Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Authentic Marketing

by Leave a Comment

I’m not a marketing expert, or even a marketer, so take the following with the proverbial boulder of salt. Still, I have to market Quinnovation, and I’ve advised orgs on marketing (learning) products, and I’ve taken down a lot of bogus marketing. So when something prompted me to reflect, I realized I had some thoughts on authentic marketing.

First, I’ve argued that good marketing is really good customer education. That is, you should be helping your customers understand why your product is the right thing for their needs. Of course, you should be first designing to ensure that it  is the answer. Or, perhaps,  an answer, and then helping your customers to understand if they’re the right customer for this solution.

And, when I’ve studied marketing for services, there are several steps that make sense. First, the clear thing is knowing your customer’s pain, and being able to articulate how you solve that pain. You want to help articulate clearly what the problem is, and what’s it’s costing, so that then you can suggest a solution and the benefits.

At core it’s about building up a solid, scrutable, case. Which is, in essence, building up trust that you know what you’re talking about, and that you can truly meet the need.

And that may not be the quick easy way. It appears to be the case that some folks would rather use clickbait-style advertising. Perhaps to cover up from not having a defensibly different product or solution? When there are hundreds of LMSs around, how do you differentiate yourself?   And I guess it works, because I keep finding new examples of marketing that goes for the cheap ploy rather than authentic education.

So I guess this is a plea for being an aware consumer. It’d be great if orgs started building products that really do make their customers awesome, and then use authentic marketing to sell them. In lieu of that, be wary. Look for unsubstantiated hype, buzzword bandwagon behavior, and style over substance. Know what you need, take your time to do due diligence, and spend wisely. Caveat emptor, after all.

The plusses and minuses of learning science research

by 1 Comment

A person who I find quite insightful (and occasionally inciteful ;) is Donald Clark. He built and sold Epic, an elearning company, and now he leads a learning AI company, Wildfire. He’s knowledgeable (for instance, having read up and summarized centuries of learning theorists), willing to call out bad learning, and he’s funny. And so, when he reported on a new study, I of course looked into it. And I find that it points out the plusses  and  minuses of learning science research.

To be clear, this is about his product, so there’s a vested interest. However, he’s got integrity; he’s not going to sully his reputation with a bad study. And, it’s a good study. It rightly demonstrates an important point. It’s just that it stops short of what we need for full  learning.

So, his product does something pretty amazing. You give it content, and it can not only answer questions about the content (as, for instance, some chat tools do), it can turn the tables and ask  you questions about the content. That is, it can serve as a sort of tutor. Which is all to the good.

What it can’t do, of course, is design meaningful practice. As Van Merriënboer’s Four Component Instructional Design (4C/ID) points out, you need to know the information, and you also need practice applying it. And I reckon we’re still far from that. So, while this is part of a whole solution (and Donald knows this), it’s not the full solution. He’s subsequently let me know it can do language tasks, which is impressive. I’m thinking more of contextualized scenarios, however.

The study demonstrates, as you might expect, that breaking up a video into reasonable chunks, and having system-generated questions asked in-between, led to 61% better retrieval, going from getting 8 to 14 questions right. That is a big improvement. it’s also impressive, since it’s generating those questions from video! That is, it parses the video, establishes a transcript, and then uses that to generate a knowledge base. Very cool.

And it’s a well-designed study. It’s got a control group, and a  reasonable number of subjects. It uses the same test material, for an AB comparison. Presumably, the video chunking was done by hand, into four pieces. The chunking and break might account for the difference, which wasn’t controlled for, but it’s still a big improvement. Granted, we know that watching a video alone isn’t necessarily going to improve retention (except, perhaps, over some other non-interactive way of dumping content). But still, this is good as it’s an improvement and a lot of work was saved.

What I quibble about, however, is the nature of the retrieval. The types of questions liable to be asked (and it’s not indicated), are knowledge questions. As suggested above, knowledge is a necessary component. But using that knowledge to make decisions in context is typically what our goals are. And to achieve such goals, you basically have to practice making decisions in context. (Interestingly, the topic here was equality and diversity, a topic he has complained about!)

