strategy Archives - Page 35 of 84

Infrastructure and integration

13 October 2016 by Clark Leave a Comment

When I wrote the L&D Revolution book, I created a chart that documented the different stages that L&D could go through on the way. I look at it again, and I see that I got (at least) one thing slightly off, as I talked about content and it’s more, it’s about integration and infrastructure. And I reckon I should share my thinking, then and now.

The premise of the chart was that there are stages of maturity across the major categories of areas L&D should be aware of. The categories were Culture, Formal Learning, Performance Support, eCommunity, Metrics, and Infrastructure. And for each of those, I had two subcategories. And I mapped each at four stages of maturity.
Let me be clear, these were made up. I stuck to consistency in having two sub areas, and mapping to four stages of maturity. I don’t think I was wrong, but this was an effort to raise awareness rather than be definitive. That said, I believed then and still now that the chart I created was roughly right. With one caveat.

prethinkinginfrastructure In the area of infrastructure, I focused largely on two sub categories, content models and semantics. I’ve been big on the ways that content could be used, from early work I did on content models that led to flexible delivery in an adaptive learning system, a context-sensitive performance support system, and a flexible content publishing system. I’ve subsequently written about content in a variety of places, attended an intelligent content conference, and have been generally advocating it’s time to do content like the big boys (read: web marketers). And I think these areas are necessary, but not sufficient.

I realize, as I review the chart for my upcoming strategy workshop at DevLearn, that I focused too narrowly. Infrastructure is really about the technical sophistication (which includes content models & semantics, but also tracking and analytics) and integration of elements to create a true ecosystem. So there’s more to the picture than just the content models and semantics. Really, we want to be moving on both the sophistication of the model, and the technical underpinnings of the model.

We’ll be discussing this more in Las Vegas in November. And if you’re interested in beginning to offer a richer picture of learning and move L&D to be a strategic contributor to the organization, this is the chance for a jump-start!

Organizational Effectiveness for L&D?

11 October 2016 by Clark Leave a Comment

Last week included an interesting series of events and conversations. There was a formal event on innovation in learning technology (that was only partly so), and a presentation by a colleague. I also had a couple of conversations, one with said colleague following his more formal event, and another with another colleague before the initial event. And from that latter conversation came an interesting revelation. The concept was Organizational Effectiveness, and the question is the relevance to L&D.

Now my colleague in the conversation that preceded the innovation event is wise, with a broad experience across HR. And I was mentioning that it was hard to see a real sense of urgency in L&D around the problems I can’t help but notice. So, for instance, I see much elearning that doesn’t reflect serious design. And similarly, I see too many L&D organizations not looking beyond the course as their responsibility.

My colleague’s perspective was interesting. He opined that by and large, he saw the need for formal learning shrinking, and that more and more HR was focusing on providing self-learning resources instead of course. While this doesn’t explain L&D complacency, it certainly would explain the lack of interest in investment in improvement. And while it should drive an interest in a broader performance ecosystem, that was seen as the responsibility from other areas.

In particularly, he talked about OD and OE. Now, I’ve heard of Organizational Development, but have always seen it to be about change management (rightly or wrongly). However, OE was new to me. He explained it was Organizational Effectiveness, and that intrigued me. Effectiveness would certainly include the typical L&D role of learning, but also performance support. It’s the ‘optimal execution’ side of my call for organizational success. If we remapped OD to be about continual innovation, and OE to be about optimal execution, we could have a value footing.

Interestingly, I see that the areas covered as components (not the first four, but these: Decision Making, Change & Learning, Group Effectiveness, & Self-Organizing & Adaptive Systems) seem to be intrinsic to the work I think organizations need (and have been arguing for L&D to take on). The point is, it doesn’t have to be L&D (and given the lack of awareness and urgency, maybe it can’t be). Maybe I need to look more closely at OE (and hope that it’s not just another rebranding).

The focus seems to be on not-for-profits, and achieving outcomes, not redefining them, so perhaps it’s too limited, but somehow I’d like to get a framing that starts generating action. It’s time to start looking at working smarter and organizational meta-learning, because it appears to me that the need and opportunity are huge. What are the leverage points? I welcome any pointers, feedback, ideas, etc.!

