Learnlets

Secondary

Clark Quinn’s Learnings about Learning

Making constructive conversations

by Leave a Comment

As part of my thinking about the Future of Work, I’ve been thinking about how to make it safe to share, in the sense of an innovation culture (ala  the Learning Organization).  My ITA colleague, Charles Jennings, shared a very useful format to facilitate this, and I wanted to think out loud about it in terms of actionable items.

So, Charles advocates an approach to be taken in conversations with employees that involves a set of specific questions.  He’s developed even a little job aid  (aka the ‘3 Questions’ card). What’s nice is that the questions are open ended, positive, and facilitate reflection. It’s modeled after the After Action Reviews conducted in military situations, and has the following 3 questions:

1.Describe some of your recent challenges and successes

2.How would you respond differently to achieve better outcomes in the future?

3.What learning can you take away from these experiences?

The first one is designed to open discussion.  Of course, it has to be ‘safe’ to share these challenges and successes, but making a habit of asking about them and of course an individual’s assignments or projects should be known and shared.  It’s the followup questions that can help establish the safety to share.

Thus, the second question, doesn’t focus on mistakes, it focuses on  alternatives.  I might even be inclined to ask, instead: “what other ways could you have responded and what ways might you try to achieve better outcomes in the future”, exploring the space of possibilities a bit (to avoid being trapped in local maxima).  The point here is to consider a broad swath of possible approaches and focus on improvement.

Finally, the third questions focuses in on lessons.  What did an experience teach you, and how might you act differently on the basis of this.   The point is to look for the lesson.  I’d add that as part of learning out loud, sharing the lesson learned can be shared.

Charles noted to me that evidence suggests that 70% of manager/managed meetings is taken by the manager speaking. That’s not necessarily a good ratio; it would likely  be better 50/50 or even less!

You don’t want to celebrate mistakes, but you do want to make it safe to share.  In fact, a lovely story I heard once was from a small company that rang a bell in the middle of the office, not when the mistake was made, but when the lesson was learned. That way everyone else could learn not to make the same mistake!  It celebrated learning, and validated experimentation.

So while a good culture is the result of actions, scaffolding good actions through structure can help drive the culture forward.  Do you have tools you use to help make things productive?

#itashare

Working and learning out loud

by 2 Comments

I’ve been thinking about some of the talk around the Future of Work, and in addition to the free flow of information I recently posted about  from the Coherent Organization, I think working out loud is another component.  Inspired by a post from my colleague ITA Harold Jarche,  this is how I see it, in actionable terms.  (And I expect this is also part of Jane Bozarth’s Show Your Work, but I’ve yet to get my mitts on a copy, mea culpa.)

The point is to make your work visible.  There’re two points: showing the actual goals, progress and status of your work, and showing the thinking that’s going on behind it.  And there are two dimensions: within the organization, and outside the organization.  Pragmatically, this yields some concrete and actionable elements.

First, there have to be mechanisms to share.  Ideally, you don’t have to work and then separately post it, but instead your tools automatically share.  This really means collaborative work tools, because you want people to be able to engage: at least commenting, and of course sometimes (maybe most of the time) you’ll be working in a team. Also tools that track contributions and changes.  And there may have to be permissions: so some people can edit, some can only comment, etc.

And I wouldn’t assume folks know what it means to ‘narrate your work‘ (aka learn out loud).  Here, I mean exposing the underlying elements.  This includes the context, assumptions, considerations, experiments, and reflections.  In User Interface Design, it was called Design Rationale, and it’s showing not only the current state, but how you got there.  Benefits include others’ experiences, not revising early decisions when new team members are added, and more.  The typical techniques of being explicit, modeling, evangelizing, promoting, etc, play a role here.

Then of course it has to be ‘safe’ to share, you can’t be working in a Miranda organization.  If your work will be held against  you in any way, you won’t want to share.  This means culture and policies and more. Basically, you need to be working in a Learning Organization, where the elements are aligned to facilitate optimal engagement.  This includes the practices about how to work out loud and learn out loud.

