Informal rule of thumb

by

I was talking to a financial advisor at a bank the other day and I asked her what kind of professional development she did. The bank has a central online learning portal where employees can take “courses”, particularly compliance training. The financial advisor told me she just went to the end of each course and did the test. She found it rather useless. I talked about some of the communities that we have supported for sharing professional development, like our workshops, and she said it would great to have access to something like this, but it would be blocked by the IT department.

I have heard similar stories from many professionals in different industries and government agencies over the years. Developing all of this compliance training must account for a significant amount of revenue for the e-learning industry (anyone have figures on this?). It cannot be very satisfying though. It’s probably demoralizing to think that most of these courses are actually detested by the end-users. But then humans have excellent coping mechanisms for cognitive dissonance.

One reason I support the 70-20-10 framework is that it can change management’s focus.  It’s a way to see the forest and not just count trees. First, let me say that 70-20-10 is a rule of thumb, not a recipe.

A rule of thumb is a principle with broad application that is not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation. It is an easily learned and easily applied procedure for approximately calculating or recalling some value, or for making some determination. ~ Wikipedia

This rule of thumb is supported by evidence though. Studies show that informal learning accounts for between 70 and 95% of workplace learning  [USBLS: 70%; Raybould: 95%; EDC: 70%; CapitalWorks: 75%; OISE: 70%; eLG: 70%; Allen Tough: 80%]. I have previously referred to Gary Wise and his extrapolation of Josh Bersin’s data from 2009. According to Gary, as much as 95% of workplace learning is informal.

Many organizations only offer sanctioned courses as professional development. This is completely inadequate in a complex work environment. It is like the central planning policies of the Soviet Union. It is arrogant to think that we can know in advance what people need to learn on the job today. For example, roles like online community manager did not exist a few years ago.

In complex environments, the people who know best are those doing the work, which is why we need loose hierarchies and strong networks. The job of learning professionals, in my opinion, is to help build strong learning networks. We need to let workers learn and instead support the work being done.  Frameworks like 70-20-10 can start the conversation by asking what are we doing about the other 90%. It’s a big number; bigger than that 10% for formal instruction. Consider 9:1 a rule of thumb.

In the beginning was the blog

by

Chris Brogan, co-author of Trust Agents, has a number of insights on blogging and engaging online. I have been blogging here for eight years and before that experimented with a few other blogs. I thought I’d compare my experience with Brogan’s recent 21 point primer for blogging.

First of all, I strongly agree with the first 14 points, which basically say that you should focus on a topic/theme, write regularly and develop your own style through practice. At Rule #15, Brogan says that, “My best (most popular) posts were the ones I spent the least time writing“. I have had the opposite experience. My popular posts are the long detailed ones that can double as white papers. For example, one of my most popular posts for 2012 is Three Principles for Net Work (1,500 words). My most visited post last year was Learning, Complexity and the Enterprise (5,300 words). Each of these took a while to write. They were not done in half an hour.

This reinforces Brogan’s Rule #21, “There’s not a single rule on this list that isn’t breakable. Break all the rules you want and enjoy yourself.” As we start the Personal Knowledge Mastery workshop this week, the topic of blogs has already come up. For me, this blog is a central part of my online sense-making. I know that for others, a blog is not the best medium. However, you will never know until you try. Social media are like languages; they take practice to develop mastery.

My experience shows that only a small percentage of the population will take to blogging. When the only online social media were blogs, we all thought they were wonderful; and they are. But other media, like Twitter, have shown greater participation levels. I usually recommend micro-blogging as a start to online sense-making. The benefits are visible quicker and the effort is not as great. No single medium is best for everyone and today people have many choices. As much as I value blogging, I would not try to get everyone doing it. There are a lot of dead blogs floating around the Web. I hope their owners are still engaging online, perhaps with videos, slideshows, or podcasts. On the Internet, the written word is no longer our only option, and that’s a good thing.

Meet Zedfast

by

Living in a small town in Atlantic Canada (pop. 5,000), it’s not often I find people in my community who understand what I do, let alone work in similar fields. Zedfast, founded by Steve Scott, is the exception.

