Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Tech and School Problems

by Leave a Comment

After yesterday’s rant about problems in local schools, I was presented with a recent New York Times article. In it, they talked about how the tech industry was getting involved in schools. And while the initiatives seem largely well-intentioned, they’re off target.   There’s a lack of awareness of what meaningful learning is, and what meaningful outcomes could and should be.  And so it’s time to shed a little clarity.

Tech in schools is nothing new, from the early days of Apple and Microsoft vying to provide school computers and getting a leg up on learners’ future tech choices.  Now, however, the big providers have even more relative leverage. School funds continue to be cut, and the size of the tech companies has grown relative to society. So there’s a lot of potential leverage.

One of the claims in the article is that the tech companies are able to do what they want, and this  is a concern. They can dangle dollars and technology as bait and get approval to do some interesting and challenging things.

However, some of the approaches have issues beyond the political:

One approach is to teach computer science to every student.  The question is: is this worth it?  Understanding what computers do well (and easily), and perhaps more importantly what they don’t, is necessary, no argument. The argument for computer programming is that it teaches you to break down problems and design solutions. But is computer science necessary?  Could it be done with, say, design thinking?  Again, all for helping learners acquire good problem-solving skills.  But I’m not convinced that this is necessarily a good idea (as beneficial as it is to the tech industry ;).

Another initiative is using algorithms, rules like the ones that Facebook uses to choose what ads to show you, to sequence math.  A program, ALEKS, already did this, but this one mixes in gamification. And I think it’s patching a bad solution. For one, it appears to be using the existing curriculum, which is broken (too much rote abilities, too little transferable skills).  And gamification?  Can’t we,  please, try to make math intrinsically interesting by making it useful?  Abstract problems don’t help.  Drilling key skills is good, but there are nuances in the details.

A second approach has students choosing the problems they work on, and teachers being facilitators.  Of course, I’m a fan of this; I’ve advocated for gradually handing off control of learning to learners, to facilitate their development of self-learning. And in a recently-misrepresented announcement, Finland is moving to topics with interleaved skills rapped around them (e.g. not one curricula, but you might intersect math and chemistry in studying ecosystems. However, this takes teachers with skills across both domains, and the ability to facilitate discussion  around projects.  That’s a big ask, and has been a barrier to many worthwhile initiatives.   Compounding this is that the end of a unit is assessed by a 10-point multiple choice question.  I worry about the design of those assessments.

I’m all for school reform. As Mark Warschauer put it, the only things wrong with American education is the curriculum, the pedagogy, and the way we use technology.  I think the pedagogy being funded in the latter description is a good approach, but there are details that need to be worked out to make it a scalable success.  And while problem-solving is a good curricular goal, we need to be thoughtful about how we build it in. Further, motivation is an important component about learning, but intrinsic or extrinsic?

We really could stand to have a deeper debate about learning and how technology can facilitate it. The question is: how do we make that happen?

School Problems

by Leave a Comment

So my youngest is now out of public  school, and I can at last release this list of problems that were seen (take notice: Walnut Creek and Acalanes School Districts).  Don’t get me wrong, there were some great, committed teachers. And then there were some that should’ve been committed (you can read that either way ;). So here’s an annotated list of behaviors reported over the course of two public school careers (note: these were observed as well as experienced, so not all happened to my kids):

