strategy Archives - Page 19 of 83

Interesting times

17 March 2020 by Clark Leave a Comment

It was when I was living in Australia that I first heard the apocryphal Chinese curse “may you live in interesting times.” And, I have to say, the going’s gotten weird. A few reflections on the situation, all of course related to COVID-19.

I wrote some months ago about my spring schedule. And, well, as you might’ve guessed, things have changed. My trip to Boston has been postponed for a year (I’ll be giving a webinar for ATD NE). I had added a trip to Brazil in May, which I’d yet to tell you about since they hadn’t gotten a page up, but…it’s been postponed. And my trip to Belgium in June? Not feeling optimistic. (And this isn’t good, personally. As an independent, it’s gigs that pay the way. Need some remote work?)

Remote, because the entire SF Bay Area, where I live, is now on ‘stay home’ mode as of midnight last night. Only essential services and travel are on. Of course work-based travel is acceptable, but right now, no one wants to meet in person. And there’s actually a good reason for this…

This is a really wonderful diagram (ok, my poor rendition of it). It is the clearest depiction of the argument to take extraordinary measures. Simple, elegant. Our health system aims to cope with average levels of problems. We’re talking considerably more than that. This diagram, and the associated label “flattening the curve” really conveys the need for action. But this has really helped convey the necessity. I am using an adaptation to make the case for Community Emergency Response Team, a training initiative I’m engaged in. Which is also postponed.

I worry about much more, of course. We’ve seen weird behaviors (stockpiling toilet paper, an unsymptomatic response), as well as good ones (elbow bumps for greeting). Everyone, and I mean everyone, is weighing in on how to design learning online and how to work remotely. I wasn’t going to, but an editor for one of my columns asked. I at least got agreement to not just talk the basics, but about using the opportunity to rethink.

My biggest concern is the impact on people’s lives! Folks’ livelihoods are at risk. There’s a lot of financial activity that’s not going to be happening (dining, for instance). The implications for many people – diminished income, mortgages or rent unpaid – are a concern. One interesting aside that a colleague noticed: there’s likely to be many more people who know what good hand-washing means now. Please do learn it!

The main thing is to stay safe, for your sake and others. There’s a segment of the population that’s at higher risk, and that’s who we’re needing to help. And keep the need within capacity. We’re not only not equipped, but not supplied, to meet the possible demand when we don’t do enough.

I hope to see you at the other end of this, but stay tuned for all sorts of interim initiatives. We’re living in interesting times, and it’s an opportunity to be innovative, resilient, and humane. Here’s hoping that we become better as a consequence.

More Myths-Based Marketing

18 February 2020 by Clark 3 Comments

Is it the rising lack of trust in what anyone says? Have we turned into a society where any crazy marketing works? It certainly seems that way. It was only a couple of weeks ago I went on a rant, and yet, here we are again. A new twitter account (*not without controversy) @badlearning, has started taking on posts citing myths. And one caught my attention (not least because the stream mentioned the myths book ;). It got interesting when the marketing manager responded. Yet, I still will argue that it’s just more myths-based marketing.

*For context, it quickly got noticed amongst my colleagues. One colleague wasn’t sure that confronting myths was the appropriate approach. The particular issue (as several of us do that) was the anonymity of the poster. And blatantly calling out the flaws. You’ll note I don’t point to the perpetrator, just the error. I’m not going down the path of determining right or wrong, as I can see the concern, but also the potential for harm… For full disclosure.

Digital Natives/Generations (& Goldfish) Myths

The post in question was announcing a new initiative, specifically “nano-learning” to address the new generation with a plan for “digital native advancement”. And, to my surprise when I chased the links, they pointed to Pew Research Center data. Which I generally think of as a reputable group. And, they have their categorizations defined, and used Census data as a basis to do the analysis.

One problem arises in their definitions of generations. Their bands (e.g. 1965 to 1980 for Gen X) aren’t constant across different proposals for generations! How can you be claiming results for a group when there are fuzzy boundaries? I can create arbitrary boundaries and likely find differences.