Another   issue is how far to share.  What can you share outside the organization?  Harold talks about the essential requirement of sharing outside the workplace, and that can be a big concern.  Obviously, proprietary work needs to be protected until it’s not business vulnerable. This means policies about what’s safe to share, and when.  Certainly, ‘sanitized’ work, where critical details are obscured but the thinking is shown should be supported in going out to communities of practice.  And the end result, when the business advantage isn’t threatened, could and should be shared through articles or webinars or conference presentations.

At the end, it’s a risk/reward tradeoff for any project at any time. What’s the benefit of getting feedback to improve versus what’s the downside of information getting out to competitors or exposing regulated data?  At any point, with any particular version of ‘anonymizing’, the balance may tip one way or another.   But the point is to be open to the benefit, and take advantage of it when and where you can.  Getting systematic at making it a regular part of any project is likely to be key.

It’s what I do here, and I encourage you to work out loud as much as you can.  So, any feedback so far?

#itashare

Coherent Implications

by Leave a Comment

One of the things to do with models is use them as the basis to explain and predict.  And right now I’m working with the Coherent Organization model (which emerged from the work of the ITA) and looking at the implications for decisions.  How does this model map to choices you make in the organization?

Working Collaboratively and cooperativelyThere are three layers: work teams composed of members from different communities of practice, that are connected outward to broader social networks.  An important element is the flow of information within the model; ensuring that there are no barriers to making effective choices.

At the work team level, you want people to be able to communicate with one another effectively, and collaborate to find answers.  While this can occur face to face, you don’t want geography or chronology to be a barrier. So  you want good tools that can represent and support shared understandings. You might also want ways for the team members to find out more about each other, via profiles.  The members of the teams should be bringing in their understandings from their communities, but also be free to ask questions of their community in case their understandings aren’t sufficient. And of course they should share their learnings back with the community.

This latter naturally implies good communication and collaboration tools as well, but here the community is not only within the organization, but outside as well.  There certainly will be internal sites for the community with proprietary information and tools, but there also needs to be participation in the broader discussion. Just as you (should) go to conferences to share with colleagues not in your workplace, so too should you be participating in online communities. The learning should be ongoing.  This also implies that there needs to be an effective way to go beyond the intranet. You get security concerns here, but you need to find a balance, or you’re cutting off half of the organizational brain!  Team members should be asking questions of the internal and external communities (as appropriate, and policies about what’s allowed to be discussed, even if it’s just “don’t be an idiot”are fair enough), and answering them in turn.

And, of course, the community should be observing related communities of practice inside and out, and sharing their own learnings.  For example for learning design there’s a need to track developments in fields like software engineering (e.g. ‘agile methods’), design in general and specific design like game, graphic, interface, etc, sociology, anthropology, psychology, neuroscience, and more.

Decisions, then, are about how to facilitate the most optimal flow of information without compromising organizational integrity.  Realize, of course, that except in extreme cases, these folks will have mobile devices, so in some sense you can’t really block their queries, but you really don’t want to anyway.  Yes, you lock up the data you have to protect, by law or  responsibility, but other than that you try to support communication that can advance the organization.  It’s about policies and technologies  (and of course culture, but that’s another story).

As always, so what am I forgetting?

#itashare

Conferencing reflections

by Leave a Comment

It turns out that I’ve been to a  lot of conferences this year (8, if my math is right) scattered through the year and around the globe. And over the past decade, I’ve hit a lot more.  And it’s given me some opportunities to contrast and compare some of the tradeoffs that can be made.  So I thought I’d share my thoughts with you.

Now, my perspective starts out a bit different. At these events, I’m speaker, so I see things from a different perspective.  However, I also try to go see sessions as an audience member as well, and I still see the same events.  So I am trying to write this from all perspectives: conference organizer, attendee, speaker, and vendor.  And let me be clear, I’m a learning technology strategist, and my passions are learning, technology, and how to use them together to make things better. So that colors my comments.

Here are the major elements and my thoughts on them:

Keynotes: I am tired of ‘inspirational’ keynotes. I really don’t need to hear some person who climbed a mountain or sailed a sea and their attempts to connect that to learning somehow. I’d rather hear about an issue that affects learning.  Topics about how we think, work, or learn are of interest. Let’s hear about the risks of technology, or some new ones or ways to use them.  Yes, I like compelling speakers, but please give me new thoughts, not random aspiration.

