Informal, Social, Wirearchical Business

by

Our motto is that “six heads are better than one” at the Internet Time Alliance, and I have the pleasure of working with and learning from a great collaborative team, spread across eight time zones.

1. Jon Husband’s working definition of Wirearchy is “a dynamic two-way flow of power and authority, based on knowledge, trust, credibility and a focus on results, enabled by interconnected people and technology”.

I believe the shift in power and authority is showing up in clear ways all around us, for better and for worse.  The shift can be seen in daily events and in the ways peoples’ working lives and behaviours are changing, in the ways they are becoming more or less well-informed, and in consumption patterns for much of what they are buying and using.

This is a good description of where our work is focused: enabling organizations to become more “wirearchical”.

2. Wirearchy requires trust, and Charles Jennings explains how trust relationships are powerful allies in getting things done (focus on results) in organizations.

If we’re working in L&D [learning & development] strong trust relationships with senior leaders and middle managers are vital. Without a high level of trust any L&D manager will find it almost impossible to embed a culture of learning in their organisation.

3. The way we think of work and learning has to change in consideration of the dominance of networks (technical & human) in business. I have called this Work 2.0 and here are some suggestions on how to get there:

  • Think and act at a macro level (what to do) and leave the micro (how to do it) to each worker or team. The little stuff is changing too fast.
  • Engage with Web media and understand how they work. The Web is  too important to be left to IT, communications or outside vendors.
  • Use social media to make work easier or more effective. Use them to solve problems for you.
  • Make yourself and your function  redundant. Teach people how to fish and move on to the next challenge. If you’re maintaining a steady state then you’ve failed to evolve with the organization and the environment.

4. Business has always been social, especially at the higher levels of management and this is now part of everyone’s work. We are all inter-connected. Jane Hart explains how social media can be used for workplace learning. Instead of just training, there are five types of learning that should be supported by the organization:

1. IOL – Intra-Organisational Learning – keeping the organisation up to date and up to speed on strategic and other internal initiatives and activities
2. FSL – Formal Structured Learning – formal education and training like classes, courses, workshops, etc (both synchronous and asynchronous)
3. GDL – Group Directed Learning – groups of individuals working in teams, projects, study groups, etc Even two people working together in a coaching and mentoring capacity
4. PDL – Personal Directed Learning – individuals organising and managing their own personal or professional learning
5. ASL – Accidental & Serendipitous Learning – individuals learning without consciously realising it (aka incidental or random learning)

5. Social and informal learning are not just feel-good notions, but have a real impact on an increasingly intangible business environment, as Jon Husband & Jay Cross wrote:

In the network era, things you can’t see are more valuable than things you can.

Twenty-five years ago, intangibles accounted for less than a third of the value of the S&P 500. Today, intangibles can make up more than 80 percent of that value.

“Intangible assets — a skilled workforce, patents and know-how, software, strong customer relationships, brands, unique organizational designs and processes, and the like — generate most of corporate growth and shareholder value,” wrote NYU Professor Baruch Lev in Harvard Business Review in June 2004.

Corporate decision makers say their goal is to increase shareholder value. In a networked, information-based environment, shareholders value brand, reputation, ideas, relationships and know-how. These assets don’t appear on the balance sheet [yet], but more and more often they provide a corporation’s competitive edge.

Jay Cross: The social learning revolution has only just begun. Corporations that understand the value of knowledge sharing, teamwork, informal learning and joint problem solving are investing heavily in collaboration technology and are reaping the early rewards.

6. Clark Quinn & Jay Cross have described the new role of Chief Meta Learning Officer required for a wirearchical organization that supports informal, social learning in order to get things done.

Corporate culture is becoming more participatory. Authenticity, transparency, sharing, experimentation, peer power and togetherness are what it takes to succeed in a networked environment. As the tendrils of communications networks slither through silos and corporate boundaries, network values become the default organizational values. Cisco, which lives and breathes networks, is an example of baking network values into a corporate culture.

In Summary

My colleagues and I have thought a lot about workplace learning and we have been involved internally and as consultants with a wide range of organizations. Our thinking comes from experience, critical observation and forward-thinking assumptions based on patterns and trends. We are certain that organizational change is a business imperative and that social and informal learning are important paths to remaining innovative, and staying in business.