Because quality matters

6 October 2016 by Clark Leave a Comment

I was reflecting on some of the actions my colleagues and I take. These are, in particular, colleagues that have been contributing to the field for a long time, ones who know what they’re talking about and that I therefore respect. I retweeted one who called for being careful of the source in message. I’ve supported another who has been on a crusade against myths. And I joined with some others to promote quality elearning. And it led me to wonder why. Why care? Why take risks and potentially upset people? And I realized that it’s because I care; because quality matters.

So what do I mean? For one, it’s about money. To the extent that people are misled by claims, they can misinvest their money. They might be persuaded to buy products that can’t really deliver what’s promised. They might pursue programs that aren’t going to have a real effect. We see this a lot, initiatives that don’t achieve the desired outcome. There are lots of ways to fail, but we do know lots about how to do it right. Yet we still see strategies limited to courses, and courses designed poorly, and thus money being wasted that could be doing good.

Yet really, it’s about people. It’s about giving them the right tools to do their job, whether in their heads or in the world. In particular, I think that a field that’s about learning is about helping people improve, and that’s a noble pursuit. Yet, too much of what’s done is under-informed, if not outright misled. We need to do better.

And it’s about us. If we’re to be professional, if we’re going to hold our heads high, if we’re going to have a meaningful impact, we have to do what’s right. And if we don’t know what that is, it’s incumbent on us to find out. And be smart about it. Be critical in our investigation of messages (including this one ;). We need to have enough background to be able to sift the wheat from the chaff. And we need to continue to educate ourselves on the science that is behind what we do. We need to be responsible.

We need to recognize that changing what is arguably the most complex thing in the known universe (the mind) in persistent and predictable ways is not simple. And simple solutions, while appealing, are not going to do the job. They might meet one particular metric, but when you look at the big picture, aligning improvement with respect, you need to have a rich solution.

And I think awareness is growing. We are seeing more people interested in improving their learning designs despite considerable budget and time pressures. And we’re seeing folks looking beyond the course, seeking to create an approach that’s broader and yet more focused on success. Finally, we’re seeing people interested in improving. Which is the first step.

So you can continue to expect me to work for quality, and back up those who do likewise. Together, we might make this field one to be proud of. I don’t think we’re quite there yet, but it’s within our reach. We can do this, and we should. Are you with me?

If you’re interested in getting started, and would like some help to get going faster and further, get in touch!

Workshopping what’s needed: going deep on elearning

29 September 2016 by Clark Leave a Comment

Are you ready to really try to make a change in what you’re doing? It’s past time, both at the level of our elearning design, and at the level of elearning strategy. And now you have the chance to do something about it, because I’m holding workshops addressing each. In different places with different goals, but each is a way to proceed on going deep on elearning.

If you’re interested in the Revolution, in looking at what L&D can, and should, be, you should join me in Las Vegas at the DevLearn conference and sign up for my pre-conference workshop. On Monday, Nov 14th, we’re going to spend the day getting seriously into opportunities of the performance ecosystem and the strategy to get there. We’ll look at the need for not only optimal execution but also continual innovation, what is required, and how the elements work together. Then we’re going to work through assessing where you’re at, where you’d like to be, and give you the opportunity to pull together your own strategic plan. You’ll leave with a roadmap forward for your organization. This is your chance to get a jump on the future of L&D.

If getting serious about elearning design is your thing, you should join us on Wednesday, Nov 30 at Online Educa in Berlin. It’s past time to stop producing elearning that’s ineffective. Here, my workshop is focused on going deep on elearning. We’re going to spend the day unpacking the details that make (e)learning really stick, and the design revisions that will accomplish it. We’ll dig into the cognitive, but also the emotional aspects that affect the outcomes. You’ll practice the skills, and then work on steps that you can practically incorporate into your practice.

If you want to really sink your teeth into either of these important topics, here’s your opportunity. I hope to see you at one or both!