  • Not using examples: one teacher presented the concepts, but never used examples  that illustrated the concept in context. This violates what we know about the necessary prerequisites for learning!
  • In another instance, a teacher was asked to recommend a  calculator. Later, that teacher was asked how to use it for a particular problems, and didn’t know!  Turns out that  the calculator was just ‘recommended’.
  • In one subject, my kid was told that the couldn’t    use learnings from other classes. This was solving an engineering problem with a technique from a math class.  I’m sorry, but you shouldn’t be punished for creative solving. Classes should reinforce, not conflict!
  • Picking overly detailed semantics. This is one we’ve all seen (I remember getting in trouble in geometry because I’d do the right proof, but I hadn’t memorized the exact wording of the theorem).  Still, it’s wrong. By and large, rote memory isn’t what’s going to lead to lifetime success.
  • Too often, there were unrealistic expectations about what students could be expected to do.  These kids  should have a life!
  • On a related note was teachers making assignments in violation of assignment guidelines with a wide variety of excuses.  Those guidelines are there for a reason. Other classes assign workloads too!
  • Then there are the teachers who don’t communicate the intrinsic interest. The setup is bad enough with forced classes (or even electives). Maybe it’s not your passion, but  find it!  If you treat it as uninteresting, is it any surprise that your learners are turned off?
  • Psychotic behavior: at least once there was a teacher ranting about non-class related topics in class. This is inappropriate.  Yes, teachers are people too, but they are also professionals, and need to treat their role as such.
  • Then there was the lack of consistency within departments. Maybe two departments, English and Math say, would have the teachers coordinated, but the administration couldn’t force it. So Science would be idiosyncratic in what they covered and how.  I’m all for individual teaching approaches, but pity the subsequent teachers assuming learners come in with a certain basis but it’s not reliable.
  • This literally happened, a teacher gave a second test, but didn’t feel the need to provide    feedback since it was the  same test. I’m sorry, but the point would be that they’d choose different (hopefully better answers), so there should be different feedback.
  • When I mentioned  group assignments recently, I suggested that it was problematic if you don’t scrutinize the contributions. With no exploration of equal contribution  (nor guidance on same), learners will experience the dreaded ‘one person doing all the work’.
  • How about keeping kids in the class and not allowing them to do something else even if they’re done? Yep, you can’t do other reading, or other work, if you’re done.
  • And you’re probably also familiar with the assignments given with insufficient notice. If it’s a big project, students have to assign time between multiple assignments, and a late notice can interfere with their ability.
  • A really horrible behavior is giving student abuse, denigrating or demeaning them.  It’s an unequal power relationship, so it’s hard for the student to fight back, and it can create real problems.
  • Even in an AP class, memorizing all presidents and years is just a useless exercise.  If you justify that it’s useful on the test, then the test is broken.
  • I’ve certainly seen this: padding quizzes with unnecessary and obscure material. Think it through: if they don’t have to  know it, don’t test it!
  • And of course the ‘busy work’ assignment that has  no relevance, no support is given, or feedback provided.  Why would you assign this? As punishment? Inappropriate Classroom management?  You should do better.
  • Another classic: teachers not adding value, just repeating textbook. My better half once took a college class where the professor literally read from the textbook they’d written. If you think they need another channel, record it and make it available. Use that precious face-to-face time to do something meaningful with the knowledge!
  • A heinous practice is providing private beliefs in the classroom. Again, teachers are people too, but there’s a line, and stepping over it is to tout any party line without providing the other side. Let the students examine it, but don’t tout opinions (or ‘fake news’) as facts!
  • Another insidious practice is testing on material not on the syllabus. How can you justify this?  It’s learner abuse!
  • In one class, all the marks were assigned to one particular form of assessment.  This doesn’t provide any  triangulation  on the learner’s abilities!  Some students, for whatever reason, don’t perform well in certain ways. Try to find a way to ascertain knowledge, not just ability in one medium.
  • Coloring! Too often there were coloring assignments that were for no other reason than to make the room look pretty on open house. You  could make meaningful coloring assignments (color coding), but these weren’t those.
  • Oh, and if a student misbehaves, making them sit at the ‘bad kids’ table isn’t a viable approach. Reflection?  Scribing some thoughts? Yes.  Public humiliation?  No.

I note that I didn’t systematically collect these from the start, so I’ve regenerated some, and likely have missed others. But these were all observed, and all have pedagogical flaws. I understand that certain things have rationalizations, but there are constraints that make them contribute to learning, and these instances violate them. And again, this wasn’t even the majority of teachers, who are generally well-intentioned.  And even these ones were often well-intentioned, but mistaken. And that’s the problem: a lack of awareness of learning. By purported learning professionals!

These problems can arise when teachers get tenure, and then have no future scrutiny. I was gob-smacked when I was asked to help by a foresightful principal, but then found out that while the teachers were required to do a personal improvement    project, there was no mechanism for constructive criticism of classroom performance.  They didn’t have to change if they didn’t want to!  For instance, they could just send kids off to learn PowerPoint instead of incorporating technology meaningfully in the classroom.  I understand that teaching is a low-reward pursuit (though the benefits are pretty good). Still, it doesn’t justify no ongoing development.  My father-in-law was a school teacher, and I respect those who exhibit professionalism (and those are many, even most).  But it’s a broken system.