Getting Social Learning

by

chat_icon_01.png

We were discussing social learning yesterday and I think it boils down to this:

We are all inter-connected because

technology has enabled communication networks on a worldwide scale,

so that systemic changes are sensed almost immediately,

which means that reaction times and feedback loops have to be better, therefore

we need to know who to ask for advice right now,

which requires a level of trust, but

that takes time to nurture.

Therefore we turn to our friends and trusted colleagues,

who are those with whom we’ve shared experiences,

which means that we need to share experiences in order to trust each other [get it?].

—

It’s called social learning.

The University Myth

by

Forty-seven percent of Canadians have a post-secondary degree of some kind and, according to the CCL:

Even by 1950, less than 6% of Canadian 25- to 44-year-olds had university degrees. Today, secondary schooling is universally available, and the proportion of 25- to 44-year-olds with university degrees is near 20%.

Even going back to the 1970’s, when I started university, it was almost a ticket to a good job. Stay in school, get a degree, get a job, etc. However much there may have been a correlation between having a university degree and getting a good job, this is not a causal relationship. It was a social and cultural norm, based on the fact that for most of the twentieth century, having a degree put you in an elite, minority situation. This was coupled by the fact that HR departments had found an easy criterion to reduce the number of applicants; just require that certain positions require a degree. Many workers (e.g. junior managers) also had the comfort of taking time to learn on the job, so day one job ready skills were not a requirement.

Universities had it easy too. They could say that getting a degree helped you get a good job, because salaries were correlated with education. Enrolment increased, universities expanded and the academic system flourished. If it were so easy today.

The problem is that universities do little to prepare for work. The skills learned are seldom workplace oriented. But then, that is not the nature of the university. We as a society bought into the myth that university education equated to good jobs. From 1950 to 2003, the ratio of current university undergrads to the general population increased five-fold in Canada. As long as there were few university graduates, we had obvious correlation to good jobs, even though universities had not changed their basic operating models, established centuries earlier. Perhaps more science and logic would have prepared parents and students for our current situation.

I’m not advocating for the closure of universities, but we need to expand our horizons on other options for work preparation. We have put a lot of money into universities, less into community colleges and even less into apprenticeship programs. For those not believing the university myth, there are limited choices. Learning professionals need to get out of their boxes and help create some better choices. There is some correlation between learning professionals and learning, isn’t there?

eCollab Blog Carnival: Future of Training

by

The first eCollab Blog Carnival has received its submissions on the future of the training department, kicked off by our initial piece:

Will training departments survive to address these issues? The cards are still out. After all, we are in a global economic depression, and training is the perennial first sacrifice.

What would happen if you called for closing your training department in favor of a new function?

Imagine telling senior management that you were shuttering the classrooms in favor of peer-to-peer learning. You’re redeploying training staff as mentors, coaches, and facilitators who work on improving core business processes, strengthening relationships with customers, and cutting costs. You’re going to shift the focus to creativity, innovation, and helping people perform better, faster, cheaper.

You might want to give it a try.

Perhaps the time has come.

A good description of blog carnivals comes from Fadhila Brahimi (in French). Here’s my rough translation of what blog carnivals enable:

  • A time to share ideas and participate in knowledge co-creation.
  • An opportunity to focus on a single issue and see it from multiple, critical perspectives.
  • Development of a network of experts and practitioners around a topic.
  • An opportunity to highlight expertise and interest in a subject.
  • A chance to experiment and put forth new ideas and concepts.

Carnival Contributions

Thierry deBaillon on Knowledge, from Productivity Source to Critical Component: English – French

Thierry says that growing importance of informal knowledge in professional development means that companies are forced to get involved with more collaborative activities that go beyond organizational boundaries.  The whole notion of what constitutes individual productivity is being questioned. How then can training organizations take into account and help promote implicit knowledge-sharing?

Tom Haskins on Collaborative Training Departments: English

Tom looks at four major innovations that collaborative training departments will likely adapt and adopt. One is what is becoming known as “subject matter networks” as opposed to subject matter networks. It is the growing need to look outside of the organization for expertise and innovation and this includes customers [a related post on eCollab by Mark Tamis discusses social learning & customer engagement]. Next is transparency, especially in evaluating the effectiveness of learning initiatives, such as doing post mortems in public view (scary for “conflicted” training departments). Third is co-creation, or involving more people in the design process, such as the learners themselves. Finally, Tom suggests collaboratively creating a new brand for the training department.