Reflecting practice

28 September 2016 by Clark 1 Comment

Someone opined on yesterday’s post that it’s hard to find time for reflection, and I agree it’s hard. You need to find ways to make it systematic, as it’s hard to make persistent change. So I responded with three personal suggestions, and thought I’d share them here, and also think about what the organizational response could be.

Individual

So my first suggestion was to find times when the mind is free to roam. For example, I have used taking a shower, exercising, or driving. My approach has been to put a question in my mind before I start, and then ponder it. I typically end up with at least one idea how to proceed. Find a time that you are awake and doing something (relatively) mindless. It could be in the garden, or on a walk, or…

Another idea I suggested was to bake it into your schedule. Make it a habit. Put half an hour on your calendar (e.g. end of the day) that’s reflection time. Or at lunch, or morning break, or… A recurring reminder works well. The point is to set aside a time and stick to it.

Along the same lines, you could make a personal promise to publicly reflect (e.g. blog or podcast or…). Set a goal for some amount per week (e.g. my goal is 2 blog posts per week). If you commit to it (particularly publicly), you’ve a better chance. You could also ask someone to hold you accountable, have them expecting your output. The pressure to meet the output goal means you’ll be searching for things to think about, and that’s not a bad thing.

Organizational

Of course, organizations should be making this easier. They can do things like have you set aside a day a week for your own projects, or an hour of your day. Little firms like Google have instituted this. Of course, it helps if they require output so that you have to get concrete and there’s something to track isn’t a bad idea either.

Firms could also put in place tools and practices around Working out Loud (aka Show Your Work). Having your work be out there, particularly if you’re asked to ‘narrate’ it (e.g. annotate with the thinking behind it), causes you to do the thinking, and then you have the benefits of feedback.

And instituting systemic mentoring, where you regularly meet with someone who’s job it is to help you develop, and that would include asking questions that help you reflect. Thus, someone’s essentially scaffolding your reflection (and, ideally, helping you internalize it and become self-reflecting).

Reflection is valuable, and yet it can be hard to figure out when and how. Getting conscious about reflection and about instituting it are both valuable components of a practice. So, are you practicing?

Kaihan Krippendorff Keynote Mindmap

14 September 2016 by Clark Leave a Comment

At a private event, I had a chance to hear Kaihan Krippendorff talk about thinking differently about innovation. He used an 8P’s model as a framework to illustrate how to think differently.

He started by pointing out that the myth of entrepreneurial innovation is overblown, and that innovation comes from moving outside ‘business as usual’.

In an engaging way, he used several examples for each of the Ps to show how companies succeeded by rethinking around this element (speaking too fast to capture them!).

Collaborating when it matters

31 August 2016 by Clark 2 Comments

A dear friend and colleague just wrote about his recent (and urgent) chemo and surgery. I won’t bore you with the details (the odds are you don’t know him), but one thing stuck with me that I do want to share.

As context, he discovered he had a rare and aggressive cancer, and this ventured into the unknown, with a sense of urgency. He fortunately had access to arguably the world’s best resources on this, but the ‘rare’ bit means that there wasn’t a lot of data:

“The treatment options were unclear because they didn‘t have enough real data to know what was most likely to work..I didn‘t know that the lack of data was so profound that intuition and personal experience, not data, would play a central role in the decisions.”

Collaboration was critical. There were two different domains in play, and they had to work and play well together. An oncologist and a specialist in the location were required to determine a course of action:

“If you‘re ever in a situation like this, having world-class experts is so critical! I could see the mental wheels turning, the quick parlay back and forth between the experts, leading to the suggestion…”

And, interestingly, his voice was an important one:

“Amazing how much the decision seemed to also rest with me, not just with the experts.”

They knew they didn’t know, and they wanted to understand his preferences. He had a voice, instead of being told what to do. If you don’t know, look for preferences.

This is what decision-making looks like when it matters and it’s new: open collaboration. This also reminds me of Jane Bozarth’s story about her husband’s situation, where again expertise and preparation matter. The details are not trivial, they’re critical.

