strategy Archives - Page 40 of 86

Work Experiment

13 April 2016 by Clark Leave a Comment

At a point some days ago, I got the idea to map out different activities by their role as executing versus innovating, and whether it’s in the head or in the world. And I’ve been playing with it since. I’m mapping some ways of getting work done, at least the mental aspects, across those dimensions.

I’m not sure I’ve got things in the right places. I’m not even sure what it really means. I’ve some ideas, but I think I’m going to try something new, and ask you what you think it means. So, what’s interesting and/or important here?

L&D Value

5 April 2016 by Clark 3 Comments

This past week, my colleague Jane Hart has been asking the question: “What would happen if there were no Training/L&D department?” (And I recommend you send her your answer. ;) I suspect, of course, that she’s looking at lateral ways to think different about L&D, but it’s an intriguing prospect. As an interesting contrast, Noel Hurst quotes me from the Learning Solution conference as saying “L&D has the opportunity to be the most valuable part of your business.” Are these ideas incommensurate? Or is there a reconciliation?

So, Jane states that the responses from her question fall into two categories: (1) orgs can‘t do without L&D (2) orgs w/o L&D do things differently. And she admits that she’s interested in the latter. What would orgs do differently if they didn’t have the existing baggage of L&D? This interests me from a perspective of what would orgs eventually figure they might want to invest in across the enterprise to facilitate improving their ability to execute and innovate. What I suggested as a response to her question was that individuals and communities would take over responsibility for learning, and work to create environments to support a richer variety of learning. Eventually, orgs would look to do that more efficiently across the communities. And that’s my starting point.

This is what I meant when I made the claim that Noel noted. My perspective is that the role of L&D could (and should) be about improving performance and facilitating development. If, instead of just providing courses, P&D were focused on making sure people could do their jobs, using performance consulting and developing the appropriate solutions – whether job aids, contextual support, coaching, or what have you – they’d be contributing to optimal execution. If they went further, and were also facilitating the ability for the organization to continually innovate – fostering communication and collaboration via tools, practices, and culture – they’d be key to getting people to provide their best. And this is increasingly important.

The old adage that people are an organization’s most important access is increasingly becoming true. The ability to execute optimally is being increasingly outsourced, as my colleague Harold Jarche aptly points out, and the only real value in the organization is going to come from the knowledge work, the important decisions, that will come from people. Together. The main element of success for organizations, going forward, will come from developing their people and having them co-create and deliver the ongoing nature of the business. And P&D should be the ones who understand how people think, work, and learn, and support that. That’s the opportunity on the table. Successful organizations will find ways to make this happen, with or without L&D. I just think that it’s an opportunity L&D should grab. So, are you making the move?

Socially Acceptable

30 March 2016 by Clark 5 Comments

I was talking with my ITA colleagues, and we were discussing the state of awareness of social learning. And we were somewhat concerned that at least from some evidence, there’re some misconceptions around about social learning. So I thought I’d take another shot at it.

First, let me make the case why it’s important. There are number of reasons to be interested in social learning:

it’s more natural: our learning mechanisms were social before they were formal
it’s deeper learning: the processing that goes on through knowledge negotiation leads to more flexible and longer learning
it’s about innovation too: with problem-solving, trouble-shooting, research, design, etc, you don’t know the answer before you begin, so it’s learning, and the outcomes are better when done socially

This is only a start, but I reckon if those don’t make the case that you should be taking a serious look at incorporating social business into your organization, you are not really concerned.

Then, let’s clarify what it’s not. Social learning is:

not about (just) formal: as suggested above, social extends from formal out to informal to being an essential part of how business gets done.
not about social media: social media is a tool to support social learning, but it’s not the focus
not a discussion forum available during a course: you need people interacting around artifacts – posts, pages, videos, etc – to generate meaningful outcomes
not about getting people together to discuss a problem without proper preparation

So what is good social learning? Good social learning is driving interaction around work (whether real or designed for learning). Good social learning is:

communicating by pointing to relevant new information
curating resources, not just for yourself but also for others
being transparent about what you’re doing (and why), showing your work
discussing different ways of getting something done
collaborating to develop a shared response
tapping into the power of people
developing a shared understanding of how to work and play well together, and using it

At core, it’s really about performing better. And that should be your focus, no? So, are you ready to get real about social learning?

