Work is learning. Learning is the work. Without AI.
I’ve noticed that several companies in the Province are advertising for jobs, ranging from translators to e-learning project managers.
Here are some companies currently advertising full-time and contract positions:
Red Hot Learning – Fredericton
I guess the economy is doing well.
From NineShift is this interesting statistic:
Corporate offices in New York City grew to 602 last year from 274 in 1990. But while the head office is moving to New York, the average number of jobs in those head offices declined to 78 from 127. All the other employees are staying in cheaper locations. The NineShift lesson for today folks: business relocation in this century does not mean job relocation. Just like the CEO is moving to his/her favorite city today, more knowledge workers will relocate wherever they please. Disconnecting the job from the business location-wise.
Combine this with the other statistics I recently noted, that show how young people first want to choose where they will live, and then decide what kind of work they want to do and for whom. Location is still very important; just for different reasons.
As I develop the business plan for our Commons, I have this strong feeling that if we can make our community an attractive place to live and work then the economic development will follow. This is not a traditional strategy, particularly in the Maritimes, where our politicians are usually chasing larger companies to locate a plant or branch office here. I’m focused on people, not companies.
A key difference in a knowledge economy is that the workers truly own the means of production. Low cost tools, such as computers and other hardware, make the barriers to entry into the knowledge economy relatively low. Low cost hardware has been the prime reason for our recent economic growth, according to Mark Cuban:
It’s not the net, it’s the applications stupid !
Falling costs to create, host and deliver digital bits enable entrepreneurs to be entrepreneurial. Kids can save enough money these days to buy a computer and create applications their friends can use and maybe even buy year round for less than they can buy a decent lawnmower to mow lawns with only in the summer.
Our Commons will comprise a work commons, like the Queen Street Commons, but will also be open to non-profits in the environmental and cultural sectors. These are two areas that are of great interest, and passion, for many educated younger people. They are also the strengths of our community. I think that this combination of entrepreneurial work commons, combined with an active social sector, will help us to attract a critical mass of people. We have additional challenges, compared to larger centres, in growing our knowledge sector in Sackville (pop. ±5,000). My aim is to be a choice living destination for a few dozen more creative people, and I’m sure that we can do that.
The business plan development for the Commons is moving forward, and I hope to be able to post a summary of our business model here shortly. That should be followed with the announcement of a location, but these things always take longer than anticipated.
Dave Weinberger links to this report on what may be an indicator of the future structure of academia:
Ninety-nine “top” Harvard professors are calling for the ceation of a new coordinating committee with the power to hire 75 science faculty for research that doesn’t fit comfortably within a single established discipline, according to an article in the Boston Globe today. The committee would also have the power to allocate funding for inter-disciplinary projects.
This reminds me of The Medici Effect, where the author shows how exponential innovations that can occur when examining one field through the lens of another field.
In the 1960’s we saw the rise of inter-curriculum studies, such as Canadian studies, combining courses from various academic disciplines, but no major changes in the major disciplines. With the Internet and easier connections to colleagues in other fields, or even outside an academic field, will interdisciplinary studies become the dominant mode for higher education? And if so, what happens to the traditional disciplines?
A while back I was asked to evaluate some learning management systems and part of the project required a price comparison. Costs over five years, for 5,000 users averaged $370,000 for the proprietary systems.
At the time, there were not a lot of open source services providers (which I had suggested was a good business model). Now that Moodle has over 10,000 installations, including Online Campus with 54,955 users, there are a number of reputable service providers for Moodle hosting, support and consulting, in several countries.
I know that it is possible to get full Moodle hosting and support for ~$5,000 per year for 5,000 users. So what could you do with all of the savings (~$345,000)? How about:
Anyway, open source learning management systems are not only viable options but can be an order of magnitude cheaper than many proprietary systems. Other systems and resources are listed on OpenSource4Learning.
