Harold Jarche

Academic disruption

by

Jon Husband referred me to The Impending Demise of the University, an interesting post but similar to many others on the subject.

Enter Don Tapscott, who is looking at the challenges the digital revolution poses to the fundamental aspects of the University.
“Universities are finally losing their monopoly on higher learning”, he writes. “There is fundamental challenge to the foundational modus operandi of the University — the model of pedagogy. Specifically, there is a widening gap between the model of learning offered by many big universities and the natural way that young people who have grown up digital best learn.”

My major take-away from this article is that larger institutions will have a greater challenge in the near future than smaller ones. This would put academia back to where it was for the 500 years prior to the post-war boom – a niche market for the rich and intellectuals.

The loss of monopoly creates new openings for new academic business models, especially disruptive ones.

Friday’s Finds #3

by

From the Twitter files;

Some thoughts, ideas & comments that caught my attention this week:

Canadians are being set up by music/movie lobby groups & our politicians in a rather cozy relationship it seems … Is there a connection between crappy broadband and minimal use of open source in Canada? via Michael Geist

It seems that our economy may transition from Markets, back to Tribes & bypass Networks completely: The End of Business [related to my post on networks & complexity]

via @skap5 Powerful reminder of the shift from an industrial era. GM employed 395,000 building cars in the 1970’s. After latest closings it’s 40,000. GM’s US market share declined from 45 to 19% from 1980 to today. Meanwhile via @techberry The only way to save GM is to kill GM – we must convert auto factories to mass transit: Michael Moore.

Quote from @swoodruff “Writing a social media consulting proposal for a potential biotech client. Contact came via Twitter. Return On Networking!” [who says Twitter is useless?]

via @VMaryAbraham “What produces results? Knowledge. Got it? No, then get it!”  Content Management Connection

via @nineshift The rise of public places in Canada, and @scottstonehouse replies: “Right on. Just started telecommuting and I expect to be spending more time than ever at the public library.”

via @c4lpt The future is people, not technology – Jay Cross

via @derkdegeus The end of Intellectual Property

“Alan Kay shares a powerful idea about ideas” on TED Talks

Grains of sand

by

Though she calls it micro-planning, in my view Beth Kanter describes one way of developing emergent practices for complex environments or situations, which more workplaces are facing each day. When faced with complexity, I propose that we should organize as networks, continuously develop emergent practices, practice open cooperation, and collaborate around common goals. Micro-planning is a process that could enable the development of emergent practices.

Beth describes micro-planning as it could be used for non-profits, especially in campaigns:

“We are trying to illustrate a real-time, lighter assessment process that activists can use to engage their community and make real-time improvements and adjustments.   Because social media can lend itself to low-cost experimentation, this process doesn’t not necessarily require the “grand campaign plan” that takes a year and lots of resources to implement.”

The same activities can be used while working for profit, namely engaging our community (including customers), making real-time improvements and then adjusting our work processes (requires a devolution of power & authority). This is not a one-shot deal and then we move on, but a way of working and doing business. It sounds very much like wirearchy: a dynamic two-way flow of power and authority based on information, knowledge, trust and credibility, enabled by interconnected people and technology.

To support work in Perpetual Beta we should be looking at more micro processes that could in the aggregate make a significant difference due to network effects. A little extra influence distributed among many people in a network can have an impact. Much as the 140 character limitation of Twitter forces people to jettison extraneous words, it also enables a larger network because we can scan more tweets than blog posts. Each tweet is like a grain of sand, but thousands can form patterns and be a source of information, knowledge and connections. We need more ways to add individual grains to the constantly growing and moving sand dune that our work now rests upon. An industrial dump-truck would only disturb the harmony of that dune.

Workers, Management and Work Support

by

Learning professionals are facing similar issues that others (HR, KM, IT & Marketing) do, but in many ways it’s a case of the blind men and the elephant. We are constrained by the blinders of our profession’s models. That’s one reason I like to take my models from a variety of fields, not just training or HPT. I previously wrote that we should integrate our work support departments and Tom Gram shows how this can be done by designing an organizational effectiveness function or creating internal management consultants, though these approaches can create their own bureaucracies as well, as Tom recognizes.