Aligning with us

22 March 2016 by Clark Leave a Comment

One of the realizations I had in writing the Revolutionize L&D book was how badly we’re out of synch with our brains. I think alignment is a big thing, both from the Coherent Organization perspective of having our flows of information aligned, and in processes that help us move forward in ways that reflect our humanity.

In short, I believe we’re out of alignment with our views on how we think, work, and learn. The old folklore that represents the thinking that still permeates L&D today is based upon outdated models. And we really have to understand these differences if we’re to get better.

The mistaken belief about thinking is that it’s all done in our head. That is, we keep the knowledge up there, and then when a context comes in we internalize it and make a logical decision and then we act. And what cognitive science says is that this isn’t really the way it works. First, our thinking isn’t all in our heads. We distribute it across representational tools like spreadsheets, documents, and (yes) diagrams. And we don’t make logical decisions without a lot of support or expertise. Instead, we make quick decisions. This means that we should be looking at tools to support thinking, not just trying to put it all in the head. We should be putting as much in the world as we can, and look to scaffold our processes as well.

It’s also this notion that we go away and come up with the answer, and that the individual productivity is what matters. It turns out that most innovation, problem-solving, etc, gets better results if we do it together. As I often say “the room is smarter than the smartest person in the room if you manage the process right“. Yet, we don’t. And people work better when they understand why what they’re doing is important and they care about it. We should be looking at ways to get people to work together more and better, but instead we still see hierarchical decision making, restrictive cultures, and more.

And, of course, there still persists this model that information dump and knowledge test will lead to new capabilities. That’s a low probability approach. Whereas if you’re serious about learning, you know it’s mostly about spacing contextualized application of that knowledge to solve problems. Instead, we see rapid elearning tools and templates that tart-up quiz questions.

The point being, we aren’t recognizing that which makes us special, and augmenting in ways that bring out the best. We’re really running organizations that aren’t designed for humans. Most of the robotic work should and will get automated, so then when we need to find ways to use people to do the things they’re best at. It should be the learning folks, and if they’re not ready, well, they better figure it out or be left out! So let’s get a jump on it, shall we?

Content isn’t a silo

2 March 2016 by Clark 2 Comments

I mentioned in my previous post that I was talking at the xAPI camp about content strategy, and on the way in I created a new diagram to convey a concept I wanted to discuss. Of course one of the things I agitate about for the revolution is that L&D can’t hide away but has to start engaging across the business. And, let me add, that’s only increasing. Our silos are breaking down. To wit:

Here I was trying to think of activities that cross silos. So, of course, the overall role of the business aligns and integrates the separate actions of sales, marketing, IT, etc. And, to suit my campaign, I looked for others.

Obviously, data is coming out across the organization. As I mentioned in that last post, we can only look at the impact of L&D on performance if we can start working with data from the business units, but data from customer service influences marketing, and so on.

The web, too, is a channel for many activities. Units that reach customers, for instance, include customer service, customer education, sales & marketing, and more. Heck, the supply chain is increasingly connected by the web, and data.

Consequently, so too is content. Content is used in many ways, whether via apps, through the web, or print. And for many purposes: sales, marketing, tech support, and of course learning. And there’s a point to all this.

L&D, with it’s hard-wired content, needs to pull on the big kids pants, and start getting with content systems: content engineering, governance, and strategy. Truly, if you want to be part of the strategic picture going forward, you have to work with information tools. Industrial age methods won’t cut it. So, are you thinking about how to move to a content strategy?

xAPI conceptualized

1 March 2016 by Clark 6 Comments

A couple of weeks ago, I had the pleasure of attending the xAPI Base Camp, to present on content strategy. While I was there, I remembered that I have some colleagues who don’t see the connection between xAPI and learning. And it occurred to me that I hadn’t seen a good diagram that helped explain how this all worked. So I asked and was confirmed in my suspicion. And, of course, I had to take a stab at it.

What I was trying to capture was how xAPI tracked activity, and that could then be used for insight. I think one of the problems people have is that they think xAPI is a solution all in itself, but it is just a syntax for reporting.

So when A might demonstrate a capability at a particular level, say at the end of learning, or by affirmation from a coach or mentor, that gets recorded in a Learning Record Store. We can see that A and B demonstrated it, and C demonstrated a different level of capability (it could also be that there’s no record for C, or D, or…).