Knowledge about a topic isn’t likely to impact your ability to apply it. What will  make a difference are actually doing things about it, like calling it out, having consequences, and actively working to remedy imbalances. And that requires separate practice. Which he’s acknowledged in the past, and rightly points out that his solution means you can devote more resources to that end.

Thus, the plusses of learning science research are we nibble away at the questions we need to answer, and find answers about the questions we ask. The minus, of course, is not necessarily asking the most important questions. It’d be easy to see this and say: “we’ve improved retention, and we’re done”. However, it won’t necessarily lead to reducing the behaviors being learned about, or building ability to deal with it.  There are plusses and minuses of learning science research, and we need to know the strengths, and limitations, of it when we hear it.

The case for learning science

by 1 Comment

In a perfect world, we’d spend all the time we want on learning. However, we don’t live in that world, we live in the real world. Which means our decisions are about tradeoffs. Which means we have to evaluate the case for paying attention to research. So here’s a stab at the case for learning science.

Learning is a probabilistic game. That is, there’s a probability that anything we’ve invested in learning will arise at the appropriate time. I’ll suggest that our brains have some randomness built into them, so there’s always a chance we’ll do things differently. Thus, in a sense, learning design is about increasing the probability that the right thing will occur.

And there are consequences. Say, for instance, that we want people to wash hands sufficiently. Then we might rightly work to increase awareness (along with making sure there’s soap, water, sinks, towels, etc) and the proper procedure. To do that sufficiently, say, takes X minutes of instruction.

Yet we may not have X minutes. Given the drain on resources, allocating that much time means the cost of the washing may be more than the cost of not. People not on the job for that time are an expensive resource. What’s a manager to do?

What we do all the time is make a probabilistic decision. We provide the rules in places where people might get their hands dirty, and we provide support materials (e.g. signs on the walls) in the places you wash your hands.

Most importantly, however, we make a determination of what’s a level of time that is going to likely do ‘good enough’. We’ll spend X-Y minutes, and make essentially a gamble that we’ll get 80% there, and the support materials will do the rest.

What this means is that since we’re not allocating sufficient time, we should be optimizing the quality of the learning design we apply. If they’re only getting X-Y minutes, that time should be as effective as possible. Which means we practice serious learning design, reflecting the best practices.

Quite simply, if you do less than use the best learning design principles derived from research, you’re decreasing the value of your investment in design time and learner time. And there are lots of ways we go wrong, whether it’s myths or just underinformed design. It’s a matter of professionalism as well. So let’s be smart and design smart. That’s the case for learning science. We owe it to our learners and our organizations.

Top 10 Tools for Learning 2020

by Leave a Comment

It’s time, once again, for Jane Hart’s excellent Top 10 Tools for Learning survey. And, so, it’s time once again for my reflections. Here are my take on the top 10 tools that support my learning.

The first way I learn is to process what I’ve seen. That, toolwise, is largely about representing and communicating.

Processing Tools

1-2. Writing is arguably the top way I reflect. And, so that’d put Microsoft Word at the top of my list. That’s where I write books and articles first. And, of course WordPress is how I write my blog (e.g. here!).   Writing is a way to sort out how I think about things. As I say, things that end up in presentations and books tend to show up on blog first. Well, one of the main ways.

3-4. Besides writing, two ways I sort out my understandings are to diagram and to outline. I use OmniGraffle as a general purpose diagramming tool because, well, it largely works the way I want to think about it. Diagrams, mind maps, even recently as sort of posterboard. And I use OmniOutliner to do, well, outlines. Another way to map out structures. I’d use a less costly tool, but…the columns feature is really helpful for annotation. Both, unfortunately, are Mac only (and sadly quite dear).