As effective as these approaches may be for now, I don’t think they’re adequate for the future. Everyone is struggling to keep up with change but most are using outdated tools and models. As Lou Sagar commented on Umair Haque’s post, ” … the emergence of new business models are ahead of the organizational framework to embrace and manage the impact.” That pretty well sums up the problem in my mind. We are all blind men unable to understand the new realities of work. Look at a business model as new as e-Bay’s, which many companies have yet to understand, and then add in the fact that it is already outdated and may even be declining.

The real conversation has yet to surface in the mainstream about the organizational change needed to address complexity and networks. There are models surfacing but as yet to be embraced, such as Haque’s work, wirearchy or valence theory. Creating a Chief Performance Officer out of the previous HR/Training/OD/KM functions may seem like progress but not if the realities of networked wealth creation don’t need a Chief “X” Officer any more.

Models such as chaordic organizations (PDF) show that command & control is not always necessary to be effective, especially within networks:

Given the right circumstances, from no more than dreams, determination, and the liberty to try, quite ordinary people consistently do extraordinary things.

Here’s the model that I’ve constructed on how training should adapt to a world where working and learning are synonymous, but even this shows a difference between management and workers, and perhaps that distinction is no longer pertinent.

In complex environments and networks, if workers need to be managed, they should not be hired in the first place, but then neither should managers.

Co-operation for Networks

by

Stephen Downes took me to task for my suggestion that collaboration was the optimum type of group work in networks:

collaboration means ‘working together’. That’s why you see it in market economies. markets are based on quantity and mass.

cooperation means ’sharing’. That’s why you see it in networks. In networks, the nature of the connection is important; it is not simply about quantity and mass …

You and I are in a network – but we do not collaborate (we do not align ourselves to the same goal, subscribe to the same vision statement, etc), we *cooperate*

I began to see that co-operation makes more sense as the term to describe working together in a networked  and non-directed relationship. So is the distinction important? I think so. Jérôme Delacroix provides another confirmatory post on “co-operation” as the suitable term for what we do in networks [in French]. Jérôme explains why his site is called Cooperatique and not Collaboratique – collaboration happens around some kind of plan or structure, while co-operation presumes the freedom of individuals to join and participate. He also says that co-operation, not collaboration, is a driver of creativity. That’s quite an important distinction when looking at work analysis and design.

Here is my revised table, for the record:

Social tools for networks

by

Effective knowledge sharing is what many organizations do not do well, or as Lew Platt past-CEO of Hewlett-Packard said, “if only HP knew what HP knows, we would be three times more productive”. But HP will never know what the employees of HP know, so wouldn’t it be better to let the workers share what they know in the best way possible? That’s the key benefit of personal knowledge management, in my opinion. If each person can better manage knowledge creation and capture, then it becomes easier to share it.

For example:

Social bookmarks let me tag and search a wide array of bookmarks and by making them public they are shared with others, but through no extra effort on my part.

Writing this blog gives me a knowledge-base of my thoughts which become articles and presentations but in being public I find others who can add to my knowledge. I also make available information and perhaps knowledge that is useful to others.

By posting on Twitter I answer questions, share links and opinions and get to know others with similar interests, with the same effort as chatting in the office but with a much broader reach. On the Net, chance favours the prepared mind.

Just providing access to knowledge creation and capture tools is a relatively easy first step in moving the organization to Enterprise 2.0; an essential step in working in complex networks versus complicated markets. During the initial implementation of these tools, there is no need to talk about collaboration. Many Web 2.0 tools can be sold on their value to the individual. Let collaboration emerge from the individual practices of workers, most of whom want to do a better job anyway.

The powerful aspect of most Web 2.0 tools is that they are designed for knowledge-sharing as well. However, collaboration is difficult with the imposed barriers to communication created by Enterprise 1.0 IT policies. The major obstacle to social learning (and working) today is the IT department and it’s time that management takes back control of information sharing. This post was inspired by Dave Pollard’s practical guide to implementing Web 2.0 which gives more information on how to accomplish this.

