Learning

Learning

Collaborate to Compete

by

I’ve been reading Collaborate to Compete: Driving profitability in the knowledge economy, by Robert Logan and Louis Stokes (ISBN: 0470833009). The book’s main premise is that the Internet is the medium by which collaboration has become an essential business process. Collaboration is the key to actually making use of knowledge management. I was initially intrigued by this book because I had read one of Logan’s previous works, The Fifth Language: Learning a living in the computer age, and was interested by the references to McLuhan’s work on communications theory and Toffler’s books, such as The Third Wave and PowerShift.

This book puts together a lot of knowledge management theory and models in an easy-to-read manner. The introductory chapters are a good review of writings on the subject over the past decade. As the authors build on the concept of collaboration and what it means for the Knowledge Age, they use the example of the scientific community. Scientists were some of the early adopters of the Internet and have been collaborating (and competing) within communities of practice for some time. There are no leaders and everyone is rated by peers on the value of his/her ideas. Logan and Stokes believe that large organisations, especially corporations, can create similar collaborative environments, and they provide examples of collaboration using Intranets and IT systems such as Vignette and LiveLink. I think that many of their premises have value. For instance, using the techniques of Marshall McLuhan, the authors state that there are five collaborative messages of the Internet:

  • The two-way flow of information,
  • The ease of access to information enhanced by information design,
  • Continuous learning,
  • Alignment,
  • The creation of community.

However, they fail to show in a convincing manner how collaborative communities can be created and sustained within command and control enterprises. One could take their practical steps in building a collaborative organisation, and have a good chance at success. The problem would arise when the enlightened despot who has allowed this initiative, decides to leave, or is replaced. Scientific communities have succeeded because no one is in charge, and people can come and go without destroying the community.

I believe that the Logan/Stokes model has much more potential outside their suggested areas. Their formula for measuring collaboration quotient could be used when micro-companies decide to get together for a project – a model that they don’t discuss. This book mentions a lot of technologies, especially technology brand names, but fails to mention web logs, wikis, RSS or aggregators – and it was published this year. These are the best collaboration tools on the net in my opinion.

Despite these perceived [by me] limitations, I think that this book would be a valuable asset for anyone working in the field of knowledge management, communities of practice or virtual teams. I will try to apply some of the models and tools and see how they work. Perhaps the best aspect of this book is that it is NOT about technology, but understanding technology.

In closing, we remind the reader that an IT tool like a collaborative knowledge network will not by itself create a collaborative organization. The human side of the equation, in which attention is paid to vision, trust and leadership, is at the heart of a collaborative organization.

Retention of Staff a Critical issue

by

The Globe & Mail reported today in the careers section that “managers hold the key to keep staff happy”. It also reported on a survey conducted by Career Systems International that showed the top ten reasons why employees stay with an organisation. The number one reason was “exciting and challenging work”, but the number two was “career growth, learning and development”. Pay was only number four.

This is one more business-critical reason to pay attention to learning issues in the workplace. It’s also why learning should not be seen as “bolt-on” strategy, like adding a training program, but should be integrated into all aspects of work. As reported in this issue, retention of core staff is necessary to stay competitive, and learning plays a significant role. Learning is business, and business is learning – finally.

Consensus Building from the Oneida Nation

by

In the book Systems Thinking: Managing chaos and complexity by J. Gharajedaghi, there are many concepts and examples of systems thinking. This is a book to read many times. One of the examples that Gharajedaghi provides is of the Oneida Nation. Their process used to solve problems is one that could be used for online communities, with three distinct roles to be performed in achieving consensus.

Using different attributes and characteristics for each of the three symbols of turtle, wolf and bear, the culture, to its credit, had identified and separated the three distinct roles of pathfinder, problem formulator, and problem solver. The role played by the wolves is that of pathfinder / synthesizer. Wolves display purposeful behavior by setting the direction, dealing with the “why” questions, identifying relevant issues, and defining the agenda and context before they are presented to the turtles, the problem formulators, to define them. The defined problems are, in turn, passed on by the turtles to the bears, the problem solvers. Bears generate alternatives and recommend solutions. Solutions are returned to the turtles to check on their relevance and potency before referring them back to the wolves to check on their relevance. Wolves are finally responsible for integrating the solutions, keeping the records, and ratifying and communicating the final agreements. Wolves keep the fire alive by motivating and monitoring others.

Like the Six Nations Confederacy from which this model comes, different individuals or groups can play different roles in order to find the best solution for an entire community of society.

The Learner’s Perspective

by

I spent today as a student in a training program. It’s been a while since I’ve been on this end of the stick. Much of the day was put your mind in neutral and go with the flow. The demonstration & performance piece was very good – here’s how to do it, and now you do it. Could have had better feedback though.

