In listening to a recent presentation on the trends affecting the workplace and HR, there was mention  about how organizations were using more cognitive technology, AI, etc. and this was changing jobs. There were two additional notes.  First, these efforts aren’t (largely) leading to job losses, as these folks were being reskilled. Second, HR wasn’t involved in 65% of this.  That’s a concern. But one of the things I wondered was whether all the new, smart technology really would help as much as was intended  or needed.

So here’s some context (I may have heard this in conjunction with an early experiment in using mobile devices to support drug trials).  Pharmaceutical companies are continually trying new drugs. One claim is  that if people would follow their medicine regimens, many of these new drugs wouldn’t be necessary.  That is, the drugs are often times trying to require fewer doses with simpler instructions to make up for inappropriate use.

Likewise,  the origin of performance support.  The question is where does the locus of responsibility belong. Interface design people were upset about performance support systems, arguing (correctly) that performance support was being used to make up for bad system design in the first place.  In fact, Don Norman’s book  The Invisible Computer was about how interface design wasn’t being brought in early enough.  The point being that properly designed interfaces would incorporate support for our cognitive limitations inherently, not externally.

So,  many of the things we’re doing are  driven by bad implementation. And that’s what I started wondering: are we using smart technology to enhance an optimized workforce, or to make up for a lack of adequate preparation?  We could be putting in technology to make up for what we’ve been unsuccessful at doing through training and elearning (because we’re not doing that well).

To put it another way, would we get better returns applying what’s known about how we think, work, and learn than bringing in technology? Would adequate preparation be a more effective approach than throwing technology at the problem, at least in some of the cases?   There are strong reasons to use technology to do things we struggle at doing well, and in particular to augment us.  But perhaps a better investment, at least in some cases, would be to  appropriately distribute tasks between the things our brains do well and what technology does better.

Let me be clear; there are technologies that will do things more reliably than humans, and do things humans would prefer not to. I’m all for the latter, at least ;). And we should optimize both technology and people.    I’m a fan of technology to augment us  in ways we want to be augmented.   So my point is more to consider are we doing enough to prepare people and support them working together.  Your thoughts?

I was thinking about today’s post, wherein I was talking about a couple of packages that  might help organizations move forward. I was reflecting back on some previous posts about engagement models, and was reminded of a more recent one. And I realized this has played out in a couple of ways. And these approaches did provide away to    develop the organization’s abilities to develop better learning.  So this is another model for support for developing at least the learning side of the equation.

In a couple of instances , I’ve worked with organizations on a specific project, but in a particular way.  For each,  my role was to lead the design. In one case, it was for a series of elearning modules. My role was to develop the initial template that the rest of the content fit.  Note that this isn’t a template for tarting it up, but instead a template about what the necessary elements and details around them were to ensure that the elements (e.g. intro, concept, practice, etc) both fit together and reflected the best learning science.  In a more recent instance, it was on a specific focus, but there were several modules that used a similar structure.

What happens, importantly, is that by working collaboratively, we learn together.  Each of these organizations was in the business of developing content, but they were looking to raise their game. So, for instance, through leading the Workplace of the Future project but sharing the thinking behind it, by working out loud in that sense, it’s possible to develop a shared understanding.  And in the latter case, though they’d read the Deeper eLearning series, they got a lot more out of working it through with me.  (And, I’ll suggest, more than also reading the subsequent blog posts I wrote about the project.)

In each case, we created an overall template for the learning, and then detailed what the elements for the template were, and the critical components. When we applied it, usually with me doing it first, and then handing off. It’s really a Cognitive Apprenticeship approach.

So, it’s a slightly more involved approach, with a much more variable scope, but in conjunction with other approaches I’ve mentioned like critiquing content or design processes, it’s one way to get a jump on deeper learning science.  Just trying to think of models that can support improvement, and that’s what I’m trying to push.

I have to admit I’ve been a bit surprised to see that movements towards improving elearning and learning strategy  haven’t had more impact. On the learning design side,  e.g. the Serious eLearning Manifesto  and our Future of Work  project, it still seems there’s a focus on content presentation.  And similarly with  learning strategy, so despite  the Revolution, it doesn’t appear that there’s any big move in L&D to take a bigger perspective.  And my question is: “why not?”

So  I’ve been trying to think what might be the barriers to move forward.  What could keep folks from at least taking initial steps?  Maybe folks  are making moves, but I haven’t seen much indication.  So naturally I wondered what sort of support could be needed to  move  forward.

Perhaps it seems too overwhelming?  In the manifesto we did say we don’t expect people taking it all on at once, but we know folks sometimes have trouble breaking it down. Similarly, there’re a lot of components to the full performance ecosystem.  One possibility is that folks don’t know where to start.  I wrote sometime shortly after the manifesto’s release that the best place to start was with practice. And I’ve similarly argued that perhaps the best revolution catalyst is measurement. But maybe that’s too general?