Speakers:  I think it’s unconscionable to have an unprepared speaker who can’t manage time.  It’s even worse on panels or shared sessions where one speaker runs over. It’s just not fair to the other speakers.  It’s also essential that the talk is not a sales pitch, but instead presents real value in ideas or experience. And they should be happy to chat afterward.  It boggles my little mind when someone gets up and clearly hasn’t practiced and checked their timing. It’s appears  I’m somewhat unusual, but I really don’t necessarily feel the critical need to spend most of the time conversing with others. I don’t mind, and even can recommend some interaction, but I want to hear something substantive as well.

Schedule: I like events that have a clear and comprehensible schedule. I want to know exactly what things are at the same time, so I can choose and then vote with my feet if the first choice isn’t working for me.  Having different tracks have different schedules doesn’t work.  And as a speaker and an attendee,  I don’t like short sessions.  Give me at least an hour as a speaker to set the tone, present the topic, talk about the issues and tradeoffs, and talk about the way forward.  Similarly as an audience member, I want suitable depth.  30 minutes just isn’t enough.

Breaks: And then I want a break.  The break should be long enough to potentially chat  with the speaker at the preceding event, get out and find some sustenance, use the facilities, have a conversation or two, and get to the next event.  Workshop breaks can be shorter, as you’re with a group for a half or full day, but for separating concurrent sessions, they need to be sufficiently long.

Events: I love having social events, as a way to have those important serendipitous  conversations. An evening reception after the first day is mandatory.  I like sufficient nibbles to fend off the need to escape to dinner, or dinner actually provided. And for the end of the day, I like social lubricant.  Preferably on demand, not via a limited ration.  It doesn’t have to be a broad selection, but not having to worry about  logistics means my mind is free to focus on conversations.  I assume lunch is provided, of course, and it doesn’t have to be fancy or rich, just healthy, substantive, and reasonably tasty.  Other events, such as mid afternoon treat breaks, and mid morning snack breaks are great.  I really like it if some form of breakfast is available as well.  I think I’m not the only one who prefers to eat little bits over time, not big meals.

Expo Hall: I like to have an exhibition. I like to see what’s around. Yes, I don’t like walking past and being grabbed, but I do like it if I can go up, have an intelligent conversation about the problem solution, and not feel pressured. I like to see the alternatives, and take the temperature of the market. And I like people who might have real needs to be able to explore real solutions.  Having events  in  the expo area  makes sense to me and the vendors.

App: I used to get a PDF of the program and put it on my tablet.  Now I am happy using an app, and it’s become a must-have. I like it when I can choose sessions for my schedule and have reminders.  I like having a stream of information, though it could be via Twitter. I like having an expo map if the expo is of any size at all.  And I don’t really care for  gamification to reward participation.  While I like the engagement of users, it leads to too many frivolous posts.  I really like it if presentation material is  available through the app, and happy to do evaluations that way.

Bookstore: I think a bookstore is important, for several reasons.  For one, you can get a heads up on a speaker before you see them. Or if you miss a session, you can graze what you might have missed.  You might also want to get the works of someone who you really were intrigued by. It’s also a way to see what’s happening in the field.

Rest areas: I don’t really need speaker prep.  Sometimes it may be handy if the event is really big, but the main things is, instead, having good connection to event staff. And I think that’s true for all, not just speakers.  Having places to sit for all attendees means that  anyone needing a break whether social or physical can achieve that end.

People:  The staff makes quite a big difference when they’re knowledgeable and helpful.  This has almost always been the case, but it’s nice to have informed people ready and willing to help.  This is true for vendors as well, having friendly and knowledgeable people trumps having shills who can chat you up but can’t really answer questions.

So, what have I forgotten to address?

I realize that there are different audiences,  purposes, and business models for these events, and so not all things are comparable.  And this is also my opinion, and your motives may differ, but I hope I’ve laid out some of the thinking to help you think about what works for you.  And I hope to see you at a conference sometime!

