Jane Hart (one of my ITA colleagues) has laid out a proposal for the new services of the L&D department, and I think it resonates nicely with some thinking I’ve been having.  The point is that L&D has to shift, but the question is: “to where?”

So Jane posits 3 services:

• Content production: designing and delivering courses and resources
• Learning Concierge: address ad hoc or ongoing learning or performance problems
• Connected Workplace: supporting continuous learning and performance improvement through knowledge sharing and collaboration

The first is most of what the L&D group does now, and overuses.  And the focus really  is on courses, though sometimes resources are developed.  The latter two, however, are real opportunities.

Increasingly, we can’t anticipate the unique needs our learners will have, and what we have to move towards supporting them ‘at will’.  It may be a pointer to a resource such as a book or person or video as opposed to designing a course.  We increasingly need to serve as curators.

Similarly, we need to serve as facilitators, helping people learn how to self-help by working ‘out loud’ when we find ways to help them, so they can start self-helping. We can and should be facilitating conversations, helping those who are having trouble being effective in communicating, and more.

As I suggested earlier, social learning may often be our first recourse (not off our radar), and performance support second. If formal learning is (or should be) expensive, it should only be used when we need a significant skill shift. Yes, there are times that it’ll be needed  (e.g. unskilled employees, highly regulated performances), but we need to have a much richer suite of support possibilities, and start more accurately targeting the assistance to the need (and measuring the impact).

Our goal should be to have a business impact, and a one-trick pony isn’t going to meet the rich complexity and rate of change we’re increasingly going to face.  So, as Jane concludes: “how ready are you to provide these new services?”

#itashare

I’m convincing myself that as performance consultants assisting our organizations moving forward, we need to start thinking differently.  And as an extreme version of this, let me start by saying we need to start thinking ‘social’ first.  When we’re facing a performance problem in the organization, our first resort should be to ask: “would a social solution solve this”?  Let me explain.

Social solutions basically suggest that we either tap into user-generated solutions, or reach out to people on the fly.  It might be recorded video or user-generated job aids.  It might be asking a SME via an expertise directory. Or it just might be tossing it out to our network.  It may even be asking for some collaboration on a unique situation.

Here’s the thing: social networks are more likely to be up-to-date, and better able to deal with one-off questions and unique situations than our formally designed solutions.  In situations where things are changing rapidly, formally designed solutions are not likely to be up to date with where things are, owing to the time to capture, process, and generate appropriate content. And unusual situations aren’t worth trying to anticipate. They’re likely to be too many to address.  And, as the rate of change accelerates, these situations are more likely.

Of course, this requires infrastructure, an appropriate culture, and facilitation, but that should be already accomplished if not underway.  We know that continual innovation is the only sustainable differentiator, and that this comes from creative friction (the myth of individual innovation is busted). The  important  outcomes are going to come from the social network, not from L&D.

Finally, formal is (or should be) expensive.  If we’re doing it right, the effort to help change someone’s skill set sufficiently is a prolonged effort.  We need to be looking for effective, agile, and efficient.  Formal isn’t the latter two (and too frequently not the former either).  We should hold formal as a last resort!

There  will be times when social isn’t the answer, but for a number of reasons social should be your first solution if possible. It’s effective, it’s agile, and it’s very efficient.  Anticipating quite the  social  reaction to this ;).

#itashare

It’s becoming clear to me that we’re making a big mistake in our thinking. We seem to think that formal learning is relatively cost-effective, and may even think that performance support and social are more costly.   Yet we need to realize that formal learning is likely our most costly approach!

To start with, we should be doing sufficient analysis to ensure that the need is indeed a skill shift. If it’s an information problem, it should be solved with a job aid. Courses are more expensive.  And we need to take the time that the skill shift really is needed; it’s not a motivation problem or some other problem. In other words, we need to take the time to identify what business problem this is solving that a course will affect, and the associated metric.  That takes time.

Then we need to design an intervention that will address that skill shift: we need to determine what the change in the workplace behavior needs to be to impact that metric, and then design an objective that reflects that needed behavior change.  This is not trivial: a poorly formed objective about knowledge, not behavior, isn’t going to have an impact on the business.

Then, to do formal learning well, you need appropriate and sufficient practice.   That takes time to design properly, ideally with scenarios or simulation-driven interactions.  And the practice needs to be aligned with the learner; it has to be meaningful to them.  Enough of them. This takes time.

Then we need to create an appropriate model to guide their behavior, and introduce it appropriately. And find meaningful examples that illustrate the concept being applied in context, across sufficient contexts.  This takes time, though no more time (once you determine a course is the answer) than other learning design once you get experienced in this more advanced way of designing.  And it takes development resources.

And, of course, if you’re not doing the above, why are you bothering? It’s not going to hit the mark.  We don’t, frankly, and to the extent we don’t, we undermine the  likelihood  that our interventions will have the desired impact.  The point being that courses should not be our first line of defense!

Rapid elearning is cheap and fast, but it’s not going to have any impact.  Most of what we do doesn’t have any impact. If we want to have impact, we have to do it right, and that’s not a cheap proposition.  We need to worry about measuring more than cost/bum, and worry about hitting the business goal.  Then we can truly determine whether we should go this route, rather than another.  But, seriously, you shouldn’t be throwing formal learning at a problem unless you’re willing to do it right. There are times it  will be the right answer, but right now we’re throwing too much money away.  Let’s stop, and do it right  when  it’s right.  And that will be both expensive  and worth it.

In a clever talk, Aaron Dignan used game theory to talk about how to improve the workplace.