From there, we can compare that activity with results. Our business intelligence system can provide aggregated data of performance for A (whatever A is being measured on: sales data, errors, time to solve customer problems, customer satisfaction, etc). With that, we can see if there are the correlations we expect, e.g. everyone who demonstrated this level of capability has reliably better performance than those who didn’t. Or whatever you’re expecting.

Of course, you can mine the data too, seeing what emerges. But the point is that there are a wide variety of things we might track (who touched this job aid, who liked this article, etc), and a wide variety of impacts we might hope for. I reckon that you should plan what impacts you expect from your intervention, put in checks to see, and then see if you get what you intended. But we can look at a lot more interventions than just courses. We can look to see if those more active in the community perform better, or any other question tied to a much richer picture than we get other ways.

Ok, so you can do this with your own data generating mechanisms, but standardization has benefits (how about agreeing that red means stop?). So, first, does this align with your understanding, or did I miss something? And, second does this help, at all?

When to gamify?

24 February 2016 by Clark Leave a Comment

I’ve had lurking in my ‘to do’ list a comment about doing a post on when to gamify. In general, of course, I avoid it, but I have to acknowledge there are times when it makes sense. And someone challenged me to think about what those circumstances are. So here I’m taking a principled shot at it, but I also welcome your thoughts.

To be clear, let me first define what gamification is to me. So, I’m a big fan of serious games, that is when you wrap meaningful decisions into contexts that are intrinsically meaningful. And I can be convinced that there are times when tarting up memory practice with quiz-show window-dressing makes sense, e.g. when it has to be ‘in the head’. What I typically refer to as gamification, however, is where you use external resources, such as scores, leaderboards, badges, and rewards to support behavior you want to happen.

I happened to hear a gamification expert talk, and he pointed out some rules about what he termed ‘goal science’. He had five pillars:

that clear goals makes people feel connected and aligns the organization
that working on goals together (in a competitive sense ;) makes them feel supported
that feedback helps people progress in systematic ways
that the tight loop of feedback is more personalized
that choosing challenging goals engages people

Implicit in this is that you do good goal setting and rewards. You have to have some good alignment to get these points across. He made the point that doing it badly could be worse than not doing it at all!

With these ground rules, we can think about when it might make sense. I’ll argue that one obvious, and probably sad case, would be when you don’t have a coherent organization, and people aren’t aware of their role in the organization. Making up for effective communication isn’t necessarily a good thing, in my mind.

I think it also might make sense for a fun diversion to achieve a short-term goal. This might be particularly useful for an organizational change, when extra motivation could be of assistance in supporting new behaviors. (Say, for moving to a coherent organization. ;) Or some periodic event, supporting say a philanthropic commitment related to the organization.

And it can be a reward for a desired behavior, such as my frequent flier points. I collect them, hoping to spend them. I resent it, a bit, because it’s never as good as is promised, which is a worry. Which means it’s not being done well.

On the other hand, I can’t see using it on an ongoing basis, as it seems it would undermine the intrinsic motivation of doing meaningful work. Making up for a lack of meaningful work would be a bad thing, too.

So, I recall talking to a guy many moons ago who was an expert in motivation for the workplace. And I had the opportunity to see the staggering amount of stuff available to orgs to reward behavior (largely sales) at an exhibit happening next to our event. It’s clear I’m not an expert, but while I’ll stick to my guns about preferring intrinsic motivation, I’m quite willing to believe that there are times it works, including on me.

Ok, those are my thoughts, what’ve I missed?

Beyond Consulting

17 February 2016 by Clark 3 Comments

I was at a retreat this weekend, consorting with colleagues. And one of the persistent perceptions of me came up that I was reflecting on, and thought I’d do so ‘out loud’.

So, once consulting became my way of life, I realized I needed to get better at the bits I don’t know. I’ve got deep theory, and considerable practical experience, but I never was a ‘businessperson’. That is, I didn’t have sales experience, or marketing knowledge, and deal-making. As part of the solution, I found Robert Middleton, who is basically a consultant to help other consultants market themselves. And I paid attention to his recommendations.

One of the interesting things was a model he had that pitted your depth of information against your ability to implement. A high information person was an expert, a high implementation person was a hard worker, (low on both was a salesperson ;), and he suggested your goal was to position yourself as an ‘infoguru’, high on both.

