I had the good fortune to get to meet Tom Malone way back when he was working on what makes computer games fun (cited in my book).   I stopped by PARC (then the geek’s Mecca), and got to bask in the environment that produced the GUI on top of Doug Engelbart’s mouse.

I knew Tom then went on to be a thought leader out of the Sloan School of Management, studying office work and then higher levels of activity, leading to a recent book “The Future of Work”.   I happened to meet him again at an event at IBM’s Almaden Research Center, and he was gracious enough to remember me and discuss his work (I challenged him about his ‘guilds’, since they still can’t get reasonable healthcare that businesses can get, don’t get me started).

I mention this backstory to show the trajectory of thought leadership he’s had (and yet still remain a really nice guy).   He just spoke at the celebration of Doug Engelbart’s work, and while I couldn’t attend, I was looking for blog postings and found his slide deck.

You (should) know I like models, and he’s gone beyond talking about how web 2.0 social networking can facilitate work, to actually analyze and distill some underlying principles. In his presentation on The Landscape of Collective Intelligence, he comes up with four characteristics of design patterns (or genes, as he calls them): What (strategy), Who (staffing), How (structure & process), & Why (incentives/alignment).   This is a really nice systematic breakdown into patterns tied to real examples.

For Who, he distinguishes between a hierarchical arrangement and a crowd, the latter being a more random structure.   He focuses on the latter.   For Why he breaks it out into Money, Love, & Glory.   For What, it’s Create a solution or Decide on an issue.   How is whether you’re having it independent or dependent.   The latter two work out to a nice little matrix with collection, collaboration, many-to-many, and group decision.

I really liked his statement that “failure to get motivational factors right is probably the single greatest cause of failure in collective intelligence experiments”.   That’s insightful, and useful.

The implications for informal learning are obvious, I’ll have to think more about formal learning.   Still, a great foundation for thinking about using networks in productive ways.   Definitely worth a look.

In the process of thinking through how to support informal learning, I was reminded of a diagram I created several years ago.   I started from an approach based upon philosophy that talked about acting in the world: you act in the world when you can, and when you have a breakdown you need to solve it, so you repair, and then reflect and learn so you can act more competently the next time (Ok, so it’s an idealized model). What it led me to think was that when we have a need, we first try to find the answer. If we don’t, then we have to do more extreme steps of actively trying to solve it, and then ideally we save that answer so that others don’t have to solve the same problem (see what I said about ‘ideal’?).

Without going into all the thinking (it’s elaborated more in several places, including this white paper; PDF), the point is that supporting people in performance includes not just courses, but content and job aids, and connections to people.   Note that when it moves from information need to problem-solving, the people will change because there isn’t an expert (or you’d have the answer already).

The interesting thing for me is that this provides a strong justification for using social networks in learning: wikis can be places where people can store the information about problems they’ve solved, discussion boards and profiles fill the need of finding expertise, blogs may support people in their problem-solving as well, serving as a way to share questions and get feedback.   The social network provides the rest of the support around the courses which really only serve the situation where a major skill-shift change is needed.

So, it’s probably just buttressing the obvious,   but I get a degree of comfort from taking a pre-existing model and using it to create a framework which then turns out to map to something I’m deeply involved in.   Does it make sense to you?

A contact asked me what I saw as the link between Sharepoint and elearning, and I started to give my standard answer about portals fitting in with the whole performance ecosystem. Last I played with Sharepoint, it seemed like a portal solution; a place to deposit files.   Obvious extensions I would infer from social networking would include wrapping discussion around resources (and, of course, having a way to make the resources accessible from multiple points of view, search, and other features in support of reasonable information architecture).

However, I decided to update myself on Sharepoint features, and went to look at Microsoft’s page.   They tout collaboration, content management, and search as well as portals.   This sounds like they’re beginning to incorporate real eCommunity/social networking capabilities (they mention blogs & wikis, and expertise finders). Of course, what they have in their marketing versus what’s actually there in full capability is an open question (and I’m not bagging Microsoft here; just look at LMS vendors and them trying to match a ‘checklist’ of necessary features).   Integration with Office is, for most business, a plus.

However, I’m skeptical as it’s not as easy as just putting it all together, it has to be well done.   That may be a services issue and not a technology one, however.   The point I want to make here, however, is that augmenting formal courses with resources and eCommunity is the natural progression.

On principal, there are a number of reasons to think about this augmentation.   Some obvious ones include:

1. When performance analysis indicates that tools are a better solution than courses
2. When it’s a combination of tools and training, the training can/should include the use of portals, and then the resources should be available on the portals
3. Individuals can be introduced into a community after formal learning
4. User-generated content can be mined for new courses
5. Courses might be made available via the portal, or at least presentations decks
6. Media files to augment courses could be made available via the portal

It may not seem obvious to the training practitioner that this is part of supporting elearning, as it really goes beyond the event, but I’ll argue that those who don’t look to extend their responsibility to the performance at all levels of competency are limiting their organizational relevance and consequently their value to the organization.   And that’s just a missed opportunity.

It came up in the Corporate Learning Trends conference last week that one person was responsible for knowledge workers who were, as she claimed, passive learners.   This is a really interesting issue, because it crosses several different areas.

In research on education, it’s been found that what learners believe about their role in learning has an impact on the outcomes of learning interventions.   That is, if learners believe that their role is to recite back what they’ve heard, or that learning ‘happens’ to them, the results are not as effective as if the learners have a belief that they have to be active in the role.

I have seen this as a college instructor, when students don’t want to take responsibility for their own learning.   I adapted by stating my expectations at the beginning, and what would and would not work in being successful in class.

This has also played a role in the success of distance learning. The early initiatives in online learning found that the students who were successful were the self-directed learners, and they increased success by focusing on supporting the learning behaviors of students.

As we talk more about creating communities where learners work together, we should not take learning skills nor epistemologies about learning for granted.   I think that, in this time of increasing change, growing information overload, shorter half-life of knowledge, etc, that the most useful information we can provide is how to be a better learner.

So, don’t just look at the tools you provide, and your culture for learning, but also consider your learners and how they learn.   You’ll be investing in them in a powerful and valuable way.   And that’s a win all around, I reckon.