A tweet by @JoshuaKerievsky pointed me to the Satir Change Model, in the context of introducing agile programming. The model purports to capture the disruptive effects of a new idea until it’s internalized, and I find it resonates quite well.   My simplified version looks at it from the point of view of organizational change upon introduction of a new initiative, such as the organizational learning transformations I’m espousing and supporting.

In this simplified version, you can see that an intervention originally creates a decrement in performance, until the intervention takes hold, and then there are some hiccups incurred until the system stabilizes at a new and (hopefully) improved performance outcome.   While we want the improvement, the decrement is something we’d like to minimize.     However, how do we do that?

In researching it a little bit, I came upon a book that discussed using a stepwise approach to minimize it (also in software process improvements), and had a version of the diagram that demonstrated smaller decrements. By having smaller introductions that break up the intervention, you decrease the negative effects.   The point is to take small steps that make improvements instead of a monolithic change.

That’s what I’m trying to achieve is  breaking up the organizational transformation implied by the performance ecosystem, and customizing it for an organization by prioritizing steps into next week, next month, next year, etc.   Of course, the diagram is only indicative, not prescriptive, but I trust you recognize what I mean.

The overall approach is to achieve the improvement, but in a staged way customized for a particular organization and context, not a one-size-fits-all approach that really won’t fit anyone. The goal is to maximize improvements while minimizing disruption, and doing so in ways that capitalize on previous efforts and existing infrastructure.   To do this really requires understanding how the different components relate: how content models support mobile, how performance support articulates with formal learning and social media, and more.   And, of course, understanding the nuances of the underpinning elements and how they are optimized.

Organizations can’t continue in the status quo of only formal learning, but I reckon many folks aren’t sure where and how to start.   That’s the point of using a framework that points out how the elements interact, and coupling that with an specific organizational assessment.   From there, you can prioritize steps, come up with action plans, be prepared to choose vendors, not have the vendor sell you on what they do best, and more.   You’ve got to have a plan, or where you end up may not be the best place for your organization.

I’m reminded of the Cheshire Cat and Alice:

“Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?”
“That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,” said the Cat.
“I don’t much care where–” said Alice.
“Then it doesn’t matter which way you go,” said the Cat. ”
–so long as I get SOMEWHERE,” Alice added as an explanation.
“Oh, you’re sure to do that,” said the Cat, “if you only walk long enough.”

So, do have a plan of where you want to get to, as well as an intent to start moving?

Yesterday I ran my learning technology strategy workshop as a preconference event at ASTD’s International Conference.   I had a crowd of about 16 people who represented a range of experience and responsibilities.   The organizations ranged from academic to industry to information and communication companies.   Some were just starting with elearning, and others had quite a bit under their belt.

When I went around the room asking what people were hoping to get out of the day, a lot of mentions of LMS and elearning made me realize that the title of “elearning strategy” had perhaps misled people into thinking this was just about courses online, whereas I was going quite a ways further through my performance ecosystem.   I took some time to explain that my vision of learning was far beyond courses, and included problem-solving, innovation, and more.

I did try to spend more time on eLearning and advanced ID than I’d originally intended, but still felt the rest were things they needed to get their minds areound.   As we got beyond the performance focus stage (after Improved ID and eLearning), it became clear we were in pretty much uncharted territory for most.   I continued on, defining each element, giving examples, and working through the costs and benefits. The attendees, perhaps loosened up by my goofy humor (no situation so bad that a bad pun can’t make it worse), were very good about asking questions and challenging me (I like that, either they or I learn something), to make sure a shared understanding developed.

While it was a lot of ‘me talking’, I did have them self-assess where they were (as one later said, he got tired of saying “no” so often) and broke down the steps into action items they could choose to pull into a plan and prioritize.

The outcome was maybe even better than I’d hoped.   As I asked for what folks might have planned for going back, the first three who shared were completely divergent. One was going to focus on performance support, one was going to review their elearning templates, and one was going to take a stab at social media.   This was just what I had hoped, that they’d take where they were and this broader perspective on what the learning function could be, and find the right next step for themselves.

I also loved reading the evaluation sheets afterwards (careful to not know who said what).   I was thrilled to see folks saying (paraphrasing a repeated sentiment): “I’m in awe of how much there is to think about, but really excited about the potential and opportunity to really have an impact”.   They really felt it was valuable, and that’s always what I hope to achieve.   There’s surely room for improvement, and extending it to put in some activities would be an option, but as it is I couldn’t be happier.

I had lunch with John Darling of Q2Learning today.   They’ve got an interesting positioning, going beyond just learning events to a learning experience with a stated goal of achieving proficiency.   I’d known him from before through the eLearning Forum, but we’d never really sat down and talked.   We’d gotten connected via TogetherLearn, and naturally our conversation ranged around formalizing informal learning.