The transition to networked accountability

by

At the expense of being repetitive, I keep seeing this same pattern that Tom Haskins got me started on and which he summarized in reading situational responses:

Then I read Charles Jennings’ post on accountability for business results and saw a similar four part process, but Charles shows how the transition from one structure to the next is not linear at all when viewed from the perspective of the two axes of Autonomy & Strategic Alignment.

Charles’ C-Curve is a model in practice, based on his experience as CLO of Reuters. I see a parallel between this migration of the learning and development (L&D) department and the social order necessary to do certain types of group work:

  1. L&D Autonomous = taking action as a Tribe of its own
  2. L&D aligned with organization = coordinated with the Institution
  3. L&D with governance structure = able to work in a cooperative collaborative Market
  4. L&D strategically aligned = a collaborative co-operative member of (a) Network(s)

Note: I’ve re-thought my use of the terms co-operation & collaboration here.

I wonder if this curve describes other departments in different organizations. It is evident that there is greater freedom either as a tribe or in a network, while institutions and markets restrict freedom. Could it also hold that previously tribal organizations (1) may thrive best in networks (because they are used to more freedom) if they can successfully make the transition between the other two stages? I have noticed that it is difficult to convince organizations steeped in the institutional model (2) that the networked model may be better. Those who already have to respond to markets (3) understand the value of networks (4) much better, in my experience.

Learning and Working in Complexity Workshop

by

Over several online and on-site presentations this past year, I’ve noticed a need for organizations to develop practical tools and contextual processes to manage information, knowledge and learning. I am offering a one-day workshop that encapsulates several years of “learning & working on the Web”.

Learning & Working in Complexity Workshop

One day (on-site or online)

Part 1: Overview of issues and forces that are fundamentally changing workplace learning

Part 2: Discussion & Examples from various fields

Part 3: Personal Knowledge Management (PKM) overview

Part 4: Setting up your own PKM system

References:

Skills 2.0 for learning professionals

PKM

Future of Training

Friday’s finds #2

by

I am continuing to learn from Twitter. A real potpourri this past week:

The 140 character limitation of Twitter forced me to reduce the essence of this post to:

When faced with complexity: 1) organize as networks 2) continuously develop emergent practices 3) collaborate around common goals.

Pep rallies and tribalism make little sense in a networked world. via XKCD

“Quote du jour from Umair Haque: Record labels are caught in a prisoners dilemma, and the jailer is the RIAA.” via @dsearls

via @johnt – Enterprise 2.0 Knowledge Management – A Revolution of Knowledge in Three parts

via @statsgirl “poverty is the #1 risk factor for mental illness”

via @denniscallahan 3 reasons to try FriendFeed (I like reasons 2 & 3)

Integrating work support systems

by

Here’s a good article in TrainingZone (behind a free registration firewall) on OD in the 21st Century that describes many of the issues discussed in Training for the 21st Century, but from an organisational development perspective. Anne Marie McEwan describes her work with the Johnson Controls Mobility Network which is for senior IT, HR and Facilities Management executives for exploring the practical implications of global workplace trends:

These busy executives do not have time to keep up with developments. Having researchers source, summarise and contextualise content from the internet is already a benefit. Sessions are informal.

And this sure sounds like the development of emergent practices:

In collaboration with the team, the executive engages in action learning and critical reflection of the external environment and internal structures, systems and processes. New knowledge, frameworks and tools the support team members introduce, in a just-in-time way, are of course valuable.

However, Anne Marie notes:

In the author’s experience, functional walls between HR, IT and FM are as strong as they ever were and this will threaten enterprise viability.

It’s obvious that the same workplace issues are being faced by HR, IT, OD, KM and T&D tribes departments and that similar strategies are being co-developed in these fields. Given my multi-faceted consulting work, I would even consider myself a peripheral member of all of these communities and would now include Marketing.

Reflecting on my last post on working together it becomes clear to me that using cross-functional teams is not enough for Net Work. We really need to get away from our self-imposed tribes and adopt network thinking and practices.