And it’s also trying to define a category when it’s a continuum. One piece of data says the new generation will be more mixed. But isn’t that just a trend? Isn’t the US population becoming more diverse? Why try to attach it to a generation? What good does that do? Yes, our brains do want to categorize, but that doesn’t make it right. (See below.)

The other data is more problematic. For one, they refer to their own previous post. Um, er…And another admits it’s a marketing intelligence company. Like they have no vested interests in finding divisions they can promote and prosper from. Ahem. There’s even a post from Inc. that cites the goldfish myth, which has been shown to have been misapplied data. And they’re making that claim too, as the basis of ‘nano learning’!

But also there’s a presentation with a bunch of data but it doesn’t serve to differentiate between generations. It just says things like “young folks want to go overseas”. Without noting whether that’s different than previous generations. On the other hand, that source says that more Gen Z’s than Gen Y want to start their own business. But isn’t that likely to be a trend, too?

And…a representative of the organization weighed in: “I’m not sure I agree with you on all elements. Just like any generation shift in History, the new one has its own codes and vision of the world”. Er, that would be ‘no’. The problem is assuming the generations proposal, and working from there. The notion is fundamentally flawed. There’s so much variability in context, that it’s not neatly carved out that way. This is just more myths-based marketing.

Learning Styles myth

Just to add to the rant, another post called out by the same twitter account talked about the 65% of learners being visual. And that’s learning styles, but it turns out to be a whole separate myth as well. There’s a story, of course.

Tracked back by Jo Cook, the 65% figure has been retracted by the originator (much like the 7-38-55 myth). Yet it continues to appear. Not least by marketers pushing visual solutions. She points out that you can’t trust Forbes. There’s a cite, and it turns out that article goes down a rabbit hole of cascading web cites, ultimately leading to the now retracted claim, which isn’t really even in the data!

And, really, it’s a learning styles issue, because this is talking about how you learn. Which has been debunked. It’s not that learners don’t differ, it’s just that they vary so much by context (what/how/where/why/when they’re learning). And, there’s no evidence that adapting learning to learners is better.

Interestingly, the post author justified (not to me) the claim thusly: “Since you have never run a training dept/division or L&D or taught at uni, I. E. Never been in the real world and seen it in action, then you shouldn’t hide behind articles. I talked to other L&D and training execs and ID execs they all agreed with LS situational.” Um, I have taught at uni, and have a Ph.D. in cog psych. And I’ve researched this. As has Jo. And it’s wrong. And all the anecdotes from people (some who may have invested and thus have a vested interest in it being true), doesn’t change that.

Empirical research is tested on the real world. The problem with these things is, specifically, that it ‘feels right’. But it’s not. Worse, it’s harmful. It’s myths-based marketing again. And it’s not that we might not eventually be able to identify learning styles, but right now we can’t. And, we have a better basis for decisions anyway.

Avoiding myths-based marketing

There are many flaws in what’s transpired here. People are using bad sources, not researching, and making claims that justify their work. Which doesn’t make it right.

For one, they’re suffering from confirmation bias. That’s when you only look for data that agrees with what you want to believe. Here, there’s robust counter-evidence.

And they’re not using good sources. Just because someone claims something and has a link, that doesn’t count as good evidence. Anecdotes can be data, but triangulation helps. As does aggregation and assessment of alternatives.

And the reasoning about the data is flawed. For instance, we can create artificial boundaries, and cite trends. So, X has been going up steadily for Y period. I could break Y into two pieces, and say that the second period has a higher average X than the previous period, and therefore the two periods are different. But it’s a continuum. It’s artificial and arbitrary.

We need to do better, as an industry. You don’t see executives using astrology to plot business plans. You don’t see product managers using alchemy to determine the next market offering. We have to stop using pseudo-science, and start using the results of research on learning. We need to avoid more myths-based marketing. Please!

Images processed 60K faster? No! And more…

28 January 2020 by Clark 4 Comments

Recently, I’ve run into the claim that images are processed 60K times faster than text. And, folks, it’s a myth. More over, it’s exemplary of bad practices in business. And so it’s worth pointing out what the situation is, why it’s happening, and why you should be on guard.

