure out how to accomplish a common repair on a car they’ve never worked on before, performance support is likely to be first and may even be sufficient.
If my audience is sales reps who need to master a new selling strategy that they may believe may be less effective than the way they’ve always been doing things, I’m going to begin with formal learning to establish the value proposition of the new methodology, answer the WIIFM, establish a firm foundation, and then move on to performance support and informal learning.