Ok, another editorial rant, but this has been percolating for years, so it was time to get it off my chest. Thanks if you paid attention.

Habits of Work #wolweek

by Leave a Comment

It’s Working Out Loud (WOL) Week, and that’s always a valuable time for reflection. It so happens that the past few weeks I’ve been working with an organization, and they were ripe for WOL. The problem was what, specifically, should they do to make this work? They had barriers.  My (off the cuff) recommendations were around creating some habits of work.

For context, they’re a very distributed organization, and have been for decades. They’ve a number of locations spread around over a space of hundreds of miles.  As a consequence,  they’re well-practiced at a variety of distance communication modalities. They have well-equipped video conferencing rooms, social media tool, and of course email.  And yet, their communication is very formal. They’re busy of course, so  while they recognize the benefits of sharing better, it’s hard for them to implement.

There would be  rewards, of course. They have distributed teams supporting the same sorts of actions.  Various job roles do similar work with a variety of stakeholders, and would benefit by sharing best practices, creating communities of practice around those job roles. However, for a variety of reasons, including  ineffective use of the available tools, time pressures, and general lack of awareness and practice, the practices  not in play.

As part of my ‘critical friend‘ role, I made some suggestions, including working out loud. They asked for specific steps they might take. So what’d I recommend? Several things:

  • Narrating their work: they need to find a way to represent their progress on each project, and include a ‘rationale’ that captures the thinking  behind their decisions.
  • Creating communities: they should establish a group (with  whatever tool) for each role, and do some community management around it to generate dialog and learnings.
  • Walking the walk: if the leadership (not of the overall organization, just  the leaders of this learning unit, at least to start ;) practices  the working (and failing) out loud, it would be motivation to others.  It runs better when everyone sees it’s safe to make mistakes as long as you share lessons learned).

This was off the cuff, and I might  have suggested more, but this is a reconstituted list that I think captures some  major necessary areas. It’s about practices that build the culture. These will need support, but they are the core ideas that can drive a move to a more open, sharing workplace. One that leads to continual improvement and innovation.

 

Evil design?

by 1 Comment

This is a rant, but it’s coupled with lessons.  

I’ve been away, and one side effect was a lack of internet bandwidth at the residence.  In the first day I’d used up a fifth of the allocation for the whole time (> 5 days)!  So, I determined to do all I could to cut my internet usage while away from the office.  The consequences of that have been heinous, and  on the principle of “it’s ok to lose, but don’t lose the lesson”, I want to share what I learned.  I don’t think it was evil, but it well could’ve been, and in other instances it might be.

So, to start, I’m an Apple fan.  It started when I followed the developments at Xerox with SmallTalk and the Alto as an outgrowth of Alan Kay‘s Dynabook work. Then the Apple Lisa was announced, and I knew this was the path I was interested in. I did my graduate study in a lab that was focused on usability, and my advisor was consulting to Apple, so when the Mac came out I finally justified a computer to write my PhD thesis on. And over the years, while they’ve made mistakes (canceling HyperCard), I’ve enjoyed their focus on making me more productive. So when I say that they’ve driven me to almost homicidal fury, I want you to understand how extreme that is!

I’d turned on iCloud, Apple’s cloud-based storage.  Innocently, I’d ticked the ‘desktop/documents’ syncing (don’t).  Now, with  every other such system that I know of, it’s stored locally *and* duplicated on the cloud.  That is, it’s a backup. That was my mental model.  And that model was reinforced:  I’d been able to access my files even when offline.  So, worried about the bandwidth of syncing to the cloud, I turned it off.

When I did, there was a warning that  said something to the effect of: “you’ll lose your desktop/documents”.  And, I admit, I didn’t interpret that literally (see: model, above).  I figured it would disconnect their syncing. Or I’d lose the cloud version. Because, who would actually steal the files from your hard drive, right?

Well, Apple DID!  Gone. With an option to have them transferred, but….

I turned it back on, but didn’t want to not have internet, so I turned it off again but ticked the box that said to copy the files to my hard drive.  COPY BACK MY OWN @##$%^& FILES!  (See fury, above.)   Of course, it started, and then said “finishing”.  For 5 days!  And I could see that my files weren’t coming back in any meaningful rate. But there was work  to do!

