A dysfunctional workplace

Jay is presenting findings from his Learning Practices Survey in Australia this week and has made the data available at the Internet Time Community. The survey had 237 respondents from various sized organisations and from several continents. My impressions are that about one-third to one-half of respondents feel that things are not good in today’s workplace, stating:

  • a lack of cooperation;
  • no time for reflection;
  • no ability to create DIY tools for work;
  • no communities of practice for support;
  • lack of professional development;
  • poor training; and
  • working in organizations that are slow to change.

This is not a question of access to technology or Web 2.0. These are basic work productivity issues. Cooperating, reflecting, and supporting each other are necessary for groups of people to collectively achieve common objectives; especially knowledge workers.  Even initiatives like Work Literacy may not be able to address these structural issues.

If these observations translate to the workforce as a whole then we have many dysfunctional workplaces. A significant portion of workers are not able to work effectively in their organisations.

Wanted: New organisational models

More of us are working in a networked economy, driven by the enormous, ubiquitous Internet. Working in a network appears to be most effective for chaotic and complex environments, where the Cynefin model prescribes:

  • Complex, in which the relationship between cause and effect can only be perceived in retrospect, but not in advance, the approach is to Probe – Sense – Respond and we can sense emergent practice.
  • Chaotic, in which there is no relationship between cause and effect at systems level, the approach is to Act – Sense – Respond and we can discover novel practice.

Being outside the corporate/bureaucratic hierarchy I see how easy it is for networks to form and act-sense-respond on perceived opportunities and challenges, especially when there is trust between the nodes. But organisations, no matter how modern, are not networks. They are constrained by rules, governance, proprietary secrets and other control systems. Can “slow nodes” work effectively in a fast moving edge economy?

Searls and Weinberger called the Web a World of Ends, with no centre at all:

When Craig Burton describes the Net’s stupid architecture as a hollow sphere comprised entirely of ends3, he’s painting a picture that gets at what’s most remarkable about the Internet’s architecture: Take the value out of the center and you enable an insane flowering of value among the connected end points. Because, of course, when every end is connected, each to each and each to all, the ends aren’t endpoints at all.

So the question is, what happens to an organisation that tries to emulate the most efficient network we have and becomes completely hollowed out?

Is it still an organisation?

Do the rules remain the same?

Do those on the edge need the middle any more?

The challenge that I see is to create the new organisational model for an edge economy. We have wirearchy as one governing principle and efforts like work literacy for individuals, but no new organisational models for groups that create value.

McLuhan’s laws of media could provide some insight. Possible effects of a world of ends on the industrial organisational model:

  1. Extends the influence of each worker.
  2. Obsolesces control systems.
  3. Retrieves personal relationships.
  4. Could flip into personality cults.

Over the past century we have played with other models (cooperatives, partnerships, sole proprietorships) but the incorporated company is still dominant. Henry Ford took advantage of F.W. Taylor’s new management theories and created a new world of work. Will we be seeing something similar in the next decade?

This is one of the greatest opportunities around but innovations on the old model still get all the press. Other than some tweaking of the existing corporate model, is anyone seeing anything really new happening? It will likely be outside of the “developed” world.

Analysing traffic

I installed Google Analytics last week because MapStats had crashed, though it’s back up now. I liked MapStats because it gave me data about individual visitors, such as where they came from and what search term they used. I could look at individuals and what brought them here. Google Analytics looks more at trends and overall activity and the available tools make it obvious that it’s about monetizing your site or tracking ad campaigns, which are of no interest to me.

I think it’s good to have an idea about where visitors come from, what brings them here and what’s of interest. Yesterday my WordPress dashboard showed that most new links to this site were in languages other than English. For me, that indicates that I should at least update the French section on this blog.

Of course, all of these are data points that can be interpreted in many ways so I don’t get too hung up with my stats. What’s more important is that I understand how these systems work so that I can help others.

Language learning leads the way

A few months ago, I wrote that the dominant education business model may suffer the same fate as the manufacturing industry –  commoditization.

At a certain point in time (2008?) the cost-benefits of a university education will be put in question. How expensive does it have to be before the majority opt out or look for “good enough” options? Once a certification body gets recognized by enough employers, it could become the de facto as well as the de jure standard.