Zedfast is currently focused on developing eLearning content in HTML5 and Flash. They even have a Fortune 500 client, which is not bad, given our town’s distance from any major commercial centre. According to MacGregor Grant, building the app from scratch typically involves using the storyboards, source images, and audio files from the client to produce the course. Zedfast then continuously streamlines the conversion process. So far, most of Zedfast’s content has been developed for the iPad.

Here are MacGregor and Steve hanging out at the local café, which doubles as my downtown office ;)

This company, which has three full-time staff here in Sackville and another ±30 contractors in North America and Europe, is not just focused on e-learning. Several new project ideas are on the agenda, including wireless networks, mobile payments, and even social games. In addition, Steve is helping to create a work-sharing space in our community (a Commons), which is something I’ve tried to do a few times.

Great guys, great company; in a great little town.

The work of many

by

In Twitter and the Law of the Few, I mused how Twitter as a social network can be great for Connectors, Mavens & Salespeople. Later, in adapting to a networked world, I concluded that Mavens can deeply understand a situation, Connectors are needed to get the word out, while Salespeople have to convince those in control to take action. All three are needed to mobilize a network. I then looked at this from the perspective of spreading social capitalism. Generally, Mavens exhibit the greatest intellectual capital; Connectors have the most diverse (creative) networks and Salespeople get things done. I wondered if this metaphor/model could help to get social capitalism “across the chasm”. You could first identify sufficient Mavens, Connectors & Salespeople (it seems that all three are needed) and then build up to the 10% critical mass necessary to effectively spread ideas.

Dave Gray has a written about the anatomy of a network and the work of Ron Burt. Dave states that, “The power of an individual node in any network can be considered along three dimensions: Degree, closeness and betweenness”, and then explains this with one of his great sketches:

Degree: (number of connections) Is this a major attribute of Connectors?

Closeness: (how easily a node can connect with other nodes) Is this a major attribute of Salespeople?

Betweenness: (the degree to which a node forms a critical link to other nodes) Is this a major attribute of Mavens?

Dave concludes that:

Thus, the most powerful person or organization in any network is one that has a high number of potential connections, all of which which are relatively close and thus easily accessible, while at the same time enjoying a position within the network such that it can choose to block or grant access to other nodes.

That “powerful person” is likely three or more people, as Dave notes when he says, “person or organization”. This highlights the importance of cooperation and collaboration for net work, in my opinion. It is not often that one person is simultaneously a Maven, a Connector, and a Salesperson. In a network, the work of many is needed.

Make the room smarter

by

The title of Dave Weinberger’s book, Too Big to Know: Rethinking Knowledge Now That the Facts Aren’t the Facts, Experts Are Everywhere, and the Smartest Person in the Room Is the Room, describes what should happen in a room where knowledge is freely shared. However, in most organizations, invisible power structures influence communications and the flow of knowledge. Some of these power messages are even embedded in the environment, as the SPATIAL learning model shows.

Imagine a meeting room filled with many people, representing all the departments in an organization. The objective is come up with the best decision to address a current crisis. If this is run in typical fashion, those with power and influence will dominate the discussions. Now imagine if you could read everyone’s mind and were appointed the moderator. You could quickly scan and see who had subject expertise or who had the most current information. Often these people do not get a chance to air their views, or have been beaten back due to previous experiences of being ignored. One could conclude that a meeting with completely transparent information would lead to better decisions. That’s the assumption of market capitalists, isn’t it?

The three principles of net work were developed as ways to improve networked organizational effectiveness, and may even improve efficiency over time. Narration, transparency and shared power help to get information into the open so the organization can make better decisions. Narration of work helps to metaphorically read people’s minds, at least in retrospect. The narration of what we are thinking and doing on a daily basis helps us to know ourselves and to better know others. Transparency means sharing as much as possible, and not assuming who has a need to know. At some point in time, someone may have a need to know, and management can never know in advance who this might be. If all information is transparent, anyone will be able find it. This is how much of the Web works. Finally, sharing power distributes decision-making authority throughout the organization. When this is done in a transparent environment, people can act responsibly, knowing their actions are observable by others. As US Justice Louis Brandeis wrote, “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants“. It keeps organizations clean and healthy.