We were talking about a conversation he had with a CFO, where the CFO estimated about 3% of their budget was going to training, and admitted that they needed 20-25% improvement in their ability.   Obviously, there are issues of whether traditional training could have that big an impact, but clearly there’s a mismatch.

Now, I believe that learning is more than skilling up to some minimal baseline.   I believe it encompasses the information access to support performance, mentoring from the top end of novice through practitioner, and communication and collaboration that supports problem-solving and innovation.   And the associated skills.   Not only do novel inquiries and problems get dealt with, but new products, services, customer experiences, and more are the outcome of the full performance ecosystem.

There are two obvious questions here: where would an organization get 20-25% performance improvement?   Not just from training, I’ll wager.   You need to create a more coherent learnscape, where people are continually moving to the center of their communities of practice, where more people are effective learners, self-learners, and together-learners, where the cultural values and learning skills are as explicit as the organizational goals and individual roles.   I’d suggest that you’ll get more from wrapping structure around informal than investing purely in formal!   (Which is not to say that formal isn’t needed, though if it’s no better than most of the training that’s out there, it may as well not be done…)

The other question is: where’s the money?   I want to suggest that when it gets into problem-solving, innovation, etc, it goes beyond a training budget to operations and R&D.   R&D will undoubtedly have some infrastructure costs, but I’ll suggest that the innovation and problem-solving skills that are supported across the organization will have a substantial impact on R&D outcomes as well as more operational metrics.   Similarly, operations has some ancillary costs, but support costs should be minimized by   both empowering staff to augment their resources and sharing their learnings. For that matter, marketing gets into the picture when you consider bringing customers into the learning equation (they will self-help if they can with a reasonable amount of effort!).

My point is that we’re thinking about organizational learning wrong, and consequently we’re thinking wrong about outcomes and budgets wrong as well.   Training departments are often encouraged to be strategic. What I want to suggest is strategic, at the organizational level, is thinking of learning as a continuum from formal to exploration, and recognizing that it is an increasing contribution to organizational success.

In short, we don’t deserve a budget if we’re not contributing to real outcomes, and the outcomes that matter are going to shift from mere ability to excellence, from following the procedure to solving problems, from product life-cycles to customized solutions.

So get strategic, and start thinking about systemic support for ‘learning’.   You’ll get the budget you deserve, so deserve a meaningful budget!

I’ve been reading a few books about schools, since my lad’s made the transition from elementary to middle school and it’s been a bit of a battle.   When he’s being set assignments like coloring in a poster on math facts, I’m a wee bit concerned.   John Taylor Gatto’s Dumbing Us Down was a wakeup call (he won NY teacher of the year for a couple of years, and insightfully (and incitefully) criticizes our current school system.   So, when I noticed that Daniel Willingham (who’ve I talked about before) had a book out, I checked it out.

His Why Don’t Students Like School sounded like another tirade against schools, but it’s more positive than that. The subtitle tells you more: “A cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for your classroom”.   It follows a format of:

• question related to successful learning through teaching
• the cogntive science research that underpins this question
• specific recommendations for improving teaching

Fortunately, I could just skim the second part, which is the meat of the book, courtesy of my own PhD in cognitive science, and it was review.   But what really struck home was how he (as reviewers repeatedly point out) uses “clear and compelling language” to help the audience really understand what’s important.   He’s got great examples, and makes a large chunk of cognitive research comprehensible.   Which is not to say it’s a light read, but it’s accessible and clear.

More importantly, the third part of each chapter, his conclusions, are very concrete and actionable. If teachers followed these guidelines, they’d have happier learners and better learning outcomes.   What more do you want?   (Ok, well, curriculum reform, but this is aimed at teachers.)

He covers a lot of ground.   In nine chapters (this isn’t a long book, just deep and relevant), he covers motivation, learning styles, cognitive skills, and more. He answers the core questions and the ancillary questions that emerge. And, no, I don’t agree with him on quite all of it (e.g. on making content meaningful, he’s concerned that too familiar or interesting tasks may overwhelm the intrinsic lesson), but I suspect we’d find if we sat down that we’re agreeing furiously.

I have to say that if all my children’s teachers read this book, their schooling would be a lot better.   If all our children’s teachers read this book, schools would be a lot better.   So, if you’re a teacher, read this book.   If you work with teachers, know teachers, or influence teachers, get them to read this book.   And if you   design learning experiences, even if you don’t actually teach, you should read this book.

Cognitive science research oriented towards making better learning, in a digestable form.   It doesn’t get much better than this.   I have no higher praise for a book than “I wish I’d written it”, and I do.   Highly recommended.