It’s easy to find the myth. Just search on “images processed 60K times faster than text”. You’ll get lots of citations, and a few debunkings. Most of the references are from marketing hype, selling you visual support.

The origin is suspicious. It’s always cited as coming from 3M, Polishing Your Presentation. Which is problematic, because when you go to that paper, you find the quote, but not a legitimate citation. Instead, there’s a vague statement about “findings from behavioral research” with no citation! Bad form.

A study done jointly between 3M and the University of Minnesota about presentations also is potentially a source. With only one small catch: it doesn’t mention 60K at all! Instead, it does conclude that “Presentations using visual aids were found to be 43% MORE PERSUASIVE than unaided presentations.” Which is hardly controversial.

Yet this is another zombie, like learning styles, that won’t die! It’s been researched by several folks, including Alan Levine and Jonathan Schwabish. No one seems to be able to identify a real piece of evidence. And it just doesn’t make sense!

In use, words are practiced enough to be recognized as a whole, serving as icons; they’re not repeatedly processed from letters into words. Second, images need parsing, too, and contextualization between the image and the current semantics.

Sure, we have many more neurons devoted to image processing than auditory, but that’s not only due to a sensory primacy (e.g. distance capability), but also the richness of the visual field. And more doesn’t equal ‘faster’. Yes, we’re processing in parallel, but nerve firing rates change based upon activation, not modality.

And this means that we have to have our ‘hype’ shields up. We need to evaluate any claims by several methods. Who else is saying this? Not pointing to the same (bad) data, but what convergent evidence is there? And what vested interest do the promoters have? And, importantly, does it make causal sense? Is there a plausible scenario when you dig beneath the surface features?

And, if you don’t want to read research published in the original academese, find those who you can trust. Those who’ve demonstrated a consistent ability to cut through the hype and the research, and bring good interpretations and debunk the myths. You can see my list of mythbusters here.

So, please, practice professionalism, avoid the hype, and use good principles in design and practice.

Content systems not content packages

17 December 2019 by Clark 1 Comment

In a conversation last week (ok, an engagement), the topic of content systems came up. Now this is something I’ve argued for before, in several ways. For one, separate content from how it’s delivered. And, pull content together by rules, not hardwired. And it’s also about the right level of granularity. It’s time to revisit the message, because I thought it was too early, but I think the time is fast coming when we can look at this.

This is in opposition to the notion of pre-packaged content. MOOCs showed that folks want to drill in to what they need. Yet we still pull everything together and launch it as a final total solution. We are moving to smaller chunks (all for the better; even if it is burdened with a misleading label). But there’s more.

The first point is about content models. That we should start designing our content into smaller chunks. My heuristic is the smallest thing you’d give one person or another. My more general principle is that resolves to breaking content down by it’s learning role: a concept model is different than an example is different than a practice.

This approach emerged from an initiative on an adaptive learning system I led. It now has played out as a mechanism to support several initiatives delivering content appropriately. For one, it was supporting different business products from the same content repository. For another it was about delivering the right thing at the right time.

Which leads to the second point, about being able to pick and deliver the right thing for the context. This includes adaptive systems for learning, but also context-based performance support. With a model of the learner, the context, and the content, you can write rules that put these together to optimally identify the right thing to push.

You can go further. Think of two different representatives from the same company visiting a client. A sales person and a field engineer are going to want different things in the same location. So you can add a model of ‘role’ (though that can also be tied to the learner model).

There’s more, of course. To do this well requires content strategy, engineering, and management. Someone put it this way: strategy is what you want to deliver, engineering is how, and management is overseeing the content lifecycle.

Ultimately, it’s about moving from hardwired content to flexible delivery. And that’s possible and desirable. Moreover, it’s the future. As we see the movement from LMS to LXP, we realize that it’s about delivering just what’s needed when useful. Recognizing that LXPs are portals, not about creating experiences, we see the need for federated search.

There’s more: semantics means we can identify what things are (and are not), so we can respond to queries. With chatbot interfaces, we can make it easier to automate the search and offering to deliver the right thing to the right person at the right time.

The future is here; we see it in web interfaces all over the place. Why aren’t we seeing it yet in learning? There are strong cognitive reasons (performance support, workflow learning, self-directed and self-regulated learning). And the technology is no longer the limitation. So let’s get on it. It’s time to think content systems, not content packages.