5. Keynote is how I create presentations, another way I do, and then share, my thinking. Diagrams are a big part of my talks, punctuated with stock photos to represent concepts (from Pixabay and occasionally Unsplash). I believe (and don’t have evidence for) that using an image that relates to the concept but doesn’t exactly communicate it leaves open some curiosity that then gets connected. And that this leads to better comprehension (I avoid bullet points in live presos, and save them for handouts). Anyone got that data?

The second thing I do is see what other people are pointing to and have to say, and ask them questions   as well. So the second category is about interacting with others.

Social tools

6. Twitter is a regular feature of how I see what people are pointing to, as well as pointing to things I’ve found as well. Chats there are fun, too. Like Jane, Tweetdeck is my tool of course on my Mac. I have to use the Twitter client on iPad/iOS, since they’ve taken away Tweetdeck on the iPad (grr).

7. I like FeedBlitz as a way to sign up for blogs, as it brings them into my inbox, instead of me needing a separate app. Reading a select list of blogs is one of my tactics. That’s how people can sign up to get my blog in email, too.

8. Slack has also been a major component of getting things done, mostly with IBSTPI. It’s a handy way to get things done with others.

9-10. Social networks are a big part of my learning, which means that Facebook and LinkedIn also play big roles. Facebook’s more personal, ie less about work, but I learn about   many societal things there. And LinkedIn is a place for learning as well, professionally as opposed to personally.

And…

Honorable Mention: to round out the picture (10 is such an arbitrary number ;), sharing collaborative documents, e.g. Google Docs, is a major way to collaboratively process and learn together. Also socially, Zoom and BlueJeans (the latter’s almost the same, and what ISBTPI uses) are used a lot to discuss and negotiate understandings. And email, of course (using the Mac Mail client) is a major way I learn, e.g. blogs appear there, and it’s a major way I interact.

DuckDuckGo has become my goto search engine (and Brave as my browser,  at least on my Mac, awaiting cross-device sync), because I don’t need to spread my data any further than necessary. And searching is a big part of my learning.

As an aside, owing to the pandemic, like everyone else I’ve been doing much more with Zoom to interact with colleagues than I had in the past. And I find, interestingly, that the ways I reach out are more opportunistic: I’ll use FB Messenger, or a Twitter DM, or a LinkedIn message, or an email depending on who, why, and what tool I’m in at the time. There may be some method to the madness, but I’m not confident on that point ;).

So, there’re my Top 10 Tools for Learning. I hope you’ll post or send your list to Jane too, so we can continue to see what emerges.

 

Thinking Transformation

by Leave a Comment

This pandemic has led to everyone scrambling to work digitally. And it‘s not really a transformation (which shouldn‘t be ‘digital first‘), but rather just ‘move what we do online‘. And that‘s understandable. Over time, however, I think we want to shift our mindset. And, I think a previous exercise in thinking transformation is valuable here. I‘m talking mobile.

When I originally was talking about mobile, I was doing so from a perspective of augmenting our brains. The 4C‘s framework was a way to think about core mobile affordance from a point of view of what mobile offers. Then I moved on to the role the devices play in our (working) life. It‘s about not just courses on a phone, but:

  • Augmenting formal learning: extending it
  • Performance support: cognitive augmentation
  • Social: tapping into the power of social and informal learning
  • Contextual: mobile‘s unique opportunity

And, I suggest, these are valuable ways to think about using technology in general to support us. On principle, I like to think about how technology supports our thinking (not the other way around ;). To future-proof what I propose is one driver, so tech changes don’t undermine relevance. Further, since mobile is a platform – a strategy not just a tactic – focusing on fundamentals makes sense.

For instance, elearning shouldn‘t look like just a classroom online. That can and arguably should be part of it, but there‘s more. It‘s about extending formal learning, not just delivering it. And aligning with how we really learn, because it really does have to be effective.

Similarly, with folks working from wherever, thinking about the support they need is important. What tools, aids, guides, etc., will help them work more effectively without their prior context? Let’s change workflows to align better with what‘s known about how we work.

