I'm glad you found the graphic helpful, Harold. I can relate to what you are trying to do, illustrating the classic distribution of learning across formal, informal, and on-the-job sources. What isn’t clear in the pretty graphic is how much overlap and muddy distinctions there are in the list of components. For example, when you work with colleagues on a project, is that learning by doing or learning through/with people? When you “lurk” in a MOOC with no real commitment to completing its requirements, is that formal or informal learning? While I drew nice solid lines on the chart, they really are quite hard to see.

Since you brought up the idea that we should consider allocating resources by the 70:20:10 guideline, I’ll take the opportunity to ask a question. Here’s what I have trouble sorting out. I’m not sure that the costs in terms of time or money are equal across the different components, regardless of how effective or important they are. It costs more money, I think, to develop formal training than it does to create the environment for strong developmental relationships (at least in terms of the way we typically count resource expenditures). So I hesitate to advise folks to allocate budget and effort hours in a 70:20:10 split.

It’s critical that learning leaders understand that we need to expend the effort and dollars on the things that are most helpful to learners, of course, but that may not equate to large amounts of budget and effort hours to get it done and there may indeed be more budget and time for some of the other components that may be a critical 10% of a person’s learning. (The sad thing is that it’s not so expensive to support the 70%, and yet we don’t do enough of that!) Are you suggesting that L&D budgets should be allocated by 70:20:10? And if so, how do you talk about the unequal draw on resources that the different kinds of learning components demand?