And these situations are increasing. Whether life-threatening or not, and even with the power of data, we’re going to be facing increasingly challenging decisions. We need to learn when and how to collaborate. One person following a script (which should be automated) is increasingly less likely to be the answer. An individual equipped with models, and resources including others, is going to be the minimal necessary solution.

Trying out videos

24 August 2016 by Clark Leave a Comment

DevLearn, the elearning conference I’ll be attending in November, has suggested adding videos to promote your talks. I haven’t done much with video (though I did just do this <6 minute one about my proposed learning pedagogy), but I’ve found the ‘narrated presentation’ capability built into Keynote to be of interest, so I’ve been playing with it. And I thought I’d share.

First, I created this one to promote my talk on eLearning Myths. It’s a fun session with a MythSmasher format (e.g. the possible myth, the appeal, the damage, the method, the results, and what you can do instead if it’s busted) . It’s important, because if you’re supporting the wrong myths you can be wasting money and vulnerable to flawed promotions. Here’s the pitch:

Then, I’m also running an elearning strategy workshop, that’s basically the Revolution roadmap. In it, we work through the elements of the Performance Ecosystem and not only make the case for, but workshop a personalized roadmap for your organization. As things move forward, there’s an opportunity for L&D to lead the charge to the adaptive organization!

I welcome hearing your feedback on content or presentation, and of course invite you to attend either or both!

The probability of wasting money

3 August 2016 by Clark Leave a Comment

Designing learning is a probability game. To paraphrase Dorothy Parker, you can lead a learner to learning, but you can’t make them think. What I mean is that the likelihood that the learning actually sticks is a result of a myriad of design decisions, and many elements contribute to that likelihood. It will vary by learner, despite your endeavors, but you increase the probability that the desired outcome is achieved by following what’s know about how people learn.

This is the point of learning engineering, applying learning science to the design of learning experiences. You need to align elements like:

determining learning objectives that will impact the desired outcome
designing sufficient contextualized practice
appropriately presenting a conceptual model that guides performance
providing a sufficient and elaborated suite of examples to illustrate the concept in context
developing emotional engagement

and so on.

And to the extent that you’re not fully delivering on the nuances of these elements, you’re decreasing the likelihood of having any meaningful impact. It’s pretty simple:

If you don’t have the right objectives (e.g. if you just take an order for a course), what’s the likelihood that your learning will achieve anything?

If you don’t have sufficient practice, what’s the likelihood that the learning will still be there when needed?

If you have abstract practice, what’s the likelihood that your learners will transfer that practice to appropriate situations?

If you don’t guide performance with a model, what’s the likelihood that learners will be able to adapt their performance to different situations?

If you don’t provide examples, what’s the likelihood that learners will understand the full range of situations and appropriate adaptations for each?

And if you don’t emotionally engage them, what’s the likelihood that any of this will be appropriately processed?

Now, let’s tie that back to the dollars it costs you to develop this learning. There’s the SME time, and the designer time, and development time, and the time of the learners away from their revenue-generating activity. At the end of the day, it’s a fair chunk of change. And if you’re slipping in the details of any of this (and I’m just skating the surface, there’re nuances around all of these), you’re diminishing the value of your investment, potentially all the way to zero. In short, you could be throwing your money away!

This isn’t to make you throw up your hands and say “we can’t do all that”. Most design processes have the potential to do the necessary job, but you have to comprehend the nuances, and ensure that the i’s are dotted and t’s crossed on development. Just because you have an authoring tool doesn’t mean what comes out is actually achieving anything.

However, it’s possible to tune up the design process to acknowledge the necessary details. When you provide support at just the right places, and put in place the subtle tweaks on things like working with SMEs, you can develop and deliver learning that has a high likelihood of having the desired impact, and therefore have a process that’s justifiable for the investment.

And that’s really the goal, isn’t it? Being able to allocate resources to impact the business in meaningful ways is what we’re supposed to be doing. Too frequently we see the gaps continue (hence the call for Serious eLearning), and we can only do it if we’re acting like the professionals we need to be. It’s time for a tuneup in organizational learning. It’s not too onerous, and it’s needed. So, are you ready?

« Previous Page