Narration of work, especially with some of the simple-to-use social media platforms available today, is the first step in making better organizational decisions. There have been many terrible decisions made in recent memory by corporations, governments and non-profits (Deepwater Horizon, Morgan Stanley and the Facebook IPO, WMDs in Iraq, the Catholic Church abuse scandals, etc). These organizations typically have strong hierarchies and significantly weaker networks. Decision-making is centralized, the power structure is rigid, and knowledge is hoarded. Practising narration, transparency and power-sharing can help to reverse this to weak hierarchies & strong networks and create more resilient organizations, able to deal with more complex issues.

Sharing lessons

by

Here are some of the observations and insights that were shared via Twitter this past week.

@LucianT – “3M publicly hire for ‘Misfits’ – people that don’t fit into the norm. 35% of their revenue comes from products created within last 5 years”

@LeeJCarey – “Don’t be an instigator, don’t interrupt, don’t be disruptive, don’t talk back, don’t rock the boat; now get out there and lead”

elearnspace: What is the theory that underpins our moocs? by @gsiemens

The Coursera/EDx MOOCs adopt a traditional view of knowledge and learning. Instead of distributed knowledge networks, their MOOCs are [mostly] based on a hub and spoke model: the faculty/knowledge at the centre and the learners are replicators or duplicators of knowledge.

Shelley Wright: A wicked problem – via @SheilaSpeaking

Finally, we need to encourage and support the risk-takers and innovators in our school systems. Too often the status-quo is supported because of the comfort level it affords. As Brian Harrison stated in a recent blog post, “…it is clear to me that we cannot sustain a great system of public education by rewarding those in our schools and systems who do not innovate at the cost of those who do.”  Too often those who are engaging students in meaningful learning close their doors, so they can do what is best for their students. Why? To reduce the backlash from others. I know. I’ve done it, and I’ve listened to the stories of many other educators who have experienced this same phenomenon. If we truly want to do what is best for kids, we need to support teachers who willingly engage the messy landscape of student-centred learning.

Tweets from DAU/GMU Innovations in eLearning where I spent much of the week:

@moehlert – “You can’t research social learning without being a participant yourself”

@Dave_Ferguson – “Thought: do some (many) people not see collaboration with others as “learning” because it doesn’t look like the schoolhouse model?”

Jane Hart: “Between 33% and 66% of employees are meeting their own needs by going AROUND the training department.” via @jsuzcampos

@wadatrip – “It is ok to fail if you learn a lesson and even more so if you share the lesson you learned from the failure.”

Craig Wiggins @oxala75 live-blogging @quinnovator Clark Quinn’s session

a wicked problem

by

All levels of complexity exist in our world but more and more of our work deals with real complex problems (in which the relationship between cause and effect can only be perceived in retrospect), whether they be social, technological, or economic. Complex environments and problems are best addressed when we organize as networks, work to continuously develop emergent practices; and cooperate to advance our aspirations.

There is no normal anymore. What we thought was normal is going away. It is really different this time.

“Technology is not only driving down the price to do things. It is driving down the cost of labor to the point where many people may simply never find a job that pays a living wage.” – A Man With A Ph.D.

Standardized and repeatable work is getting automated and outsourced. But there is an infinite amount of complex and creative work to be done. We are just not organized very well to do it. This is the huge challenge we face. Working smarter is not an incremental thing, it’s how we are going to transform society so that most of us can be productive AND earn a living. The JOB is not the answer. Freelancing is not a blanket solution. We need to get really creative about how we work, because work gives meaning, not just compensation. Social business may be part of the solution but the challenge is much bigger than that. Richard Florida alludes to it with the notion of a widespread creative class.

Do you want a complex problem? Figure out how we are going to keep producing stuff and still give people ways to buy that stuff. Think about what will happen if we don’t address this complex, wicked problem.
wicked-problem

Pulling informal learning

by

Take a look at these 8 demand-side knowledge management principles by Nick Milton.

  1. People don’t pay attention to knowledge until they actually need it.
  2. People value knowledge that they request more highly than knowledge that is unsolicited.
  3. People won’t use knowledge, unless they trust its provenance.
  4. Knowledge has to be reviewed in the user’s own context before it can be received.
  5. One of the biggest barriers to accepting new knowledge is old knowledge.
  6. Knowledge has to be adapted before it can be adopted.
  7. Knowledge will be more effective the more personal it is.
  8. They won’t really know it until they do it.