Clark Quinn on The Future of the Training Department: English

Clark takes a network-centric approach and suggest that organizations need to empower individuals to address the chaos they are facing. However, empowered individuals are not effective unless they can also collaborate and get enough guidance to not work at cross purposes. The future training department must take on a more strategic and facilitative role, connecting people through the best use of collaborative technologies.

NetworkProgression_Quinnovation
Network Progression by Clark Quinn

Vincent Berthelot on L’avenir de la formation dans l’entreprise collaborative: French.

[translation] Training is currently hobbled by financial-administrative constraints that prevent it from adapting, other than through cumbersome official channels, and is ill-adapted for new forms of learning.

Virginia Yonkers on the future of the training department: English

Virginia looks at the changing demands of learners and how they are demanding instant feedback and more choices in learning. Choices include more situated (non-standard & individualized) learning and just in time interventions. Virginia also notes that learners want to be tested so that they have proof of their skills and abilities.

—

Not directly related to the Blog Carnival, but a good example of the future already being here, is a recent contribution to eCollab by Michael Glazer on Examples of Facilitating Collaborative Work & Learning. One example is of mid-level managers collaboratively developing individualized learning programs and then being mentored by senior managers who they get to choose:

At the pilot’s conclusion, we asked supervisors and participants if they would recommend the program to other colleagues. 91% of supervisors and 100% of participants said they would recommend the program. And at the following promotion cycle, several managers cited participation in the program as a contributing factor in earning promotions.

Charles Jennings also weighed in on the subject previously with What does a 21st Century L&D department look like? Charles identified some new competencies for learning & development professionals:

1. consulting / coaching acumen (as well as learning acumen) that is focused on performance problems and outcomes. The ability to engage with senior (and not-so-senior) line managers to identify the root cause of performance problems, and not simply focus on learning.

2. the ability to ‘speak business’. An understanding of business goals is the ‘so what’ in learning. Everyone in L&D should be able to read and draw conclusions from a balance sheet and P&L account and understand the business drivers that line managers are focused on.

3. a good grasp of technology – across-the-board – but especially emerging technologies, and how they can fit into learning solutions

4. adult learning – an understanding of how adults learn in the workplace, and ‘what works’ in organisational learning.

Friday’s Finds #30

by

What I learned this past week on Twitter:

Dale Arseneault: 8 things you need to know about collaboration. [I like #3 – Collaboration is a human process – throwing technology at people won’t magically/automatically create collaboration]

“I rated a YouTube video (5 out of 5 stars) — OPEN (episode 3).” via @euan [I followed the links and am now subscribed to This Week in Tech]

Social Learning: situation beats instruction. via @charlesjennings

Modeling the behavior of others plays an important role in the worldview of social learning theorists. People change their behavior to fit into a social group, to succeed in attaining membership. They imitate people they admire, to obtain the rewards such a person accumulates. Bill Clinton, for example admired JFK, who inspired him at their meeting when Mr. Clinton was 17.

The Future of Peer 2 Peer University

Accessing OER [open educational resources] does not automatically result in learning. There are reasons why traditional education institutions exist, one of these being the social interaction between peers that enables, facilitates, and motivates learning. But what about those that want to learn outside of brick and ivy walls? P2PU is an initiative outside of the traditional institution that aims to provide the social learning structures, the “social wrapper”, around existing open educational resources.

Shrunken communication in distributed teams – why loosely-connected social network access is important: small talk. via @mathemagenic

Jing now integrates with Twitter as this screenshot shows. via @1ernesto1

Derek Blunt: 21st Century skills do not exist; here are 9 skills that do. via @fredsheahan

Confirmed! Podcamp Halifax will be at the Alderney Gate Public Library on January 24, 2010: Commence wiki! via @RyanDeschamps

Our Virtuous Internet

by

Uploading is the democratic part of broadband. It is the tool of the individual against big brother. User-generated content (UCG) is vital to this revolution – Harriet Wakelam.

Do you know how many videos YouTube has created? I would say that it is rather close to zero – we, the people formerly known as the audience,  have created almost all of the value on YouTube. This is user-generated content. It’s the same for Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Slideshare, Flickr and hundreds of other social networks. We built the Web’s value.