Is informal learning just another flavour of the month that tries to be all things for all learners? Tony Karrer states that:
I’m becoming convinced that folks in the informal learning realm are quite willing to live with “free range” learning. It’s way too touchy-feely and abstract for me. If this stuff is important, then I want to:
* Know that it will work
* Know why it works
* Know that its repeatable
I don’t see free-range learning as a panacea, but neither do I believe that ISD can address informal learning needs. In the spirit of attempting to clarify the process, as Tony asks, here is one of my perspectives – human performance technology (HPT).
In HPT, one of the main areas of focus is the analysis; to determine what the performance gaps are. I was told by an experienced practitioner in the field that only 15% of organisational performance problems can be addressed by training. This is based on about 50 years of research and on the premise that “Instruction & Training” can only address a lack of skills or knowledge. The other 85% of organisational performance issues need other kinds of what are known as “performance interventions”. These can include, but are not limited to:
As you can see, organisational and individual performance can be influenced by a wide variety of factors. Because we are humans, no one will ever create the perfect performance system.
Where does informal learning fit into all of this? First, if you accept that only 15% of performance issues can be addressed through instruction and training, you accept that there is significantly more to look at in any organisation. A larger piece of the puzzle would be all learning interventions, not just those that address a lack of skills or knowledge.
In HPT, learning interventions can be divided into two groups – instuctional and non-instructional. Instructional interventions can be designed using ISD or other methods of training development. Informal learning, in my mind, is that other, and larger, grouping of non-instructional learning interventions.
Here is a sample list of non-instructional performance interventions:
I don’t necessarily agree with this grouping, but I thought that I’d show that there are others who use the same terminology. Of particular interest to me is Item 7, because the Internet has changed the balance of power and control in many organisations. With the Internet, and now with cheap and easy ways to connect people (Web 2.0), we have more possibilities for non-instructional performance interventions. Each of these addresses a different performance need, so there is no single methodology for informal learning. Building job aids is quite different from nurturing a community of practice.
As a learning professional, I am comfortable in prescribing and designing training when there is a lack of skills or knowledge. For example, I developed all of the training programs related to the operation of a military helicopter. There was a clear lack of skills and knowledge and we developed training programs to address this. However, there are a lot of learning needs that cannot be addressed through instructional performance interventions. These include:
Informal learning systems may increase overall performance but these cannot be exactly measured nor quantified. But then, neither can successful business practices or military strategy be exactly defined. Good business and military leaders know that success is a blend of science and art. I see informal learning as a similar endeavour. There are ways of measuring effectiveness – see Estimating the Performance Situation – and evaluation needs to be directly linked to your analysis. For example, morale cannot be quantified, but you know when good morale exists or when it is missing in an organisation.
Currently, we are looking at how certain technologies can be used to foster informal learning. The body of knowledge is not large, but we have adequate evidence that blogs, wikis, online fora, or knowledge-sharing are effective in increasing organisational performance. Again, take the Army Storytelling example and ask why this unstructured, informal learning activity is so important to the soldiers and their unit’s combat effectiveness, even though every soldier is highly trained.
I am certain that a good analysis that involves the learners and brings a knowledge of non-instructional performance interventions can have a significant impact on organisational performance. It took a lot of work and a world war to develop ISD, so I’m sure that we still have a way to go in the informal learning field, if it even can be called a field.
I think that informal learning is a way of categorising a whole range of strategies that we now have available with the advent of cheap web access, powerful personal computers and low cost applications likes blogs, wikis, tags, etc. Informal learning offers a new array of tools for the learning professional’s tool box.
Note: Some may consider this post as overt self-advertising, as I’ll explain why you should hire me, or my free-agent colleagues, instead of a name-brand consulting firm.
Many free-agents are also natural enterprises, not encumbered by the need for constant growth. I’ve worked as a sub-contractor on bids from large corporations who need my skills for a specific project. It’s usually good work for me, but in many cases I could have put together a team of free agents for a much lower cost and a more effective (in my opinion) project. However, most large corporations and government agencies write their requestes for proposals (RFP) in such a way as to exclude small operators, thinking that they are mitigating their risks.