And making people available in useful ways for communication and collaboration is important. The demands of online meetings are becoming more prevalent and onerous. Zoom fatigue is a thing!   How can we optimize the experience?

Contextual is more uniquely mobile, taking advantage of where and when you are (and other contextual factors), but we probably do need to account for them more astutely. If your kids are in the other room, what does that do to your ability to work? Here, of course, is the greatest difference from mobile, but the mindset is still relevant.

So, for instance, when I ran a mobile course for the Allen Academy, we had a week dedicated to each of these elements (as well as kicking off a mobile mindset and closing on strategy). Given that it was still early in this new world, I didn‘t really push the thought of how this is a more general tactic. Of course, I now would.

And, given that I‘ll be running the course again, I definitely will! Look, mobile hasn‘t gone away, and we‘re possibly using mobile tools more now even though we‘re not on the road! So mobile‘s still relevant, and the mindset behind ‘thinking mobile‘ is even more relevant. I’ll be talking with Christopher Allen of Allen Interactions about it tomorrow (12 Aug) at 11AM PT, 2 Eastern (see below). And, if you‘re interested in the course, check it out!

Practicing the Preach

by 4 Comments

I’m working on my next plan for global domination. And as I do, I’ve been developing my thinking, and there are some interesting outcomes. Including a realization that I wasn’t doing what I usually recommend. And I also believe that you should ‘show your work‘. So here I’m practicing the preach.

First, I’m developing my understanding, getting concrete about it. I usually use Omnigraffle as a diagramming tool, to represent my conceptual understandings. And I started doing that as part of the ‘developing thinking’ part. But I started with a diagram, and took the elements out and mindmapped them, and threw in other bits. In short, the ‘diagram’ has become a visual place to store bits and pieces of different diagrams, representations, mindmap, prose, or more. As well as outlining elsewhere. But it’s working out for me, so I thought I’d share.

The overall visualization gives me a place, like a business canvas, to drop stuff on and rearrange. It’s a ‘thinking tool’. I’m also copying part of the the activity map and linking things together to capture the actual flow between content and activities. Etc. A virtual whiteboard, I guess.

Second, one of the things to represent was how this would be communicated. Whether a course, or interactive ebook, or whatever, I want to create a flow. And I realized an activity map might make sense. I haven’t done this before (I’ve used storyboards and diagrams), but I find it interesting. Here’s the current status.

Across the top are the various stages (Introduction, the Principles, the resulting learning Elements, the associated Process, and the Closing). Your stages may vary.  Along the side are the different components (the Content topics, the associated practice Activities, the Emotions I to be evoked, the Stories to tell, and the Tools). I think putting in ’emotion’ is an important step! And then I can drop text bits into the intersections.

Finally, as I started developing the associated content, I realized one thing I advocate is backwards design. That is, envision the performance and how it’s distributed across tools and brains. Then, I realized I hadn’t designed the tools first! I’m going back and doing that. So it’s now in the activity map as well ;).

Just thought I’d share this, practicing the preach, and hope that you find it interesting, if not useful. Feedback welcome!

 

Thinking about reframing

by 2 Comments

I found something interesting, and wanted to share, but…I realize this is supposed to be about my learnings about  learning. So, I’m framing it as thinking about reframing ;). Seriously, it’s about extant models and opportunities to rethink.

So, to begin with, I’ve been somewhat frustrated with the traditional model of capitalism. No, not as a plea for communism or something, but because it doesn’t align with our brains. When I champion that we should align with how we think, work, and learn, that’s true at the individual, team, organizational, and societal levels.

The problem is, capitalism assumes that we’re optimizing buyers. That is, we will search out and buy the best products, so there’ll be consistent pressure for quality, and this drives improvement. A lovely theory. With only one small flaw…

We’re not optimizing buyers. Herb Simon was part winner of a Nobel prize (kinda before he went on to be a leader in the cognitive science field) on the fact that we’re satisficing buyers, not optimizing. That is, we’ll buy ‘good enough’. I’ve used the fish shop story to document this. We know how to make light, crispy, non-greasy fish’n’chips. So, the capitalist model would posit that every shop should have beautiful fish. Er, no. You’re just as (more?) likely to find greasy sodden fish. Because we’re not likely to drive one borough/neighborhood/town over to get perfect when what’s close is ‘good enough’.