Scenarios and Conceptual Clarity

by 5 Comments

I recently came across an article ostensibly about branching scenarios, but somehow the discussion largely missed the point.  Ok, so I can be a stickler for conceptual clarity, but I think it’s important to distinguish between different types of scenarios and their relative strengths and weaknesses.

So in my book  Engaging Learning, I was looking to talk about how to make engaging learning experiences.  I was pushing games (and still do) and how to design them, but I also wanted to acknowledge the various approximations thereto.  So in it, I characterized the differences between what I called mini-scenarios, linear scenarios, and contingent scenarios (this latter is what’s traditionally called branching scenarios).  These are all approximations to full games, with various tradeoffs.

At core, let me be clear, is the need to put learners in situations where they need to make decisions. The goal is to have those decisions closely mimic the decisions they need to make  after the learning experience. There’s a context (aka the story setting), and then a specific situation triggers the need to make a decision.  And we can deliver this in a number of ways. The ideal is a simulation-driven (aka model-driven or engine-driven) experience.  There’s  a model of the world underneath that calculates the outcomes of your action and determines whether you’ve yet achieved success (or failure), or generates  a new opportunity to act.  We can (and should) tune this into a serious game.  This gives us deep experience, but the model-building is challenging and there are short cuts.

MiniScenarioIn  mini-scenarios, you put the learner in a setting with a situation that precipitates a decision.  Just one, and then there’s feedback.   You could use video, a graphic novel format, or just prose, but the game problem is a setting and a situation, leading to choices. Similarly, you could have them respond by selecting option A B or C, or pointing to the right answer, or whatever.  It stops there. Which is the weakness, because in the real world the consequences are typically more complex than this, and it’s nice off the learning experience reflects that reality.  Still, it’s better than knowledge test.  Really, these are  just a better written multiple choice question, but that’s at least a start!

LinearScenarioLinear scenarios are a bit more complex. There are a series of game problems in the same context, but whatever the player  chooses, the right decision is ultimately made, leading to the next problem. You use some sort of sleight of hand, such as “a supervisor catches the mistake and rectifies it, informing you…” to make it all ok.  Or, you can terminate out and have to restart if you make the wrong decision  at any point.  These are a step up in terms of showing the more complex consequences, but are a bit unrealistic.  There’s some learning power here, but not as much as is possible.  I have used them as sort of multiple mini-scenarios with content in between, and  the same story is used for the next choice, which at least made a nice flow. Cathy Moore  suggests  these  are valuable for novices, and I think it’s also useful if everyone needs to receive the same ‘test’ in some accreditation environment to be fair and balanced (though in a competency-based world they’d be better off with the full game).

BranchingScenarioThen there’s the full branching scenario (which I called contingent scenarios in the book, because the consequences and even new decisions are contingent on your choices).  That is, you see different opportunities depending on your choice. If you make one decision, the subsequent ones are different.  If you don’t shut down the network right away, for instance, the consequences are different (perhaps a breach) than if you do (you get the VP mad).  This, of course, is much  more like the real world.  The only difference between this and a serious  game is that the contingencies in the world are hard-wired in the branches, not captured in a separate model (rules and variables). This  is easier, but it gets tough to track if you have too many  branches. And the lack of an engine  limits the replay and ability to have randomness.  Of course, you can make several of these.

So the problem I had with the article  that triggered this post is that their generic model looked like a mini-scenario, and nowhere did they show the full concept of a real branching scenario. Further,  their example was really a linear scenario, not a branching scenario.  And I realize this may seem like an ‘angels dancing on the head of a pin’, but I think it’s important to make distinctions when they affect the learning outcome, so you can more clearly make a choice that reflects the goal you are trying to achieve.

To their credit, that they  were pushing for contextualized decision making at all is a major win, so I don’t want to quibble too much.  Moving our learning practice/assessment/activity to more contextualized performance is a good thing.  Still, I  hope this elaboration is useful  to get more nuanced solutions.  Learning design really can’t be treated as a paint-by-numbers exercise, you really should know what you’re doing!

Confounding generations?

by 1 Comment

At the recent Online Educa Berlin, Laura Overton of Towards Maturity  presented some stats in our joint session.  While she mentioned that she really had to look for results where there were differences by age, she  of course found some. (Which already is a problem;  5% of results are likely to be significant by random chance!). However, in at least one case I think the results is explained by another factor than generations (not that she was making the claim).  In those statistics was an interesting result that I want to look at from two different perspectives.