I have been on both sides of the fence, having written, evaluated and responded to RFP’s, and can say from my experience that free-agents provide good value. I have to agree with the advantages of using a natural enteprise that Dave Pollard lists:
- Personal relationship (knowledge, trust, partnership, friendship, even love)
- Customization (really have it your way)
- Local just-in-time service (responsiveness)
- Superior innovation
- Low pressure (since supplier is not dependent on growth for survival)
- Reciprocality (mutuality, flexible pricing)
- No corporatist costs to pass on (huge management salaries, huge margins to achieve 20%+ ROI demanded by shareholders, massive advertising, marketing, transportation and packaging costs)
- Resilience (reliability in the face of economic or other crises, due to superior improvisational capacity and focus on effectiveness rather than more vulnerable efficiency)
- Quality and durability (no crap from indifferent Chinese factories)
- Appeal to altruism (supplier is good to its people, its community, its environment, and good for the local economy)
Take for instance my marketing costs – hosting fees for this website and some of my time, compared to the expensive advertising of large consulting firms (Item 7).
In today’s internetworked world, you are no longer engaging a lone consultant working on his own, but an entire network:
Dane has a short post on the importance of elevator pitches and how it’s more important to explain what you do instead of what your job title is (e.g. I’m a consultant).
When Andrea and I go to social events she is frequently asked what I do for a living, and her usual response is, “I don’t know; ask Harold”.
Unfortunately, after more than three years of working for myself, I don’t have a short & sweet elevator pitch. I realise that a lot of the work that I do will not fit into an easy to understand statement, such as, “I buy used bicycles, fix them up and sell them on eBay”. So I’m wondering how important it is to have an elevator pitch that is easy to understand and can be delivered in about 20 seconds. Are these people going to be my clients? Would they be able to refer me to someone else after hearing my pitch?
Almost all of my paid work comes from referrals. Sombody knows somebody else and there is some kind of need and they suggest contacting me. I will then follow up with an e-mail or two and probably a phone call to understand the situation. If we think that I can be of help then I will write a short proposal, outlining the work and the estimated cost. That’s about it.
Am I missing out on new clients because I can’t explain what I do in a short elevator pitch? I’d appreciate any suggestions because I’m learning as I go. Is my consulting section on this website clear enough? I don’t really know because no one has commented on it, even though it is one of the most visited pages on this site.
Or maybe I was thinking about the wrong elevator?
If you are a service provider and your service is interrupted, then you could say nothing and try to deal with the issue as fast as possible. On the other hand, you could tell the truth to your customers. I much prefer the latter:
PBwiki is temporarily down due to a networking hardware problem at our upstream internet provider. We aren’t the only customer offline and the operations staff onsite are working with a technician from the hardware vendor and their upstream link to resolve this problem as soon as possible. We’ve been advised that it may not be possible to fully restore operations for several hours while replacement hardware is located and installed. The fiber optic connectors and transceivers used for these core network systems aren’t for sale on every street corner, unfortunately, at least not before sunrise.
Your wiki is safe, and there is no risk of data loss. Our servers are fine but they currently can’t connect to anything outside of their building. Yes, we love you and yes we miss your wiki as much as you do. It’ll be back in a flash.
Our production servers are located in San Jose, California. You are reading this message on a development machine located in San Diego, California. There’s currently no wiki data here but we have enough offsite infrastructure to show this message. We’ve temporarily remapped all *.pbwiki.com addresses to this message — otherwise you’d just get a timeout in your browser. We have a roadmap plan which will allow us to cope more gracefully with this type of (rare) event in the future.
Thanks for your patience,
–Nathan Schmidt / PBwiki CTOLast update: Thursday, July 13 2006 4:23am PST (11:23 GMT)
Michael Geist thinks that the CBC needs to be reformed, or it may become, “the broadcaster formerly known as the CBC”:
The CBC can chart its own path by rethinking what it means to be a public broadcaster in the Internet era. Notwithstanding the importance of providing greater access to its content on all media platforms (the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation provides a model by featuring an online portal with more than 20,000 video clips and access to 12 radio channels), the CBC would do well to innovatively collaborate with Canadians to bring their creativity to a wider broadcast audience.
