Brian Brushwood riffed off his success with Scam School and other scams to provide lessons about branding and new media opportunity.
Jon Landau #DevLearn Keynote Mindmap
Jon Landau gave an inspiring keynote about the need to focus on the experience, and innovate to bring those visions to fruition, driving tech versus the other way around.
Wise organizations
My ITA colleague Jay (always a spark igniter) has been thinking about well-being in organizations, and it activated my thinking on wisdom. My interest in wisdom continues to ferment, slowly but surely, as a personal commitment. My question was what would business wisdom look like, and what would be the benefits?
One preliminary issue is definitional: when I google the term, I mostly see good business practices wrapped up and trumped as business wisdom. That’s not quite what I mean. We’ve seen examples of people doing things that were smart in the moment, but not very smart over time (*cough* Enron *cough*). Yes, there are some business principles that really do stand the test of time and could be considered business wisdom, but I’m thinking more about wise decisions, not wise principles. Other folks tend to treat wisdom as ineffable or only obvious in situ, you know it when you see it but you can’t analyze it. That doesn’t leave me much traction, so I focus on frameworks that give me some possibility for doing things differently.
So the definition I like for wisdom comes from Robert Sternberg, where he talks about making decisions that are not just smart in the short term, but in the long term. Decisions that consider not just me and mine, but society in general. And decisions that are based on values that are articulated and examined, not implicit and potentially less then optimal. I suggest that this sort of approach would lead to better decisions.
One of the things would be just to get people to start making decisions with this approach. If you accept the view that for situations where we’re experts, we can trust our gut, this means more to slow down when we’re making decisions out of our comfort zone. It’s harder work, to be very conscious in our decision making process, but I hope it’s implicitly obvious that making better decisions is the best solution.
And this segues into the broader topic of the organizational culture. I’m not immune to the view that there’s a certain personal attitude to wisdom. The wisest people I know are also the most unflappable, thoughtful and warm. And I think that’s hard to accomplish in an organization where everything you say can and will be held against you. You’ve got to have the appropriate culture for such an approach to flourish. Which ties to Jay’s interest in well-being, bring me full circle.
So, I think there’s an argument to be made for consider wisdom in business, as part of a longer term shift from short term returns to a sustainable differentiator. Coupled with appropriation of collaboration and cooperation, I suggest organizations can and should be working wiser and more coherently.
Inoculating the organization
I was having a discussion the other day with my ITA colleague Jay Cross, and the topic wandered over to how to use the social approaches we foster under the umbrella of the Coherent Organization to help organizations become one. And I went feral.
Do we work top down, or bottom up? In the course of the conversation it occurred to me that given the model we propose, that you can’t just have the broader social network create it, and you can’t even really build a community of practice (CoP). The smallest unit is the working group; how could we use that?
The thought that struck me was creating a working group who’s goal was to create a CoP around being a Coherent Organization. That is, they’d have to understand the principles, start defining and discussing it, document the opportunities, and start disseminating the ideas through the organization. Inherently, it has to be viral, and the most effective way to introduce a virus is by inoculation.
The idea then is that the mission of the working group is to develop a community of practice around understanding and implementing developing communities of practice. It’s a bit recursive or self-referential, but it’s the seed that needs to sprout. Seeding it is the action that’s needed to get it going, and then some feeding needs to happen. While it’s possible that a self-supported initiative could survive, having some external support may make sense in making this happen.
Yes, I’m assuming that the end result is desirable and possible. The former is, I think, reasonably well accepted (short form: working effectively is a necessary survival tactic, going forward), even if the path to get there isn’t. I’m suggesting that this is a path to get there. It’s not easy; it takes persistence, support, all those things that make organizational initiatives succeed, with an understanding of the strategies, policies, and cultural adjustments needed. Yet I’ll suggest that it is doable. Now, it’s time to do it!
#itashare
Focus on ‘do’
I’ve been working on a project where we’re reviewing the curriculum before we design the learning outcome. The level of detail is admirable: courses are defined by objectives, which then drive learning objectives, from which are extracted key concepts to present. And I’m finding one approach that’s making this go really well.
There are problems with the existing content. Some of the learning objectives are too specific, leading to an interpretation that won’t lead to transfer beyond the classroom. Some of the coverage in objectives or concepts is biased, so some topics are not covered enough, and others too much. Some of the learning objectives are focused on tasks that were clearly designed to incite learner interest, but not in an intrinsic way. And I’m not a domain expert, but I can still apply enough real world knowledge to make this determination (and we’ll review with SMEs).