So, this result, one of the most striking, was that 64% of those 21-30 were motivated to learn to obtain certification, while only 22% of those over 50 were so motivated.  That really seems like to might fit the generational differences story, where over 50s, the baby boomers, differ from the millennials.  Here, the millennials are worried that the world is not a safe place, and want accreditation to help preserve their access (my rough story based upon millennial descriptions). And the baby boomers are more positive and trusting, so consequently feel less drive for certification. Or create your own explanation for the divergence based upon the differences between the generations.

Ok, what struck me is that there’s a totally different explanation: those in the 21-30 range are young and new. They want certifications to support their advancements, as they don’t have a lot of experience.  Those who are older have real experience to point to, and have less need for external validation of their learning.  Here what we’re seeing is that this is not related to generations, but by age.  And that’s very different explanation for the same phenomena.

The core point is that if the generational explanation would be true,  this would stay true as these generations aged. The millennials, at age 50, would still care more about certifications.   If it’s more a ‘stage of life’ thing, as they aged they’d care less, but those folks who were growing into that younger range would also demonstrate the differences.

The problem is that there are confounding explanations for the same data.   So what else do we look at?  Interestingly, in my research about what the  data says, I’ve found several studies that show that when you ask folks what they value in the workplace,  there is no significant difference by generation.  That is, generations as defined by societal circumstances at the time of growing up doesn’t have an impact on workplaces.

Now, there have been a few exceptions, including the above (and I’ll reiterate, Laura wasn’t make a generational claim for this), but the question then becomes whether there are other explanations for the differences, such as age, not context.  Could other factors, such as natural age differences, create a perception of generational differences that truly isn’t persistent?

Ok, I’ll buy that WWII was a global event and the impacts were clear and measured.  But other than that, sure there were landmark popular culture elements and zeitgeists, but I think most of the other defining characteristics are nowhere near as clearly delineated in impact (I’ve heard claims of divorce, latchkey kids, etc being generational factors), and I  doubt that they’re sufficiently delineated to create the defining characteristics that are proposed.

My take home?  Be suspicious of someone pushing a particular viewpoint without scrutiny of alternate hypotheses (including mine).  There may be a better explanation than the one someone has a vested interest in pushing.  Is there a real millennial difference?  Certainly the so-called ‘digital native’ myth has been debunked (e.g. no better at search queries or evaluating results of same than any others), so maybe we want to be wary of other claims.  I’m willing to be wrong on this, but my research says that the data seems to point to other explanations than defining generations.  What say you?

Useful cognitive overhead

by 2 Comments

As I’ve reported before, I started mind mapping keynotes not as a function of filling the blog, but for listening better.  That is, without the extra processing requirement of processing the talk into a structure, my mind was (too) free to go wandering. I only posted it because I thought I should do  something with it!  And I’ve realized there’s another way I leverage cognitive overhead.

As background, I diagram.  It’s one of the methods I use to reflect.  A famous cognitive science article talked about how diagrams are representations that map conceptual relationships to spatial ones, to use the power of our visual system to facilitate comprehension. And that’s what I do, take something I’m trying to understand, some new thoughts I have, and get concrete about them.  If I can map them out, I feel like I’ve got my mind around them.

I use them to communicate, too. You’ve seen them here in my blog (or will if you browse around a bit), and in my presentations.  Naturally, they’re a large part of my workshops too, and even reports and papers.  As I believe models composed of concepts are powerful tools for understanding the world, I naturally want to convey them to support people in applying them themselves.

Now, what I realized (as I was diagramming) is that the way I diagram actually leverages cognitive overhead in a productive way. I use a diagramming tool (Omnigraffle if you must know, expensive but works well for me) to create them, and there’s some overhead in getting the diagram components sized, and located, and connected, and colored, and…  And in so doing, I’m allowing time for my thoughts to coalesce.