They highlight the difference between Push and Pull learning. Training is Push. Informal learning is mostly Pull. Look at what Push can mean in the context of demand-side KM:

  1. How often are training courses aligned with the moment of need?
  2. Do participants request and value compliance training?
  3. How credible are trainers with those in the business units they support?
  4. How much time and affordance is there to put training courses into individual context?
  5. How is old knowledge respected and then challenged in a non-confrontational manner?
  6. What kinds of tools are available to adapt new knowledge?
  7. How personal are courses and classes?
  8. What opportunities do people have after a course to practice and get feedback?

There are many do-it-yourself applications available today that let people take control of their learning. Traditional courses can be designed or taken from a wide variety of sources, such as Udemy. Professional communities on platforms like LinkedIn abound. Knowledge workers are shifting their professional development from Push to Pull. They are also more in control of who Pushes to them, through social networks and other sources of online information. Networked sense-making frameworks like PKM can give more control over one’s learning.

For learning & development departments, a Pull workplace changes the traditional expert-led dynamic of content creation. The shift to more Pull and less directed Push learning also challenges the role of the instructional designer. The ID, who spends a long time getting a course “just right” with  learning objectives aligned to Bloom’s taxonomy, engaging graphics, and absolutely correct wording; may be becoming an anachronism. By the time the instructionally-sound course has been developed, the work requirements may have changed (again).

It’s not that informal learning support is better than anything instructional design can deliver, it’s really a question of time. Getting roughly integrated knowledge assets and professional advice from a network is better than waiting six months for a polished course to be developed. It’s also a matter of  increasingly complex work requirements and dealing more with exception-handling, rather than routine procedures. Exceptions cannot be taught through training; but learning about them on the job, and in networks, can and should be supported.

In the network era, the days of an instructional design team working in splendid isolation to produce award-winning courses may be numbered. The pace of change and the level of complexity are outpacing the ability to Push the knowledge artifacts needed for an agile workforce. Connections are more important than content in the networked enterprise. As workers take control of their learning by Pulling it in, the training department had better adapt.

Engage, out loud

by

Why Google Isn’t Making Us Stupid … or Smart, by Chad Wellmon is a very good look at our relationships with knowledge, how we codify it, and how we connect to it.

Only at this macro-level of analysis can we make sense of the fact that Google’s search algorithms do not operate in absolute mechanical purity, free of outside interference. Only if we understand the Web and our search and filter technologies as elements in a digital ecology can we make sense of the emergent properties of the complex interactions of humans and technology: gaming the Google system through search optimization strategies, the decision by Google employees (not algorithms) to ban certain webpages and privilege others (ever notice the relatively recent dominance of Wikipedia pages in Google searches?). The Web is not just a technology but an ecology of human-technology interaction. It is a dynamic culture with its own norms and practices.

A key idea here is that our actions are much more important than any technology. One group that has developed new norms for knowledge-sharing is the software development community. Dave Weinberger talks about public learning, what I call learning out loud (LOL), in this video where he describes how developers are “learning in a way that simultaneously makes the environment smarter”.

Dave’s video is his contribution to the Adidas blog carnival on a new way of working and learning.

John Stepper describes working out loud as the most practical way to start online collaboration.

Confused about what to write? Simply post about what you’re working on every day. Who you’re meeting with. The research you’re doing. Articles you find relevant. Lessons you learned. Mistakes you made.

The form factor of short posts that are easy-to-skim make this kind of narration practical – for both the author and the audience.

This reinforces my three key principles for net work: narration, transparency, shared power. By changing our norms and practices, we can use the Internet in ways that are best for people, workplaces and society. But first, we have to be engaged.

Complexity thinking

by

So in summary systems thinking is about closing the gap to an ideal future state using and focusing on individuals while complexity thinking is about understanding the present, and evolving through collective action to a future state which could not be fully anticipated but which is sustainable and resilient. Now I know its a lot more complex than that, and also that some of the greats before popularisation are probably turning in their graves, or their emeritus chairs when they see what has happened. However systems thinking is pervasive, and its linked with models and ideas such as memes and Dawkin’s attitudes in general, i.e. we have an emphasis on causality at the cost of evolution. ~ Dave Snowden

Thanks to John Tropea