On building trust

14 November 2019 by Clark 2 Comments

My post last week was on trust, and it triggered a question on LinkedIn: “Do you have any tips, processes, models, suggestions, etc. for building trust within a team?” And while I wrote a short response there, I thought it would be worth it to expand on it. So here’re some thoughts on building trust.

First, there was a further question: “You mentioned that it started with credentials. For example, did you all take turns going around and introducing yourselves?” No, it wasn’t introducing ourselves. Potential new candidates are scrutinized in a call, so existing members are aware of new members’ capabilities. In my case, I looked them up, or more usually their activities emerged in conversation. It develops authentically.

The most important thing was that there were activities underway, and people were contributing in an open, constructive, non-personal way. There’s a focus on reinventing the organization, and an important activity underway was using the Business Model Canvas as a framework to explore opportunities. The activity was led by one of the team whose experience became abundantly clear, for example.

There also was acknowledgement of others’ contributions. Conversations would reference and build upon what others said. It was an implicit ‘yes and’, but also an occasional ‘but what about’. That is, we were free to present alternative viewpoints. Sometimes they resolve and other times it’s ok to leave them hanging in the moment. The only agenda is the common good.

One critical element is that the leaders are very unassuming and solicitous of input, as well as sharing lessons learned. There is a lot of sharing of experience, connections, and more. There’re also personal notes about travel, concerns, and more. It’s very ‘human’.

It quickly was obvious that the group was a safe place where people had a shared goal but were also diverse. We’re diverse in geography, race, gender, and role, which forms a strong basis for good outcomes. The culture’s established, and we naturally align. As Mark Britz says, we follow the systems, but they’re right from the start.

It goes back to the learning organization dimensions, particularly the environment: open mind, valuing diversity, time for reflection, and psychological safety. When it’s lived, it works. And that’s what’s happening. When you’re focused on building trust, get the culture right, and the rest follows.

Talithia Williams #DevLearn Keynote Mindmap

23 October 2019 by Clark Leave a Comment

Talithia Williams presented the afternoon keynote on the opening day of DevLearn. She gave an overview of the possibilities of data, and the basics of data science. She then made some inferences to learning.

Endorsements, rigor, & scrutability

1 October 2019 by Clark Leave a Comment

I was recently asked to endorse two totally separate things. And it made me reflect on just what my principles for such an action might be. So here’s an gentrified version of my first thoughts on my principles for endorsements:

First, my reputation is based on rigor in thought, and integrity in action. Thus, anyone I‘d endorse both has to be scrutable both in quality of design and in effectiveness in execution.

So, to establish those, I need to do several things.

For one, I have to investigate the product. Not just the top-level concept, but the lower-level details. And this means not only exploring, but devising and performing certain tests.

And that also means investigating the talent behind the design. Who‘s responsible for things like the science behind it and the ultimate design.

In addition, I expect to see rigor in implementation. What‘s the development process? What platform and what approach to development is being used? How is quality maintained? Maintainability? Reliability? I‘d want to talk to the appropriate person.

And I‘d want to know about customer service. What‘s the customer experience? What‘s the commitment?

There‘ve been a couple of orgs that I worked with over a number of years, and I got to know these things about them (and I largely played the learning science role ;), so I could recommend them (tho‘ they didn‘t ask for public endorsements) and help sell them in engagements. And I was honest about the limitations as well.

I have a reputation to maintain, and that means I won‘t endorse â€˜average‘. I will endorse, but it‘s got to be scrutable at all levels and exceptional in some way so that I feel I‘m showing something unique and exceptional but will also play out favorably over time. If I recommend it, I need people to be glad if they took my advice. And then there’s got to be some recompense for my contribution to success.

One thing I hadn‘t thought of on the call was a possibility of limited or levels of endorsement. E.g. “This product offers a seemingly unique solution that is valuable in conceptâ€, but not saying “I can happily recommend this approachâ€. Though the value of that is questionable, I reckon.

Am I overreaching in what I expect for endorsements, or does this make sense?