You can get backup from behavioral economics or the work of Daniel Kahneman about how we aren’t logical beings. The point being, we don’t behave in rational ways. For instance, we’re vulnerable to marketing that affects our perceptions. And economics is linked to politics about whether all the real costs are included. Thus, the fundamental foundation of capitalism is flawed.

As an aside, it’s also predicated on unlimited growth. That is, we’ll continually advance in our ability to meet needs. Yet we live on a finite planet…and yes, I know that there are also technological advances. It’s just that I reckon there are limits to growth.

A serious problem is that the alternatives are also flawed. Capitalism proposes that it passes back by the creator of the superior end product purchasing the components and that cascades backwards. However, to change it, e.g. to track based upon the value of a person’s contribution to the greater good, we’d need bookkeeping to track it.

What I hit a wall against was working within the assumptions. And yet, maybe there’s another way, that is thinking about reframing the problem. Just as I previously talked about replacing happiness with contentment, maybe we can rethink economics. If we think about it differently, can we come up with a different model.

Something pointed me to doughnut economics. And it’s not a full solution, but it does have some interesting properties. The reason it’s called the doughnut model is that there’s a hole in the center, then the body, and then the external limits. The hole consists of the basic capabilities humans need: clean water, reliable and healthy food, etc. This, to me, is kind of the ‘aligning with us’. Then the outside are the practical limits: finite planet, limits on water, energy, air, etc. Between these two are where humans can (and should) live.

It’s a different way of looking at things. I’m not an economist by any means (I find it aversive ;), but I do like looking at society in ways that might make it better. And this model, as far as I know, doesn’t have a clear path to replace our current economic system (e.g. prices on goods). But it’s way of rethinking what matters that’s somehow closer to how we really exist.

The take-home for learning, of course, is being willing to step back and reframe what we think we know. Different perspectives enable different insights. It’s part of the creative process to diverge before you converge. So here’s hoping we can find ways to be thinking about reframing. What ways do you use to think afresh?

Losing our collective minds?

by 3 Comments

microscopeSo, after that mess on Twitter, I next see on LinkedIn a recognized personage who proceeds to claim that learning styles are legit, and promises a post (see tomorrow’s review). And, the basis for this claim is fundamentally wrong. So I’m beginning to fear that we’re losing our collective minds!   Let me be clear about the claim, the problem, and a healthy approach.

The claim started like this:

I know there is a huge camp of folks who say no one has learning styles and they provide all types of links of others who concur. Then there are folks who say they do exist, and change of a period of time (as you age). And you may have more than one.

I admit I am in the latter group, because I have seen it first-hand as a Director of Training, and when I taught at the HS and University levels.

And, this is a problem, because it misrepresents what’s going on. My response was:

Sure, learners differ, no one who’s taught can say otherwise. But, identifying how they differ, reliably? Er, no. And that we should adapt to learning styles? Again, not what research says. And, to be clear about the ‘huge camp’ (why would that be?), we don’t post links to others who concur, we post links to the science that shows that the instruments to measure styles aren’t psychometrically valid and that the evidence shows no benefit to adapting to learning styles. A waste of time and money.

When called out, the response was similar:

You have perspective, I respectfully disagree.

What this response did was suggest that it’s about opinion. Which is not just irritating, but it’s  dangerously wrong. I’ve argued before about why myths matter. And, here, specifically, learning styles can cause you to waste money, but more importantly it may have people prematurely limit themselves. To their detriment.

But it’s also the refusal to acknowledge that it’s science, not opinion. Saying, basically, that the folks against learning styles support each other is very different, and wrong. We don’t point to each other, we point to the research!