This day as a learner reinforced what I know as a performance technologist. Training without clear performance objectives, that are relevant to each learner, is useless. Also; anything is better than death by PowerPoint (bulleted lists of the instructor’s notes). For many people it was a day outside the office. For me it was the loss of a day’s revenue, or even worse, an opportunity cost. When your own money is on the line, you become a more discerning buyer. This is the future of training – be relevant or be gone.

LEG Discussion Board

by

Join in the discussion with the Learning Economics Group. The Discussion Board was recently set up, and this will be an excellent venue for looking into the business end of learning.

Our purpose is to discuss, understand and share with each other ideas about learning economics and high quality resources for the development of tools and database related to the study of learning economics.

Join LEG for free and get access to the documents that supported today’s discussion on optimizing learning value, given by Capital Works. Here’s a tidbit:

Learning is the key enabler of flows and exchanges in accelerating the performance of intangible assets.

Jay Cross said that this presentation has had more influence on his thinking than anything else in this field to date. Might be worth joining LEG, n’est-ce pas?

Training vs Education (but it’s all learning)

by

Some formative ideas on education & training:

Blogs, wikis, aggregators, social networking software, etc. are great tools for informal learning. They help in the creation of personal knowledge repositories and communities of practice. They enhance "learning", in the social-constructivist sense that I always believed our education system should. Given their decentralized nature, these informal learning technologies do not provide the kind of data that a formal system, like an LMS or performance management system, would give.

I think that one of the problems with our education system is that there is too much of a focus on getting quantitive data, like testing. These functions are more suited to a "training" system, where the performance requirements are clear, measurable and observable. In education, the performance requirements are fuzzy. There is nothing wrong with either a training focus or an education focus; each one has its merits. The problem is when you try to mix the two. The arguments that I hear over testing or the adoption of blogs in the classroom seem to be the result of mixing a training systems design approach with a general educational approach. Water and oil.

If your organisation, be it a school or a company, has clear performance expectations, then you should use proven performance technologies, such as drill & feedback, performance support, or a wide variety of other interventions. On the other hand, if your objectives are educational in the broad sense, then forget about testing and controlling, and allow learners to explore and construct their own knowledge.

Informal learning, facilitated by the likes of blogs & wikis, works well for general education, and for continued learning outside of the "classroom". Informal learning (education in the broadest sense) is messy by its very nature. Training, such as how to drive a car, can use a more scientific method to optimize training time, achieve the desired performance and reduce the risk of accidents. Training and education can even use the same tools, like simulations, but not the same approach. Education and training are complementary, but distinct.

Am I just splitting hairs?

Collaboration by Jay Cross

by

Jay Cross has made his ASTD 2004 presentation notes for "Collaboration Supercharges Performance" available, as well as the link to the entire 87 minute presentation in Macromedia Breeze. I have enjoyed all of Jay’s Breeze presentations, and the audio quality is excellent. It’s great to see this sharing of ideas made so easy for those of us not able to attend ASTD.

Good manners are still important

by

Even in the world of open source, open content and open culture there are social norms that those in the corporate world should be aware of. If not, their bad manners might be blogged around the world. Sebastian Fiedler’s comments on Lisa Neun crashing Blogwalk 2.0:

So, good folks out there in open culture, if you spot any corporate Lisa busting your grassroots, low-budget, organized in your free-time, self-financed gathering… either give the poor thing a free-ride (but beware… this might trigger a paradigm shift without a clutch… Dilbert readers probably remember this one), or simply bill the freaking organization she belongs to.

Let’s all remember our manners folks.

What we all want

by

According to Dave Pollard, here is what the blogosphere wants.

Blog readers want to see more:

original research, surveys etc.
original, well-crafted fiction
great finds: resources, blogs, essays, artistic works
news not found anywhere else
category killers: aggregators that capture the best of many blogs/feeds, so they need not be read individually
clever, concise political opinion (most readers prefer these consistent with their own views)
benchmarks, quantitative analysis
personal stories, experiences, lessons learned
first-hand accounts
live reports from events
insight: leading-edge thinking & novel perspectives
short educational pieces
relevant “aha” graphics
great photos
useful tools and checklists
précis, summaries, reviews and other time-savers
fun stuff: quizzes, self-evaluations, other interactive content

Blog writers want to see more:

constructive criticism, reaction, feedback
‘thank you’ comments, and why readers liked their post
requests for future posts on specific subjects
foundation articles: posts that writers can build on, on their own blogs
reading lists/aggregations of material on specific, leading-edge subjects that writers can use as resource material
wonderful examples of writing of a particular genre, that they can learn from
comments that engender lively discussion
guidance on how to write in the strange world of weblogs

I think that we all have our work cut out for us. Any comments?