The Internet is an empty shell; or just a protocol connecting a world of ends [originally on worldofends.com by Weinberger & Searls but the domain has been re-purchased]:

  1. The Internet isn’t complicated
  2. The Internet isn’t a thing. It’s an agreement.
  3. The Internet is stupid.
  4. Adding value to the Internet lowers its value.
  5. All the Internet’s value grows on its edges.
  6. Money moves to the suburbs.
  7. The end of the world? Nah, the world of ends.
  8. The Internet’s three virtues:
    • No one owns it
    • Everyone can use it
    • Anyone can improve it

Recently, I wrote the stub of the Curmudgeons Manifesto with some thoughts on how we need to collectively change our behaviours in order to foster a more open Web. In response to some comments, I responded:

My main interest in continuing this conversation is to ensure that others understand the cost of creating content on proprietary platforms and then losing control after it’s too late. Maybe I should I re-name it the “Pro-actively Pragmatic Primer”?

Here is what I hope is only the start of a more positive manifesto. Based on the above three virtues of the Internet, I suggest the Virtuous Internet Manifesto.

  1. We understand that the Internet’s three virtues are, and must continue to be, that 1) No one owns it; 2) Everyone can use it and 3) Anyone can improve it.
  2. We know that the true value of the Internet is on the edges and that each one of us is a Net contributor.
  3. We will use and promote open data on the Internet that each of us can control as we see fit.
  4. We will share openly on the Internet and not constrain those with whom we share.
  5. We will lead by example and share what we have learned to keep the Internet open for all.
  6. We will help to lead others out of the temptation of using web services that do not respect privacy, re-use, open formats or exportable data.

Searls & Weinberger conclude World of Ends with, “We have nothing to lose but our stupidity.”

Workforce collaboration

by

I find that many reports from large consulting firms are like pablum; no grist and easy to swallow by the masses. However, this McKinsey Report on Using technology to improve workforce collaboration actually held my attention.

The authors describe how companies can see large savings by using web technologies for collaboration (not a new concept). For instance, Cisco saved $100 million by mandating the use of web technologies which reduced travel and the need for face-to-face meetings. P&G increased its use of collaborative web technologies and in addition mandated that 50% of new product development come from outside the company. This resulted in shorter product cycle times and increased innovation. Good examples from very large firms.  You now have two more data points to throw into an ROI discussion.

The report includes an interactive graphic that shows profiles of typical knowledge worker roles and then suggests collaborative tools for typical tasks.  Some of the key tools include shared workspaces, wikis, and document sharing [I’m not sure why the fax was included as a collaborative technology though]. There are 12 role types described but I think we will see more hybrid roles such as community manager, which would be an amalgamation of aspects from several roles: instructor, manager, counselor. The graphic is a good model to start discussions but I would not recommend being limited to the 12 roles without further research and observation of your own workplace.

The report also discusses waste in collaboration, and while it is important to understand the potential costs, I wouldn’t want to eliminate all “waste” or you wouldn’t have any opportunities for what Jane Hart calls accidental serendipitous learning.

Overall, there is much food for thought but the recommendations are a bit too structured and could be taken to a level that actually decreases collaboration. You can get a lot of benefits by just using networked collaboration technologies, without implementing structured business process re-engineering and sucking the life out of work communities.

Communities and Work

by

A recurring, and popular, theme here over the past year has been communities:

The Community Manager and this follow-up, the Role of an online community manager

Communities of Practice

Connecting Ideas with Communities

Networked Community Management

Some observations on communities:

The role of online community manager is fast becoming a hot job opportunity for people who not only understand the technologies but how to exert influence in a network. It’s like pushing a rope. Leadership by example (or modelling instead of shaping) is a good starting point. Think of multiple communities divided by low stone walls that serve to delineate areas but also are places to meet and converse “over the fence”. The bottom line is that the community manager doesn’t manage much, but is more of a coach and facilitator.

An important issue is what we call, and how we define, communities in our work practice. I see online communities more as networks than groups. In a network, joint activities are co-operative and non-directive. No one is in charge. Communities and networks exemplify complexity, with fuzzy boundaries, shifting cultures and mostly autonomous members. On the other hand, online work groups have lower levels of complexity in order to get things done in a timely manner. Members have less autonomy and there are clearer roles for managers. The work in these groups may be complicated but there are rules, boundaries and processes.