It doesn’t  work with paper, because it’s hard to edit, and what comes out isn’t usually right at first.  I move things around, break them up, rethink the elements.  I can use a whiteboard, but usually to communicate a diagram already conceived.  Sometimes I can capture new thinking, but it’s easy to edit a whiteboard. Flip charts are consequently more problematic.

So I was unconsciously leveraging the affordances of the tool to help allow my thinking to ferment/percolate/incubate (pick your metaphor).  Another similar approach is to seed a question you want to answer or a thought you want to ponder before some activity like driving, showering, jogging, or the like.  Our unconscious brain works powerfully in the background, given the right fodder.  So hopefully this gives you some mental fodder too.

Templates and tools

by 2 Comments

A colleague who I like and respect recently tweeted: “I can’t be the only L&D person who shudders when I hear the word ‘template'”, and I felt vulnerable because I’ve recently been talking about templates.   To be fair, I have a different meaning than most of what’s called a ‘template’, so I thought perhaps I should explain.

Let’s be clear: what’s typically referred to as a template is usually a simple screen type for a rapid authoring tool.  That is, it allows you to easily fill in the information and generate a particular type of interaction: drag-and-drop, multiple-choice, etc.  And this can be useful when you’ve got well-designed activities but want to easily develop them.  But they’re not a substitute for good design, and can make it easy to do bad design too. Worse are those skins that add gratuitous visual elements (e.g. a ‘racing’ theme) to a series of questions in some deluded view that such window dressing has any impact on anything.

So what  am  I talking about?  I’m talking about templates that help reinforce the depth of learning science around the elements. I’m talking about templates for: introductions that ask for the emotional opener, the drill-down from the larger context, etc; practices that are contextualized, meaningful to learner, differentiated response options and specific feedback, etc; etc.  This could be done in other ways, such as a checklist, but putting it into the place where you’re developing strikes me as a better driver ;).  Particularly if it is embedded in the house ‘style’, so that the look and feel is tightly coupled to learner experience.

Atul Gawande, in his brilliant  The Checklist Manifesto, points out how there are gaps in our mental processing that means we can skip steps and forget to coordinate.  Whether the guidelines are in a template or a process tool like a checklist, it helps to have cognitive facilitation.  So what I’m talking about is  not a template that says how it’s to look, but instead what it should contain. There are ways to combine intrinsic motivation openings with initial practice, for instance.

Templates don’t have to stifle creativity, they can serve to improve quality instead.  As big a fan as I am of creativity, I also recognize that we can end up less than optimal if there isn’t some rigor  in our approach.  (Systematic creativity is  not an oxymoron!)  In fact, systematicity in the creative process can help optimize the outcomes. So however you want to scaffold quality and creativity, whether through templates or other tools, I do implore you to put in place support to ensure the best outcomes for you and  your audience.

Evidence for benefits: Towards Maturity Report

by 1 Comment

An organization that I cited in the Revolution book, Towards Maturity, has recently released their 2015-2016 Industry Benchmark Report, and it’s of interest to individuals and organizations looking for real data on what’s working, and not, in L&D.  Towards Maturity has been collecting benchmarking data on L&D practices for over a decade, and what they find bolsters the case to move L&D forwards.

The report has a number of useful sections, including documenting the current state of the industry, guidance for business leaders on expectations, on listening to learners, and on rethinking  the L&D team.  Included are some top level pointers for executives and L&D.  And while the report is  biased towards Europe, respondents cover the globe including Asia, Americas, and more.

Overall, they’re finding a 19% average in  technology spending out of L&D budgets (and this has been essentially flat for 3 years). This seems light;  given that technology is a key enabler of performance and development, such a figure doesn’t seem appropriate.  Of course, given that 55% of formal learning is still delivered face-to-face, this isn’t surprising.

A more interesting outcome is comparing what they call  Top Deck organizations; those in the top 10% of their Towards Maturity Index. These organizations are characterized by four elements that are tied to success:

  • Learning aligned to need
  • Active learner voice
  • Design beyond the course
  • Proactive in connecting

Here we see key elements of the revolution. For one, learning isn’t done on demand, but is coupled to organizational improvements.  For another, the learner is engaged in the processes of determining what solutions make sense.  One that intrigues me is that the solutions go beyond courses, looking at performance support and more. And finally, L&D is reaching out across silos to engage in conversations.  These are all key to achieving results from 6 – 8 times the average organization.