Consultant I was reminded of it, and realize I see it slightly differently. So I’d put someone high on the theory/information side as an academic or researcher, whether they’re in an institution or not. They know the theories behind the outcomes, and may study them, but don’t apply them . And I’d put someone who can execute against a particular model as a contractor. You know what you want done, and you hire someone to do it.

Then I see consultants in general as those who go beyond contracting to doing analysis up front, and sorting between models to determine which are relevant, and then assist the client to act. And I definitely lump myself in that category, having a very large set of models I draw upon, and lots of experience applying them or developing new ones to help meet real needs. Creative, yet practical solutions. Reliably.

However…

I was chatting with some colleagues, and their feedback was that while I was perceived highly on the idea side, I didn’t position myself on the expertise side as well. And it’s true that I talk ideas, models largely, because they are the frameworks that give you traction to solve problems. And, of course, more solutions will occur if people have models to use. I naively believed that showing I knew the models would help assure people that I can assist. And so, while I develop new and/or useful ones to help frame things so they can be solved, perhaps I don’t help make clear enough that I also work with people to figure out what models make sense to take them forward.

I don’t talk enough about the projects I’ve worked on, nor the results I’ve had. Sometimes it’s because of confidentiality (you don’t want me talking about your secrets, either). And it can be hard to talk quantitatively, because too seldom does L&D actually measure what they do, but I’ve helped folks with game design, mobile strategy, learning process improvement, L&D revolution, and more. Heck, I had a really good track record while I was an academic for doing interesting projects developing learning and performance solutions. And so far, I’ve been feeding the family for 15 years now as a consultant, so I reckon I’m doing something right ;).

Still, I’ll try to do a bit better in linking the two, because I don’t want you to think what I natter on here isn’t directly applicable to improving what you do. I’ve revamped my website a bit, talking about helping at the learning design or strategy level (feedback appreciated).

You’re welcome to attempt improvements on your own, but if you want assistance in making the move faster with fewer hiccups along the way, I have been assisting folks for a long time now, and would welcome doing it with you. Whether it’s vendors finally wanting to address better learning design, or organizations looking to go beyond the ordinary, I’m here to help. This is what I do! I find it really rewarding to work with folks and collaboratively generating great outcomes, and I’m looking for more opportunities to assist. So a question for you: am I missing something in helping folks see how I can help them?

Social Training?

9 February 2016 by Clark 1 Comment

Sparked by the sight of a post about ‘social training’, I jokingly asked my ITA colleagues whether they could train me to be social. And, of course, they’ve posted about it. And it made me think a little bit more too.

Jane talks about being asked “how you make people learn socially”, and mentions that you can’t force people to be social. That’s the point, you can’t make people engage. Particularly if it’s not safe to share. She goes on and says it’s got to be “relevant, purposeful and appealing”, and what you do is provide the environment and conditions.

Harold riffs off of Jane’s post, and points out that shifting an organization to a more social way of working takes management’s commitment and work from both above and below. He lists a number of activities he’s engaged in to try to develop success in several initiatives. His point being that it’s not just org change, you need to adopt a new mindset about responsibility and work towards an effective culture.

I’ve talked in the past about the environmental elements and the skills required. There are multiple areas that can be addressed, but it’s not to make people learn socially. You need the right culture, the technology infrastructure, meaningful work, and the skills. And these aren’t independent, but intrinsically interlinked.

You likely need to start small, working outward. You need to start with meaningful work, make sure that it’s safe to work together, develop the ability to use social tools to accomplish the work, and develop the skills about working together. Don’t take those for granted! Then, you can lather-rinse-repeat (don’t get me started on the impact of that last word), spreading both to other work projects and up to community.

You’ll want to be strategic about the choice of tools, and the message. It’s not about the tools, and there are replacements for every tool, it’s about the functions they serve. While you want to use the software already in play, you also want to not lock their abilities to one suite of tools in case you want to switch.

And, of course, you need to facilitate the interactions as well. Help people ask for help, and to offer help, and about how to provide feedback, and…

As well, you need to manage the messaging around it. Help people see the upsides, help support the transition (both with plans to address the expected problems and a team ready to work on any unexpected ones), etc. It is organizational change, but it’s also culture change. It takes a plan to scale up.

So, joking aside, it’s not about social training (though learning can be social), but instead about creating a learning organization that brings out the best outcomes from and for the employees. As another discussion posited, you don’t get the best customer experience unless you have a good employee experience. So, are you creating the best?

« Previous Page