Robert Paterson has just gone through a process of looking at the future of public radio in the US – a different kind of public radio from our publicly-funded model. Robert and his team worked for 10 months in engaging over 1,000 members of the NPR family and engaged them to create their own future, in light of their current situation:
The audience for public radio has grown substantially in the last 10 years from about 15 to 30 million. It is comprised of well educated people on the whole but its main characteristic is that its audience are curious. They have become fed up with the pablum, inanity and spin of commercial radio. Public Radio has become the most trusted source of news in the US and has been attracting some of the best journalists to its ranks such as Ted Koppel – who themselves are fed up with spin and trivia.
In the last year however, listener growth has halted. Some say that public radio has become too middle aged and too bland. With more choice, maybe people are going elsewhere? Many stations and NPR are trying new avenues such as Podcasting and Vcasting. Some are trying Blogging. Some like MPR have enlisted 17,000 volunteer Public Insight Journalists to help augment their newsroom.
I know that in its early days as a our national radio broadcaster, the CBC actively engaged a broad segment of the population. Two of the more populist programmes on early CBC radio were the Citizens’ Forum and the Farm Radio Forum.
Farm Forum innovations included a regional report-back system, whereby group conclusions were collected centrally and broadcast regularly across Canada, occasionally being sent to appropriate governments. In addition, discussion – leading to self-help – resulted in diverse community “action projects” such as co-operatives, new forums and folk schools. Farm and community leaders claimed that the give-and-take of these discussions provided useful training for later public life. In 1952, UNESCO commissioned research into Farm Forum techniques. Its report was published in 1954, and consequently India, Ghana and France began using Canadian Farm Forum models in their programs. [source no longer available]
Even as a one-way medium, CBC used innovations such as programme guides by mail one week in advance, local discussion groups and national feedback on individual responses that kept people actively involved. Imagine a group of farmers gathering at a neighbour’s house, bringing food for a communal supper, and then discussing issues of great social relevance, like the possibility of medicare.
If the CBC is truly to rethink its role in our society then it needs to engage in a process similar to what Robert did with NPR. The last thing we need is an internally focused review or something akin to a royal commission (remember how the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples was lampooned on the Dead Dog Cafe?).
So here’s my question. Can our government and the CBC establishment actually carry off something that is open, engaging and transparent and truly rethink the CBC?
Via Luis Suarez is this story on CNEWS [dead link: see comment below] about a cultural anthropologist, Anne Irwin, who has been studying soldiers in the field and how they learn and bond through storytelling. The soldiers of the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry battle group are in Afghanistan and Prof. Irwin is there to watch and understand:
When they are out in the field and return from a patrol, the exhausted soldiers relax together in small, tightly-knit groups – Irwin calls them “nesting circles” – and recount the events of the day or the mission.
Each soldier contributes a story, an anecdote or even a joke, adding stock and spice into what becomes a collective stew of experiences, she said. They also playfully insult each other.
The storytelling not only helps forge the individual identity of each soldier, it builds interpersonal relationships that can have a bearing on how well the unit performs on the battlefield.
Having served in the same regiment and having been active in training and learning for many years now, I can say that this is the perfect example of the importance of informal learning. It’s a fact that these soldiers have all been formally trained in the skills of the infantry. However, the unit is not an effective fighting force until individuals have worked together. Informal learning is the glue that helps keep them together during the tough times. Support for these “nesting circles” and other ways to facilitate group learning is essential.
Let’s take a similar, but much less dangerous situation. Imagine a company that has a project team that has had a difficult client with tight deadlines and then managed to pull it off. Immediately after the last deliverable, the team is redistributed across the organisation to get to the next project, because “time is money”. There has been no time to talk or to swap stories or to find out what Bob was doing while Mary was dealing with a certain crisis. There are no “nesting circles” here to develop the group’s learning.
Civilian organisations might not be able to devote down time to informal learning, but they can ease the way for other kinds of communication that may help informal learning. Storytelling through blogs is possible for those who want to write. Sharing pictures on the Intranet can evoke memories and encourage people to revisit an event and learn from it. The key is to create environments that support these types of communication and learning — just as a dozen soldiers in a tent are going to tell stories, bond, and learn.