The support  guy I reached had some suggestion that really didn’t work. I did try to drag my entire documents folder from the iCloud drive to my hard drive, but it said it was making the estimate of how long, and hung on that for a day and a half.  Not helpful.

In meantime, I started copying over the files I needed to do work. And continuing to generate the new ones that reflected what I was working on.  Which meant that the folders in the cloud, and the ones on my hard drive that I  had  copied over, weren’t in sync any longer.  And I have a  lot of folders in my documents folder.  Writing, diagrams, client files, lots of important information!

I admit I made some decisions in my panic that weren’t optimal.  However, after returning I called Apple again, and they admitted that I’d have to manually copy stuff back.  This has taken hours of my time, and hours yet to go!

Lessons learned

So, there are several learnings from this.  First, this is bad design. It’s frankly evil to take someone’s hard drive files after making it easy to establish the initial relationship.  Now, I don’t  think Apple’s intention was to hurt me this way, they just made a bad decision (I hope; an argument could be made that this was of the “lock them in and then jack them up” variety, but that’s contrary to most of their policies so I discount it).  Others, however,  do make these decisions (e.g. providers of internet and cable from whom you can only get a 1 or 2  year price which will then ramp up  and unless you remember to check/change, you’ll end up paying them more than you should until you get around to noticing and doing something about it).  Caveat emptor.

Second, models are important and can be used for or against you. We do  create models about how things work and use evidence to convince ourselves of their validity (with a bit of confirmation bias). The learning lesson is to provide good models.  The warning is to check your models when there’s a financial stake that could take advantage of them for someone else’s gain!

And the importance of models for working and performing is clear. Helping people get good models is an important boost to successful performance!  They’re not necessarily easy to find (experts don’t have access to 70% of what they do), but there are ways to develop them, and you’ll be improving your outcomes if you do.

Finally, until Apple changes their policy, if you’re a Mac and iCloud user I  strongly recommend you avoid the iCloud option to include Desktop and Documents in the cloud unless you can guarantee that you won’t have a bandwidth blockage.  I like the idea of backing my documents to the cloud, but not when I can’t turn it off without losing files. It’s a bad policy that has unexpected consequences to user expectations, and frankly violates my rights to  my data.

We now return you to our regularly scheduled blog topics.

 

A learning meta-story

by Leave a Comment

Been thinking about how to generate meaningful learning in optimal (read: concise but effective) ways. And a lot of what I’ve been thinking about involves contextualized meaningful practice (no surprise there, eh?).  So how might this play out?  Thought I’d use a story to convey the experience I’m thinking of:

Pat logs on to the system, and notes that it’s time to take a crack at the next assignment.  In it is a setup  with a role for Pat to play.  The story details a business situation: the organization, it’s current status, and a situation that’s occurred that requires an action.  The details are exaggerated, so it’s a dire situation with a lot riding on the outcome. The instructions are phrased in the form of an email directly from the CEO, with pointers to some folks to talk to for assistance.

The necessity is for Pat to create a plan to address the need.  In this case, it’s a marketing plan for a new product that has been the focus of most of the organization’s effort.  With old products facing receding sales, this product  has to succeed.  The existing plan, legacy of a departed individual, is ‘old school’ and an up-to-date approach is needed.  The indicated need  is heavily aligned with this week’s topic of social-media marketing.

Pat starts work to create a document to send to the CEO. This includes  making ‘calls’ (viewing videos of quick messages from the various roles involved including the product manager, the financial officer) to find out the  parameters which are in play and to get expert knowledge.  There are also some marketing materials available.  

In  previous assignments there were support tools about creating documents and about marketing plans, but this time  such  support isn’t available.  Pat realizes  that this being a more advanced cut through the topic, it’s time to start taking ownership of the process.  The CEO has  asked for an interim plan report  before creating the entire marketing plan, and  Pat uses previous materials and adapts them to  create the  plan.

Pat will get feedback from the CEO to incorporate in the plan before putting together the final submission.  Ultimately, the success of the plan will be presented, and then feedback on the details of Pat’s submission.  The document creation will be  evaluated separately and in the context of previous documents required across this particular topic and previous ones, while the marketing plan itself will be evaluated in terms of it’s response to the context.  