The leading edge of this change can be seen in language learning. Ken Carroll calls his FrenchPod service a PLS, or Praxis Learning System:

From the get-go (2005) our strategy was to apply web 2.0 tools to do new things for language learning (with the two-way medium, RSS syndication, etc). It was designed for the individual (rather than the institution) with a focus on accessibility. The value creation came through fitting the learning into the learner’s lifestyle (rather than the other way around) and allowing him to hit the ground running with a functioning system.

Another language learning service is offered by EduFire, an agora of tutors and learners using video to connect. Tutors set their own rates, which range from $10 to $150 an hour.

Our goal is to create a platform to allow live learning to take place over the Internet anytime from anywhere.

Most importantly…for anyone. We’re the first people (we know) to create something that’s totally open and community-driven (rather than closed and transaction-driven).

These web-based business and learning models may be the next wave of education and just might challenge the traditional state-subsidized educational systems, beginning with higher education. Why? Because they can grow without increasing costly infrastructure; they are more flexible for learners and teachers; and most importantly, the current system has already commoditized its products. Just ask anyone with a newly-minted Bachelor’s degree looking for a job.

Five Years

I started this venture called Jarche Consulting five years ago today. I still feel the way I did two years ago:

Blogging has helped me connect to others who are passionate about learning, technology and new ways of work. I feel like I’m living the life of the knowledge worker that was described several years ago by Peter Drucker. My business model is still in beta (and I guess it always will be) but I’m feeling cautiously optimistic that I can continue to make a living doing this.

Last year I hoped to celebrate my fifth anniversary, and that wish has now come true. Perhaps I should have wished to win the lottery ;-)

My friend and colleague Jay Cross is celebrating his 10th year as a free-agent this year and I’d like to do the same in five years.

Today I would like to thank the hundreds of people who have taken the time to make the thousands of comments on this blog. Without this direct feedback, as well as other bloggers who have referred to my writing, I’m not sure I would have lasted this long. I do feel like I am part of many communities. One of my greatest pleasures is meeting people whom I’ve known through blogging. The conversations are always rich and interesting.

Photo of “The Figure 5 in Gold, 1928” by Maulleigh

Attribution-only

I’ve long been an advocate of open source (the business model and the software), as well as openly accessible educational content and the right to freely share ideas. On the eve of the fifth anniversary of Jarche Consulting, I feel that it’s time once again to put my money (or lack thereof) where my mouth is.

All content on this site is now licensed as Creative Commons Attribution.

I have lifted the “non-commercial” restriction. Do what you want with my work; you do not need any further permission, just give me credit.

I’ve listened to arguments that an attribution-only license is easy for academics or those who have regular jobs, but not for those who make their living with their words and ideas. I want to show that it is also possible for the self-employed to use this kind of open license for their professional work.

This is not purely altruistic. In the long run I hope that this makes it easier for people to use my work and in return someone may notice what I do and decide to engage my services.

Who’s your city, Canada?

In Who’s Your City, Richard Florida focused on the US. Now we Canadians have an opportunity to tell our story. From The Creative Class Exchange:

Now, I’d like to ask for your stories about Canadian cities Tell me about the place you live. Why did you pick your city or region? How did you go about picking it – what was your strategy? What other kinds of places did you look at? How has that choice affected the rest of your life? Your job or career? Friends, family, or romantic interests? Fulfillment and fun? Real estate jackpots or money pits? Would you do it differently next time? What cities and regions are on your radar for the future and why? That’s it. 100 or 200 words, on any or all of those subjects. 300-500 words could be even better.

Ten years ago we chose Sackville, NB (pop. 5,000) as our home. I was taking early retirement from the military and I had the choice of moving anywhere in the country. I wanted to work in the field of educational technology and a position was available at Mount Allison University, so I started at the Centre for Learning Technologies. The job went away several years ago but we have stayed here.

The university, a hospital, proximity to an airport; coupled with small town living and reasonable real estate prices attracted us here. We have stayed because of the lifestyle, friends and the now the ability to work at a distance because of the Internet. Without the Net, we would not have stayed, as there are not a lot of good work opportunities in the area.