What’s providing a very useful lever in identifying these gaps, even prior to remedying them, is a rabid focus on ‘do‘. That is: “what will the learner be able to do with this after the class”. Implied are two things: 1) that the learner will care about , and 2) that will let them have an impact somewhere.
This focus is letting me see that some things are so specific that they won’t generalize anywhere interesting; to identify that some of the goals are not really relevant anywhere else (e.g. a focus on ‘celebrity’ examples). That the coverage is spotty and some topics that have applicability have been skipped.
Such a focus will, I think, help in the discussions with the SMEs, and provide a way to work with them to get good outcomes for the learning and the learners. It’s a learning-centered approach (I think that’s a better phrase than learner-centric) that helps us meet the client’s goals in ways they understand.
What do you think?
Beyond eBooks
Among the things I’ve been doing lately is talking to folks who’ve got content and are thinking about the opportunities beyond books. This is a good thing, but I think it’s time to think even further. Because, frankly, the ebook formats are still too limited.
It’s no longer about the content, it’s about the experience. Just putting your content onto the web or digital devices isn’t a learning solution, it’s an information solution. So I’m suggesting transcending putting your content online for digital, and starting to think about the opportunities to leverage what technology can do. It started with those companion sites, with digital images, videos, audios, and interactives that accompany textbooks, but the opportunities go further.
We can now embed the digital media within ebooks. Why ebooks, not on the web? I think it’s primarily about the ergonomics. I just find it challenging to read on screen. I want to curl up with a book, getting comfortable.
However, we can’t quite do what I want with ebooks. Yes, we can put in richer images, digital audio, and video. The interactives part is still a barrier, however. The ebook standards don’t yet support it, though they could. Apple’s expanded the ePub format with the ability to do quick knowledge checks (e.g. true/false or multiple choice questions). There’s nothing wrong with this, as far as it goes, but I want to go further.
I know a few, and sure that there are more than a few, organizations that are experimenting with a new specification for ePub that supports richer interaction, more specifically pretty much anything you can do with HTML 5. This is cool, and potentially really important.
Let me give you a mental vision of what could be on tap. There’s an app for iOS and Android called Imaginary Range. It’s an interesting hybrid between a graphic novel and a game. You read through several pages of story, and then there’s an embedded game you play that’s tied to, and advances, the story.
Imagine putting that into play for learning: you read a graphic novel that’s about something interesting and/or important, and then there’s a simulation game embedded where you have to practice the skills. While there’s still the problem with a limited interpretation of what’s presented (ala the non-connectionist MOOCs), in well-defined domains these could be rich. Wrapping a dialog capability around the ebook, which is another interesting opportunity, only adds to the learning opportunity.
I’ll admit that I think this is not really mobile in the sense of running on a pocketable, but instead it’s a tablet proposition. Still, I think there’s real value to be found.
Bob Mosher Keynote Mindmap #PSS12
Bob Mosher opened the Performance Support Symposium with a passionate keynote about Performance Support. It strongly made the case for a blended approach, which I support. As with mobile, the time is definitely now.
Organizational Cognition
A recent post on organizational cognitive load got me thinking (I like this quote: “major learning and performance initiatives will likely fail to achieve the hoped-for outcomes if we don‘t consider that there is a theoretical limit to collective throughput for learning”). I do believe organizations have distributed thinking that they apply to solving problems. Usually this is individual, but how might it be greater than that?
I think back to the Coherent Organization, and how folks are collaborating and cooperating in moving the organization forward. There’s lots of thinking going on, in many ways. Folks are solving problems in formal or informal working groups in many ways, whether achieving organizational goals directly, developing themselves together, and furthering the frontiers of their field in a variety of ways. Individual cognitive load we address through providing resources and tools. How do we reduce collective load?
In short, by making access to social networks, to collaborative media, as easy and ‘ready to hand‘ as possible. We want the focus to be on the task, not the tools. It’s about co-creating a performance ecosystem that works fluidly, seamlessly integrating the different resources we need.
It’s cultural as well as structural. You need to remove the barriers to working well, facilitating the ability to constructively interact by welcoming diversity, sponsoring psychological safety, soliciting new ideas, and providing space and time for reflection. You need leaders who walk the talk, learning out loud.
You can’t do this if you don’t understand how folks work and play together, and what it takes to get you there and stay there. The field continues to develop, but you need to be explicit about how this happen, and actively work to minimize interference with effective flow: communication and work.
#itashare
Inappropriate usage?