Several things to note here. The contextualized performance requirement isn’t unique, of course.  This very much draws upon similar work seen in Roger Schank’s Story-Centered Curriculum and Goal-Based Scenarios. It differs in that subsequent assignments might use totally separate story settings.  It’s similar also to work like Bransford, et al’s Anchored Instruction.  The notion of embedding performance in context reflects research that shows abstract instruction doesn’t transfer as well. My own proposal (research, anyone?) is that the story should complete before the conceptual feedback is presented, or indeed that the story outcome includes the conceptual feedback in an intrinsic way.

The second important thing is that the document creation details are assessed separately, and tracked across other such assignments that might appear anywhere. The point is to develop meta-skills like digital document creation (and others such as presentations, working in groups, research, etc) as well as the domain skills.

I believe that we need learners to create complex work products that are challenging to auto-mark, because the outcomes are necessary.  This means that you need people in the learning loop; totally asynchronous isn’t going to work to develop rich capabilities. I’m trying to figure out ways to approximate that with as little human intervention as possible because pragmatically we have more learning to achieve than we have resources to achieve that (at least until we get our priorities right ;).

 

Deliberate Practice

by 4 Comments

A colleague pointed me to a intense  critique of master’s programs in Instructional Design, and it raised several issues for me. So, I thought it’d be worth discussing.  The issue is that the program didn’t provide  any practice in designing courses from go to whoa, it was all about theory. In the comments, many people talk about how the programs they went did  include projects, but this raises issues around the role of programs as well as what practice means.

Is  a master’s  supposed to be about skill-building?  Is it  job training?  In the original academic model, I’d argue that an advanced degree would be to augment your experience  with some theory.  E.g. if you were an accountant, or an engineer, or even a designer, with experience under your belt, you’d go for a master’s to serve as reflection in developing the concepts you perform  under.  You might (and should) apply them, but that’s not the focus.

David Merrill has made the case that there should be bachelor’s programs in ID, and I think this makes sense.  And maybe that’s where you’d actually get the hands-on experience designing courses.  Of course, the reality is that many master’s (and even bachelor’s degrees) have become vocational training. Which raises the second issue.

Then the question becomes: how much  practice?  Indeed, if I need to develop a practical skill, I need to perform the skills.  And too much of education  and  training, just doesn’t do it.  The author talked  about deliberate practice: where you focus on one element with a coach there to critique your performance.  It could be faked problems, or a real apprenticeship, but it’s a tight coupling between designed action and guided reflection (what instruction  needs  to be).

Look at performance where it matters: flight, warfare, medicine. You’re gradually scaffolded from simple practice to complex. Heck, if I want to learn fire-fighting, rather than a classroom and then one go at a burning building, I’d rather have a simple building, then gradually ramp up the complexity (victims, second stories, inflammables, …).  All with some instructor yelling at me when I screwed up!  Yes, there’d be content, with animations about how fire spreads, and some facts about smoke inhalation and the like, but the focus would be on performing.

And this holds true for job skills whether it’s vocational training or university (which is increasingly being expected to prepare people for jobs).  Accounting?  Analyze statements for biz problems, make recommendations for reallocation, etc. Quite a bit, that drives you to the content.

My take-home: if you have real practice, you need reflection. If you don’t, you need real practice  first. Focused practice. Intense practice.  Scaling-up practice!  We need to get our ratios right.    If you’re needing skills, then make sure you’ve got good practice up front.

Grappling with Groups

by 4 Comments

I’m a fan of the power of social learning. When people get together (and the process is managed right), the outcomes of a negotiated understanding can be powerful.  However, in designing learning, working in groups  has some real negative perceptions  and  realities. The open question is: what to do?

The problems are well-known. As my kids complained, on group projects some team members will reliably slack, letting the most driven student do the work.  Even with a commitment, there can be differences in working style: getting started early versus preferring to do it under pressure.

Some things have been tried. When I assigned group projects, I told my students I expected them to do equal work, and would grade accordingly. If it didn’t end up being the case, they were to each write up a report on what each team member did, including themselves. Others require this, regardless, and that sounds like  a smart way to make concrete a requirement for contribution.