So I wondered if perhaps some specific support would assist.  And so I’ve put together a package for each that’s an initial assessment to identify what’s working, what’s not, and from which to give some initial recommendations.  And I’ve tried to price them so that they’re not too dear, too hard to get approval for, but provide maximum value for minimal investment. Both are based upon the structure of previous successful engagements. (The learning strategy one is a little more because it’s a wee bit more complex. ;)  Both are also based upon frameworks I’ve developed for  each:

elearning design is based upon deeper elearning and the leverage points in the design process

elearning strategy is based upon the performance ecosystem model and the implications for developing and delivering solutions.

In each I’m spending time beforehand reviewing materials, and then just two days on site to have some very targeted interviews and meetings.  The process involves  talking to representative stakeholders and then working with a core team to work through the possibilities and prioritize them. It also includes an overview of the frameworks for each as a basis for a shared understanding.

The goal  is to use an intensive investigation to identify what’s the current status, and the specific leverage points for immediate improvement and longer-term shifts. The output is a recommendation document that documents what’s working and where there are opportunities for improvement and what the likely benefits and costs are.

This isn’t available directly from the Quinnovation site: I’m starting here to talk to those who’ve been tracking the arguments. Maybe that’s the wrong starting point, but I’ve got to start  somewhere. I welcome feedback on what else you might expect or want or what would help.

If  you’d like to check out the two packages and start moving forward, have a look here and feel free to followup through the contact link.  You’ve got to have the 3 Rs: responsibility, resources, and resolve.  If I can help, glad to hear it.  If not, but there’s something else, let me know.  But I really do want to help move this industry forward, and I’ll continue to try to find ways to make that happen.  I invite you to join me!

I was reflecting a wee bit on my books (and writings in general), and realized that there’s somewhat of a gap when I talk about games, and mobile, and more.  And it’s not unconscious, but instead principled, even if it arises somewhat implicitly. So I thought I’d talk briefly about  why I tend to focus on the design, and not the practical implementations. Briefly, I think the places we fall short are not in executing, but in conceptualizing. And so I focus on tackling what I think is the tough stuff. I think we need to address the things that are more complex. My claim is that if we understand them, we have a better chance of achieving our goals and delivering the necessary outcomes.

I have stated before that I think we can implement most anything we can conceive, the problem is that our conceptions are limited.  So, I talk about design based on  knowing how we think, work, and learn. I think we need these foundations if we’re truly going to realign what we do to actually work.  Frankly, I think we’re working under some misapprehensions (read: myths) that are limiting our ability to succeed.

When I talk about thinking, the myth is that it’s all in our head and logically principled.  It turns out that, instead, our thinking is very biased by circumstance and pre-existing beliefs, and we avoid effortful work.  We trust our instincts in far more circumstances than we should!  Similarly, we distribute our thinking across the world: our tools and representations assist us, and yet we don’t focus enough effort on ensuing that those are effectively designed.  There’s a real possibility for a valuable shift here.

My focus in working is  to recognize that it’s not as individual as our business processes would assume. The ‘individual innovator’ myth is busted, and the empirical results are that we get better outputs when we work together. Certainly for innovation and creative work. Yet we isolate our work, assigning individual resources.  Similarly, people work best when given meaningful goals, but instead we micromanage too often. Again, there are big opportunities to improve our outcomes by reviewing our approaches.

And on learning, I’ve railed time and again about what’s not working, and been joined by colleagues in opposition.  We learn through designed action and guided reflection, not information dump and knowledge test.  Yet that’s not what we see. And again I suggest only small changes are needed to have a substantial  impact.

So, in my books, I don’t talk about so much about how to build a game, or the ways to implement mobile learning, or social learning tools.  These will change. What you want to get your mind around is about  our minds. Then you can design solutions that can be implemented in any  number of ways.  I may not be successful at communicating the solutions, but in general when I speak, run workshops, or yes write, people seem to convey that I’ve had some effect on helping them get a handle on these new approaches.  In addition, figuring out how to apply them is why I’m here.

What I’ve been able to do, successfully across years and organizations, is help align processes, products, services, and more with how our brains work.  And then work within the available resources to create solutions that  reflect those insights in innovative and yet practical solutions.  It takes time to develop the type of thinking I want organizations to adopt, but it’s doable, and I’ve worked with a number of organizations to do just that. Taking the time to address the tough stuff is a bit of an effort. I think it’s an investment in success.  It’s doable, so the only real open question is whether you’re ready to make a shift in thinking,  that leads to a shift in doing, that leads to a better impact for your organization.  And only you can answer that.