Networked communities are better structures in dealing with complexity, when emerging practices need to be continuously developed and loose ties can help facilitate fast feedback loops without hierarchical intervention. Collaborative groups are better at making decisions and getting things done. The constraints of the group help to achieve defined goals.

Net Work LearningEffective knowledge workers participate in communities and networks and work co-operatively, sharing openly and learning from each other. Communities of practice are more clearly defined communities, focused on a particular field of work. Groups may form within or across communities in order to get work done, often this is project work with deliverables and remuneration. Online communities are where knowledge workers can learn and share and from which they can gel as groups from time to time in order to get work done. This is the nature of net work in an interconnected world.

Rebirth of the Sackville Commons

by

I worked on the notion of a work/environmental commons for our community for about two years, but after raising about $200,000 to construct a new building, matching funds from the provincial and federal governments (originally promised) never materialized. I ran out of steam and parked the idea.

This was my rationale for a work commons two years ago and it hasn’t changed:

For a community to thrive in the Internet Age, it must be attractive to knowledge workers. These workers need to be connected to other knowledge workers so that they can remain creative. They need to have constant access to fresh ideas. One way to attract knowledge workers is to offer the right physical space and connections.

Secondly, many knowledge workers are not traditional salaried employees, they don’t need conventional office space. Many are starting to create their own alternative work and community spaces in cities such as London, Toronto, Vancouver and more locally – Charlottetown and Halifax. Several variants of Commons are being established all over the world.

The Commons will be our place that will help to build trusted relationships. It is a Third Space, being neither a dedicated office nor your home. Individuals will be paying members, but the cost of membership will be much less than renting a dedicated office.

Recently, a local landmark came under new ownership and we are currently discussing the possibilities of creating a work commons in the front of this 15,000 sq ft professional building. Both the 2nd and 3rd floors have about 2,000 sq ft each and depending on interest we may use both.

Commons2B

To find out if there is interest, we we will be holding an open house on Friday, December 18th from 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM-ish. This is what we are proposing but we’re open to any and all possibilities:

  • We will create a non-profit organization to manage the Sackville Commons.
  • Membership will be a monthly fee, probably $50 per month with a one year contract.
  • Services offered will depend on interest and willingness to pay [here is a list of membership benefits from the QSC].
  • We are also looking into the possibility of offering shared art studio space if there is sufficient interest.
  • Membership will be for individuals only – one person, one membership.

Feel free to comment here or on Twitter to @hjarche or @harborne

Please join us at 131 Main Street, Sackville, NB (front door, across from the Mount Allison swan pond). [Parking in rear]

Friday’s Finds #29

by

Weekly review of items of interest found on Twitter:

“As of today I will try to no longer use the word “copyright” but instead call it what it is, ‘Use Monopoly‘” @sleslie

Thinking clearly sometimes requires unbraiding our language. The word “copyright” may eventually seem as dubious in its embedded purposes as “family values,” “globalization,” and, sure, “intellectual property.” Copyright is a “right” in no absolute sense; it is a government-granted monopoly on the use of creative results. So let’s try calling it that—not a right but a monopoly on use, a “usemonopoly”—and then consider how the rapacious expansion of monopoly rights has always been counter to the public interest, no matter if it is Andrew Carnegie controlling the price of steel or Walt Disney managing the fate of his mouse. Whether the monopolizing beneficiary is a living artist or some artist’s heirs or some corporation’s shareholders, the loser is the community, including living artists who might make splendid use of a healthy public domain.

George Wald on The Origin of Death: a thought-provoking read, recommended by my 15 year old son.

From Social Networking to Swarm Intelligence – self-organizing systems and teams for unpredictable ecosystems. via @charlesjennings

The rise and fall of the professionalism of work: The inevitable rise of networked communications in organisations is deeply challenging to many of those currently in managerial positions. @euan

Then along comes the web. The web is about making better decisions faster. It is the evolution of knowledge on steroids. It cuts out the middle men and allows communication and learning to flow through and around the blocks in its way.

“Is it possible for bureaucracies to become more nimble? Or is it just contrary to their nature? When creating a #KM [knowledge management] bureaucracy, make routine only those things necessary for safety; keep everything else nimble & more free-form.” @VMaryAbraham

Jane Hart’s Guide to Social Learning (2 pages). via @c4lpt

Taxonomy of trainers: It seems trainers either ‘just know’ they make a difference or can’t find a way to prove it. via @charlesjennings