A few days ago, my colleague Jay Cross wrote a post on plagiarism, dealing with the fact that some of his work (even an example of some of our collaborative work) was being used without attribution. He preceded me in the use of Creative Commons licensing, but from his example (and Harold Jarche), I placed a BY – NC – SA license in the side bar. Fast forward to today, and I get alerted by a colleague (thanks, Martin!) that my stuff is appearing without attribution.
At their site (see screenshot), 4 of the first 6 posts listed are mine. Full grab of the text, graphics, and all. Not all of mine are there, but many. The posts may no longer be there by the time you read this, but they were when I was notified, as the screenshot shows. And, apparently, for a while in the past. Look at my list of blog posts, and you’ll see that these were my four most recent posts.
Now, the license I mentioned means three things I ask for. First, you say who it’s BY (i.e. attribution). That it’s NC No Charge, i.e. you’re not making money off of it (if you are, let’s work out a deal). And that it’s SA Share Alike. Others can take your content too. So, you’re welcome to use any or all of a post if you a) attribute it to me, b) don’t charge, and c) you are willing for any work created from mine to similarly be shared. I see that this group has only violated one, but I’m inclined to think it’s an important one. It’s my thinking, after all.
As you might imagine, this upsets me. I work hard to put worthwhile information out. I expect to at least get credit for it, given that it provides no direct revenue (yep, still ad-free). To have someone take my intellectual property and redistribute under their banner, without at least providing a pointer back strikes me as less than appropriate. I note Jeff Cobb is getting credit. Why not me?
Sure I’m grateful that they find it worth quoting, but not if they’re implying it’s theirs. They’re getting value from my thinking, and I’m not getting anything in return. Other have redistributed my posts, and they can, as long as they credit me (and aren’t charging for it). That’s of value to me. Unattributed, not so much.
By the way, when I pointed this out, several others indicated that this site has or has had unattributed content from themselves or others in the past. You have to wonder…
Am I too touchy about this?
Coherent performance
I’ve been revisiting performance support in preparation for the Guild’s Performance Support Symposium next month, and I’m seeing a connection between two models that really excite me. It’s about how social and performance support are a natural connection.
So, let’s start with a performance model. This model came from a look at how people act in the world and I was reminded of it during a conversation on informal learning. Most of the time, we’re acting in well-understood ways (e.g. driving), and we can keep our minds free for other things. However, there may be times when we can’t rely on that well-practiced approach (say, for instance, if our usual route home is blocked for some reason). Then we have a breakdown, and need to consciously problem-solve. Ideally, if we find the solution, we reflect on it and make it part of our well-practiced repertoire.
So what I wanted to do was use this understanding to think about how we might support performance. What support do we need at these different stages? I propose that when we have a breakdown, ideally we find the answer, either as an information resource, or from a person with the answer. Some of the time, we might identify a real skill shift we need, and then we might actually take a course, but it’s a small part of the picture.
If we find the answer, we can go back into action, but if we can’t find the answer, we have to go into problem-solving mode. Here, the support we need differs. We may need data to look for patterns that can explain what’s going on, or models to help find a solution, or even people. Note, however, that the people here are different than the people we would access for the answer. If there were a person with the answer, we would’ve found them in the first step. Here it’s likely to be good collaborators, people with complementary skills and a willingness to help.
If and when we find the answer, then we should share that so that others don’t have to do the same problem-solving, but can access the resource (or you) in the first step. This step is often skipped, because it’s not safe to share, or there’s just not a focus on such contributions and it’s too easy to just get back to work without recognizing the bigger picture. This is one of the components of what Harold Jarche means by ‘narrating your work‘, and I mean in ‘learning out loud’. If it’s habitual, it’s beneficial.
The connection that I see, however, is that there’s a very strong relationship between this model, and the coherent organization model. At the first step, finding the answer, likely comes from your community of practice or even the broader network (internal or external). This is cooperation, where they’re willing to share the answer.
At the second step, if you get to problem-solving, this is collaboration. It may not just be in a work group (though, implicitly, it is a work group), but could be folks from anywhere. The bigger the problem, the more it’s a formal work group.
The point is that while the L&D group can be providing some of the support, in terms of courses and fixed resources, at other times the solution is going to require ‘the network’. That is, folks are going to play a part in meeting the increasing needs for working. The resources themselves are increasingly likely to be collaboratively developed, the answer is more likely ‘out there’ than necessarily codified in house.
There’s going to of necessity be a greater shift to more flexible solutions across resources and people, to support organizational performance. The performance support model will increasingly require an infrastructure to support the coherent organization. Are you ready?