One  thing to be addressed  is invigilation. Is the work being tracked  in any way?  If they’re working in a collaborative environment that tracks contributions via versioning or some other way, then there’s a trail of work that can be scrutinized. Extra work, to be sure, but it’d serve as a tie-breaker if there was some question about contribution.

Another  issue is support  for working in groups. When I first assigned group work, it became clear that they didn’t know how (?!?!).  So I wrote up a little guide to doing group work, and those problems subsided.  Working together is a skill that shouldn’t be taken for granted. There should be some explicit statement of expectations if you can’t determine whether there’s reliable prior experience. (Certainly, it seems that the teachers weren’t providing guidance or oversight, in the case of my kids.)

As an aside: make sure the students know  why you’re asking them to work in groups. I’ve learned that learners will be much more willing to undertake what you assign if you explain the rationale that justifies your choice!

Then there’s them question  of  just  when group work makes sense. Given that the value-added benefit is the negotiated understanding, it would make sense to do that when the material is complex, and there’s a risk of an individual taking a unique, incomplete, and or imperfect understanding. At times when you want to assess an individual’s ability to deliver, you wouldn’t want a group project!

There’s also the  issue of the  nature of the task.  Are you just having them come to a shared understanding in representing their thinking (e.g. a response to a question) or actually produce a work product of some sort (a video, presentation, report, etc).  If you can get what you need with less effort, you shouldn’t assign a more complex project.

Which brings up the issue of the scope of the work. I would expect that the more imposing the total amount of work is, the more it would invoke those with time or effort concerns to be lulled to the lazy side.  Keeping the scope small might contribute to a greater willingness to participate.

Breaking up the deliverables is one way to manage student effort. If you have interim deliverables, it helps manage the process  and the time.  Certainly, early in a curriculum, you could provide this scaffolding (and make it explicit), and then gradually hand off responsibility for the learners to internalize  the self-management. (Meta-learning!)

Breaking it up can also manage to address the contribution. If individual submissions are required before group ones, you can at least have the learners having had to contribute  thought before sharing and creating a greater understanding.

Finally, there’s the issue of group work in an independent schedule. In a cohort model (scheduled timetable) it’s easy, but otherwise, how do you do it?  If there’s ‘critical mass’, you can have learners arrange to meet with anyone available. If there’re more, you could even have them indicate working style preferences: quick, early, what media channels. Otherwise, it’s more challenging (or a non-issue, just don’t do it).

There are lots of issues and potential solutions for addressing group work.  I can’t say I’ve found an easy solution, despite having wrestled with it. I think it’s important, so I’m curious what you’ve tried and found out!

Some new elearning companies ;)

by 1 Comment

As I continue to track what’s happening, I get the opportunity to review a wide number of products and services. While tracking them all would be a full-time job, occasionally some offer new ideas.  Here’s a collection of those that have piqued my interest of late:

Sisters eLearning: these folks are taking a kinder, gentler  approach to their products and marketing their services.  Their signature offering is  a suite of templates for your elearning featuring cooperative play.  Their approach in their custom development is quiet and classy. This  is reflected in the way they  promote themselves at conferences: they all wear mauve  polos  and sing beautiful  a capella.  Instead of giveaways, they  quietly provide free home-baked mini-muffins for all.

Yalms: these folks are offering  the ‘post-LMS’. It’s not an LMS, and  instead offers course management, hosting, and tracking.  It addresses compliance, and checks a whole suite of boxes such as media portals, social, and many non-LMS things including xAPI. Don’t confuse them with an LMS; they’re beyond that!

MicroBrain: this company has developed a system that makes it easy to take  your existing courses and chunk  them  up into little bits. Then it pushes them out on a  schedule.  It’s a serendipity model, where there’s a chance it just might be the right bit at the right time, which is certainly better than your existing elearning. Most  importantly, it’s mobile!

OffDevPeeps: these folks a full suite of technology development services  including mobile, AR, VR, micro, macro, long, short, and anything else you want, all done at a competitive  cost. If you  are focused on the ‘fast’ and ‘cheap’ side of the trilogy, these are the folks to talk to. Coming soon to an inbox  near you!