Photo of Sackville’s “famous” Mel’s Tearoom by Chris Campbell

It’s obvious that the Internet is an integral part of my work, so how has living far from any major urban centre affected my life? First of all, I have been involved in many aspects of our small town and could volunteer myself to death if I wanted to. I’ve had opportunities to be on a hospital board, work with a wildlife institute, get a renewable energy investment co-op started and lately help launch a community supported agriculture initiative. It’s the advantage of being in a small pond.

I also have been pushed to look far beyond our local area for work and professional development. Had I lived in a large metropolitan region I might have been able to find enough work locally and just been satisfied with that. Living out here in Atlantic Canada I’ve had to look far and wide for opportunities, hence my blog and my involvement with international groups and issues.

I would like to stay here, as it’s been a wonderful town to raise our two boys. Once they decide to leave home we may move but I don’t foresee a move to a mega-city. We live on a major rail line and even if gas prices go through the roof, rail travel to Montreal or Halifax would still be a good option. If we ever got our Commons going (maybe, who knows) then it would be one more reason to stay.

the community is the curriculum

The title of this post comes from a line in Dave Cormier’s article on Rhizomatic Education published in Innovate: Journal of Online Education [free but registration required, and I’m not sure why they insist on this additional hurdle for access].

Why rhizomatic?

A rhizomatic plant has no center and no defined boundary; rather, it is made up of a number of semi-independent nodes, each of which is capable of growing and spreading on its own, bounded only by the limits of its habitat (Cormier 2008). In the rhizomatic view, knowledge can only be negotiated, and the contextual, collaborative learning experience shared by constructivist and connectivist pedagogies is a social as well as a personal knowledge-creation process with mutable goals and constantly negotiated premises. The rhizome metaphor, which represents a critical leap in coping with the loss of a canon against which to compare, judge, and value knowledge, may be particularly apt as a model for disciplines on the bleeding edge where the canon is fluid and knowledge is a moving target.

Is your field of expertise or your area of work on the bleeding edge? You may want to read Dave’s article.

Update: Dave has published the entire article on his blog. Thank you :-)

PKM – Personally Managing Your Knowledge

Note: More recent version here.

This post marks my first direct link to the newly created Work Literacy site.

Learning is an individual activity that often happens with and is supported by others. We may learn on our own but usually not by ourselves. Unless we live on a desert island, we learn socially. In looking at how we can make sense of the growing and changing knowledge in our respective professional fields (e.g. Pluto is no longer a planet), I see two parallel processes that support each other. One is internally focused, as in “How do I learn this?” and the other is external, as in “With whom can I learn this?”.

Internally, we go through a process of looking at bits of information and try to make sense of it by adding to our existing knowledge or testing out new patterns in our sense-making efforts. The process I have developed for myself is to:

  • Sort,
  • Categorize,
  • Make Explicit, and
  • Retrieve

I have called this my Personal Knowledge Management (PKM) system, a term that is not original to me, and is based on the work of many others. There are also three externally focused activities that I believe complement our internal learning. These are to Connect, Exchange and Contribute. These internal and external activities are a way of moving from implicit to explicit knowledge by observing, reflecting and then putting tentative thoughts out to our “community”.

In the interest of not having an enormously lengthy blog post, the rest of this article is attached as a 5 page PDF. It elaborates each of the processes and describes some of the tools available. This is an extension of an earlier post, PKM – My Best Tool. Please feel free to share it.

Attached Document:

pkm-inside-outside

Open Source Social Networking Platform

It seems that some folks have seen a business opportunity in developing an open source social network platform. From Insoshi’s website:

Insoshi is a product and a project. The product aims to be the best open-source social networking platform. The project is to make the product!

I posted my perspective on such an endeavour about six months ago on OS Social Networking Application. I thought for a while that Elgg had the makings of such a platform but it never really took off, except in a the educational field. We’ll see how Insoshi does and it’s good to have several OS options. I know that it will be a platform that I will look at for my clients.

I found out about Insoshi via Dan Martell on Twitter, so I’m sure the team at Spheric Technologies will be playing with it soon.