It gets worse. The commentary on the post went sideways. Despite some apt questions about the legitimacy, there were counter opinions. One comment brought in neuro-linguistic programming! (Debunked, by the way.) It’d be funny if it weren’t so scary!

And, then, the followup, I have ‘perspective’. Sorry, but it’s not about your opinion versus mine. That may work for fashion, art, cinema. Not what we do in medicine, hazardous material, construction, flight, and the like. Even traffic! We follow what’s been demonstrated to save lives (or we should). When we get into the absurd situation of saying your anecdotal evidence is better than the weight of scientific evidence, we’re on a slippery slope to losing our collective minds.

Look, you can prefer vanilla to chocolate. You can like pineapple on your pizza. Or even put ketchup on your hotdog. (Quelle horreur!) I can differ. No one’s hurt. But if you yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre, or advise consuming disinfectant as a virus cure, or using nuclear waste as a skin lotion, you’re violating what’s known. And it’s wrong, if not outright illegal.

Please, be skeptical. Even of what I say! (The scientific method does have its flaws, but it’s better than everything else.) But please value controlled studies over anecdotes. There are lots of ways we can be misled by the latter. We don’t want to be losing our collective minds, we should be leveraging them. Please help!

An L&D Challenge?

by 1 Comment

A colleague and friend posted about masks, and I weighed in. He suggested that it’s really a learning issue. I’m not sure I agree, but I thought it might be interesting to explore. So here’s an L&D challenge to consider.

First, masks make sense, scientifically. They reduce the chance that someone might contaminate someone else. Given, specifically with COVID-19, that there’s a significant period of airborne contagion before the infected person is symptomatic, wearing a mask is a simple preventative measure.

Now, there are some complicating factors in our current case. My friend suggested mixed messages in the media are a confounding factor. Some leaders, for instance are not wearing them. And, other responsible individuals have provided unclear information about their value.

And, wearing masks has become politicized. Some are seeing not wearing masks as a sign of rebellion or resistance to a perception of government intrusion. For some reason, wearing masks upon request is seen as different than wearing, for instance, foot coverings in food establishments. From a scientific perspective, this is inappropriate.

Now, I recently took Ashley Sinclair’s marketing for L&D course at the Learning & Development Conference (#LDC2020, learningdevelopmentconference.com). In it, she reminds me that we buy on emotion. That is, we make our decisions emotionally, and then justify the choice with logic. So, the choice isn’t necessarily a rational one.

So this creates an L&D challenge, if we want to consider it as a design problem. What can and should we do? If we had the opportunity, how would we do it? What could we do to help make mask wearing more acceptable?

We could try education, with statistics, or horror stories. There’re are statistical arguments about the likelihood of infection of each party if one, the other, or both wear masks. Or we can tell tales about the horrible effects the virus has on the human body.

We could try sarcasm. I’ve been struck with the Queen lyric revisions (“no mask on your face, big disgrace, spreading your germs all over the place”), for instance. But that’s not necessarily going to work (even if it is fun). Sarcasm can be inappropriate in the face of entrenched viewpoints.

Or we can try guilt, about carrying risks to family members or friends. If you get it, even if the effects are mild or unnoticeable, you could still infect someone you’re quaranteaming with. Raising awareness about the potential consequences can change people’s behavior.

Finally, we can appeal to better nature. Like being someone who takes the grocery cart back to the collection area, or using your turn signals, it’s just polite. It’s considerate of others, and that’s what makes a society work.

By the way, I wear a mask to the store (it’s required where I live, to be fair). I also wear a (microfiber) bandanna when I walk around the neighborhood that I pull up whenever I’m passing someone, even though we’re almost always more than 6 feet apart. I don’t do it for me, I do it for others. Because while I’m not high-risk, I could get infected and not know it for a few days, and I’d hate to be responsible for someone else getting it from me. Not that I’m keen to find out how I’d react to the virus, either.