Working with you

11 September 2019 by Clark Leave a Comment

I was talking with my better half, who’s now working at a nursery. Over time, she has related stories of folks coming to ask for assistance. And the variety is both interesting and instructive. There’s a vast difference of how people can be working with you.

So, for one, she likes to tell stories of people who come in saying “you know, I want something ‘green'”. Or, worse, “I want a big tree that doesn’t require any watering at all”. (Er, doesn’t exist.) The one she told me today was this lady who came in wanting “you know, it’s white and grows like <hand gesture showing curving over like a willow>”. So m’lady showed her a plant fitting the description. But “no, it’s not got white flowers”. It ended up being a milkweed, which isn’t white and stands straight up!

What prompted this reflection was the situation she cited of this other customer. He comes in with a video of the particular section he wants to work on this time, with measurements, and a brief idea of what he’s thinking. Now this is a customer that’s easy to help; you can see the amount of shade, know the size, and have an idea of what the goal is.

I related this (of course ;), to L&D. What you’d like is the person who comes and says “I have this problem: performance should be <desired measurement> but instead it’s only <current measurement>. What steps can we take to see if you can help?” Of course, that’s rare. Instead you get “I need a course on X.” At least, until you start changing the game.

JD Dillon tweeted “…But in real life they can’t just say NO to the people who run the organization. ‘Yes, and …’ is a better way to get people to start thinking differently.” And that’s apt. If you’ve always said “yes”, it’s really not acceptable to suddenly start saying “no”. Saying “Yes and…” is a nice way to respond. Something like “Sure, so what’s the problem you’re hoping this course will solve?”

And, of course, you should be this person too. “Let me tell you why I’d like to buy a VR headset,” and go on to explain how this critical performance piece is spatial and visceral and you want to experiment to address it. Or whatever. Come at it from their perspective, and you have a better chance, I reckon.

You won’t always get the nice customers, but if you take time and work them through the necessary steps at first, maybe you can change them to be working with you. That’s better than working for them, or fighting with them, no?

LXD Strategy

3 September 2019 by Clark Leave a Comment

In the continuing process of resolving what I want to do when I grow up (rest assured, not happening), I’ve been toying with a concept. And I’ve come up with the phrase: Learning Experience Design (LXD) Strategist. Which of course, begs the question of just what LXD strategy is. So here’s my thinking.

To me, LXD is about the successful integration of learning science and engagement. Yes, cognitive science studies both learning and engagement, but in my experience the two aren’t integrated specifically well. You either get something flashy but empty, or something worthwhile but dreary dull. I remember a particular company that produced rigorous learning that you’d rather tear your eyes out than actually consume. And, similarly, seeing an award winning product that was flashy, but underneath was just drill and kill. For something that shouldn’t be.

Learning experiences should emotionally hook you (e.g. ensuring you know that you need it, and that you don’t know it). Then it should take the necessary steps such as sufficient spaced meaningful practice resourced with appropriate models and examples and specifically feedback. Ultimately, it should transform the learner. Learners go from not having a clue to having a basic ability to do and how to continue to develop.

What is LXD strategy? Here I’m thinking about helping orgs restructure their design processes, and their org structure, to support delivering learning experience designs. This includes ensuring up front that this really does deserve learning instead of some other intervention, such as performance support. Then it includes how you work with SMEs, how you discern key decisions, wrap practice into contexts, etc. It’s also about using the tools – media and technology – to create a well-integrated experience. Note that the integration can include classrooms, ambient content and interactivity, and more. It’s about getting the design right, then implementing.

LXD strategy is about ensuring that resources and practices are aligned to create experiences that meet real org needs under pragmatic constraints. That’s what I’ve been doing in much of my work, and where my interests lead me as well. And it’s still a part of the performance ecosystem. Understanding that relationship is critical, when you start thinking about moving individuals from novices, through practitioners, to expertise. And the numbers of areas that will need this are going to increase.

LXD is, in my mind, the way we should be thinking about ID is now as LXD. And we need to not only think about what it is, and how to do it, but also how we organize to get it done. That, I think, is an important and worthwhile endeavor. So, what’s your thinking?

« Previous Page