DanceDanceLearn: provides a completely unique offering. They have developed an authoring tool that makes it easy for you to animate dancers moving in precise formations that spell out content. They also have a synchronized swimming version.  Your content can be even more engaging!

There, I hope you’ll find these of interest, and consider checking them out.

Any relation between the companies portrayed and real entities is purely coincidental.  #couldntstopmyself #allinfun

Disruptive Innovation

by Leave a Comment

I recently came across a document  (PDF) about disruptive innovation based upon Clayton Christensen’s models, which I’d heard about but hadn’t really penetrated. This one was presented around higher education innovation (a topic I’ve  some familiarity with ;), so it provided a good basis for me to explore the story.  It had some interesting features that are worth portraying, and then some implications for my thoughts on innovation, so I thought I’d share.

The model’s premise is that disruption requires two major things: a technology enabler and a business model innovation.  That is, there has to be a way to deliver this new advance, and it has to be coupled with a way to capitalize on the benefits.  It can’t just be a new technology in an existing business model, as that’s merely the traditional competitive innovation. Similarly, a new business model around existing technology is still within  competitive advancement.

A related requirement is to have a new entity ready to capitalize. This quote captured me: “In those few instances in which the leader in one generation became the leader in the next disruptive one, the company did so by setting up a completely autonomous business unit…”  You can’t do disruption from inside the game.  Even if you’re a player, you have to liberate resources to start anew.

Which is quite different than most innovation. Typical innovation is ‘within the box’.  This comes from having an environment where people can experiment, share, be exposed to new ideas, and allowing it to incubate (ferment/percolate) over time.  And this is a good thing. Disruptive innovation makes new industries, new companies, etc.  And that’s also good (except, perhaps, for the disrupted).  The point being that both innovations are valuable, but different.

It’s not clear to me what happens when an internal innovation comes up with an idea that’s really disruptive. Clearly, if the idea  clears the hurdles of complacency and inertia, you’d probably want to spin it off.  But most innovations just need a fair airing and trialing to get traction (though depending on scope, a bit of change management might be useful).

I encourage innovation, and creating the environment where it can happen. It’s valuable even in established businesses, and a fair bit is known about how to create an environment where it can flourish.  So, what can we innovate about innovation?

A ‘Critical Friend’?

by 1 Comment

I’m participating in an engagement, and they were struggling to define my role. Someone mentioned that I’m serving as a ‘critical friend’, and the others cottoned on to it.  I hadn’t heard that term  so I explored, and liked what I found. Thought I’d share it.

So, ‘critical friend‘ is a term that originated in the education sector. The prevailing definition is:

a trusted person who asks provocative questions, provides data to be examined through another lens, and offers critiques of a person‘s work as a friend. A critical friend takes the time to fully understand the context of the work presented and the outcomes that the person or group is working toward. The friend is an advocate for the success of that work.

What’s key to me is that the role involves being committed to the success of the endeavor, but also being provocative. The latter is about  asking the hard questions and bringing in outside input that wouldn’t likely be considered otherwise. And I believe, based upon what I’ve dug into for innovation, that this is a valuable role.

So what I’m doing is getting to know the situation, rapidly consuming lots of documents, interviewing people, and sitting in on other information gathering sessions, to get to know what’s up. Then I’m floating some ideas that I think they really need to consider. The ideas are contrary to the  path they’re planning on but I’ve buttressed them with  some strong arguments. They make not take on all of them, but at least they’ll have explicitly considered them.

I’ve played this role specifically in a number of different situations (in fact, in some sense you could consider most of my engagements to have at least a facet of this).  I like to think that my 30+ years of work across cognition, technology, learning, design, and organizational implementation, with corporations, education institutions, government agencies, and not-for-profits, as well as my stockpiling of models, means I’ll generate some lateral and valuable thoughts in almost any situation. That’s certainly been the case to date.  And I really do want to help people achieve their goals.

It’s a fun, though challenging role. You have to get up to speed quickly, and be willing to offer ideas. I pride myself on also being able to suggest ways to accomplish ideas that aren’t obviously implementable at  the first go (all part of  Quinnovation ;).

When you’re looking at some change, getting some critical friend support on principle is a good idea. People challenging you for your own best interest isn’t always easy, but the outcomes are pretty much always worth it.  So, who’s your  critical friend?