So, how do we do it? How do we get people to stop viewing it as an imposition, but as a social obligation that benefits everyone? This is what I mean by an L&D challenge: this is the type of thing we should be able to solve. Now, I know it’s not in our control, so this is a thought exercise, but one that’s not easy. And that’s what we also face in our real situations. So, what would you do?

(Oh, and wear a mask when you’re out in public, please. You don’t know who you might be helping.)

 

Myths, publishers, and confusion

by 5 Comments

Myths book coverOn twitter the other day, I was asked how I could on one hand rail against myths, and on the other work with orgs who either sell or promote DiSC and MBTI. The problem, it appears, was a perception that I’m deeply involved with orgs that perpetuate the problem. I thought I’d try to clarify all this, and make sense of myths, publishers and confusion.

The dialog started as a reaction to an article I pointed to on twitter. This article made what I thought was a pretty good case against tools like MBTI and DiSC. And that matters. The arguments raised in the article were legitimate, and even didn’t go far enough. For instance, MBTI is based on Jungian archetypes, which Jung just made up!   So, one question raised is why ask practitioners to change, why aren’t we challenging the businesses?

For one response, I don’t call out the practitioners. I sympathize!   In the myths book, I deliberately addressed the appeal before pointing out it’s wrong (and, importantly, point to better alternatives). Instead, I rail against the tools. That, to me, is where the problem lies, and implicitly indicts the vendors. Now, the org that now owns DiSC was my first publisher. However, they bought it after I was locked into a contract with them. And when I heard, I complained about the choice to them. But they didn’t consult me on it ;).   And yes, they published my first 3.5 books. I dissociated from them on other reasons, but I’m no longer engaged.

Was there any relationship between DiSC and what I wrote? I was able to complain about learning styles in my fourth book with them. It’s a huge company, with many different divisions. There’s no provision to not say things that are contrary to their business interests. They publish and sell what they can sell. They can publish what’s right, and sell stuff that’s not. That’s their confusion, I reckon, not mine.

I’m now publishing with another org, who had, in the past, had learning styles in their competency model. When I found out, I asked and was told it was not in the latest version of the model. They also do make money selling exhibit space to folks with these tools. Note that the folks I work with may not agree, but also have to work in their part of the org and have little contact with the other entity (that makes much money). Yet, to their credit, they asked me to write the myths book. In fact, after I gave a myths talk to launch the the book, an anonymous audience member complained that they shouldn’t have speakers that disparage vendor products. And, they’ve continued to have me write and speak. Again, I suggest that’s their issue, not mine. I’m not responsible for that relationship between myths, publishers, and confusion.

And, yes, there are voices that cry out  for the tools. For instance a TD article claimed that such tools are popular. (Under the guise of saying they’re effective.) Which is problematic. Asking folks for their assessments of tools they’ve invested in introduces a clear source of bias. We know that people’s judgments of effectiveness may not match reality. So it’s a problem. But not one I’m in a position to change (though I quietly try).   It does muddy the water. Which, to me, speaks even more to talk about how to review science and what science already says.

I try to be a consistent voice for science in our practice. My publisher gave me a forum to speak that to an audience that needs to hear the message. There are others who echo that voice (see Mythbusters here). I’d welcome having the opportunity to address those who are making the decisions to buy these tools. I don’t have reliable access (I welcome any assistance ;). Instead, now they can give the book to those leaders to bolster the resistance.

So, are my publisher activities part of the business end, or the education end? Do you really concern yourselves with my previous relationship or current publisher? I note that it’s pretty much a hands-off relationship: “if you propose a valuable offering, we’ll publish it.”

I‘m saying “here‘s what Quinnovation has to say” and the orgs are endorsing it. Not the other way around. Is that accurate? Do you see that as a conflict? I’m perfectly willing to be wrong, and if so I welcome ideas how to be more clear about what and how it’s wrong.

I think I’m fighting a good fight, for the right reasons, and pretty much in the right way. But it’s not my perspective that matters. So I ask you, am I off the mark here? Am I helping or hurting the issues in myths, publishers, and confusion?