The advice to business leaders also echoes the revolution. The call is to focus on performance, not on courses.  It’s not about learning, it’s about outcomes.  The recommendation  is to break down silos so as to achieve the conversations that will achieve meaningful impact.

The advice goes on: understand how learners are learning, create a participatory culture, and use  real business metrics.  All grounded in what successful organizations are doing.  The point here is not to recite all the outcomes, but instead to list highlights and encourage you to have a look at the report.  Going forward, you might even consider benchmarking your own organization!

Benchmarking is best practices, and of course I encourage best principles, but the frameworks they use are grounded in the best principles, and measuring yourself against the framework and improving is really more important than comparing yourself to others.  I will suggest that  measuring yourself and evaluating your progress is a valuable investment of time in conjunction with a strategy.

What I really like, of course, is that the data support the position posited by principles that I derived from both practical experience and relevant conceptual models. The evidence is converging that there are positive steps L&D can, and should, take.  The revolution provides the roadmap, and their data provides a way to evaluate progress.  Here’s to improving L&D!

CERTainly room for improvement

by 3 Comments

As mentioned before, I’ve become a member of my local Community Emergency Response Team (CERT), as in the case of disaster, the official first-responders (police, fire, and paramedics) will be overwhelmed.  And it’s a good group, with a lot of excellent  efforts in processes and tools as well as drills.  Still, of course, there’s  room for improvement.  I encountered one such at our last meeting, and I think it’s an interesting case study.

So one of the things you’re supposed to do in conducting search and rescue is to go from building to building assessing damage and looking for people to help.  And one of the useful things to do is to mark the status of the search and the outcomes, so no one wastes effort on an already explored building. While the marking is  covered in training and there’re support tools to help you remember,  ideally it’d be memorable, so that you  can regenerate the information and  don’t have to look it up.

The design for the marking is pretty clear: you first make a diagonal slash when you start investigating a building, and then you make a crossing slash  when you’ve made your assessment. And  specific information is to be recorded in each quarter of the resulting X: left, right, top, and bottom.  (Note that the US standard set by FEMA doesn’t correspond to the international standard from the  International Search & Rescue Advisory Group, interestingly).

However, when we brought it up in a recent meeting (and they’re very good about revisiting things that quickly fade from memory), it was obvious that most people couldn’t recall what goes where. And when I heard what the standard was, I realized it didn’t have a memorable structure.  So, here are the four things to record:

  • the group who goes in
  • when the group completes
  • what hazards may exist
  • and how many people and what condition they’re in*

So how would  you  map these to the quadrants?  And in one sense it doesn’t matter  if there’s a sensible rationale behind them. One sign that there’s not?  You can’t remember what goes where.

Our  local team leader was able to recall that the order is: left – group, top – completion, right – hazards, and bottom – people.  However, this seems to me to be less than  memorable, so let me explain.

To me, wherever you put the in, left or top, the coming out ought to be opposite. And given our natural flow, group going in makes sense to the left, and coming out ought to go on the right.  In – out.  Then, it’s relatively arbitrary where hazards and people go.  I’d make a case that top-of-mind should be the hazards found to warn others, but that the people are the bottom line (see what I did there?).  I could easily make a case for the reverse, but either would be a mnemonic to support remembering.  Instead, as far as I can tell, it’s completely arbitrary. Now, if it’s not arbitrary and there is a rationale,  it’d help to share  that!

The point being, to help people remember things that are in some sense arbitrary, make a story that makes it memorable. Sure, I can look it up, assuming that the lookup book they handed out stays in the pocket in my special backpack.  (And I’m likely to remember now, because of all this additional processing, but that’s  not what happens in the training.)  However,  making it regenerable from some structure gives you a much better chance of having it to hand. Either a model or a story is better than arbitrary, and one’s possible with a rewrite, but as it is, there’s neither.

So there’s a lesson in design to be had, I reckon, and I hope you’ll put it to use.

* (black or dead, red or needing immediate treatment for life-threatening issues, yellow or needing non-urgent treatment, and green or ok)