LMS Envy: The Love-Hate Relationship with Technology

In a recent dialog on the CLO-Network, we discussed why so many LMS owners were not happy with their systems – that there seemed to be a “disconnect” between what they envisioned they would own after GoLive and what they actually wound up owning. Why is there such a love-hate relationship with LMS (and other) technology? Why does it seem that someone else always has the better system? Truth is, “better” is a relative term.

The answer to that question would make a good book, because the “disconnects” can happen for so many reasons. I’m in my fifth LMS implementation currently and am convinced of only one thing – LMS technology does exactly what LMS technology was designed to do. From early LMS systems like Registrar (vintage 1991) to today’s “Talent Mgmt” suites that have LMS modular components, they all work exactly as designed. The disconnect is often caused by organizations responding to the lure of bright, shiny technology solutions…not to mention plentiful encouragement by really really good sales pitches from the vendors…and they (the vendors) are all guilty of delivering the slickest of slick presentations. But hey…they have to eat too.

In the last five (or so) short years the learning landscape has begun to build critical mass in a shift toward informal learning. The role of the LMS is becoming less and less central when you consider the increasing roles innovative informal and collaborative learning venues are playing within the organization. Then we have the role of the LMS. The poor little guy has morphed from a registrar function to a registrar function on steroids – and that still would be too little too late. True, LMSs do many new things and not all of them behave the same way, but at their core, LMSs schedule, launch and track formal learning. And that’s okay, but emphasis is rapidly shifting from “training” and tracking it (the core competency of the LMS) to getting the right learning assets to the right learner at the right time in the right amount in the right format and to/from the right device. The LMS plays only a small part in that deliverable.

Frankly, the LMS community has been slow to respond. My question is…should the LMS be the focal point of handling this learning shift? Methinks the solution is a learning portal that interfaces with numerous learning platforms…not the least of which would be our friend the LMS. Add in SharePoint, Blackboard, Streaming Media Repositories, etc.

Elliott Masie of the Masie Consortium made a comment that confirms this direction at his LMS/LCMS Conference in early 2008. He predicted that the face of the LMS is changing in the sense that it will soon sport APIs to interface with best-of-breed applications that do things the LMS cannot…and never was intended to do…at least not as a core competency. Learning content management systems (LCMS) are becoming more LMS-like…and newer LMSs are hustling to provide greater access to informal learning. Not sure that’s going to be enough.

What does this mean? What about Web & Learning 2.0…wikis, blogs, collaboration, etc. How does one avoid being the proud owner of the “wrong” LMS? I question just how capable will the LMS be unless it becomes more portal-like and seamlessly provides access to non-traditional informal learning assets and interactive social venues. I honestly would not want to be in the position of purchasing a LMS at this point in its life cycle. What can an organization do given this pivotal moment in the life of a technology so long in the tooth?

It means the organization has to assess their learning environment from a “holistic” point of view – not just focusing on their technology needs…not yet. My recommendation is to resist the bright, shiny object syndrome and take the time to assess the organization’s “readiness” in order to identify the gaps in their learning environment from cultural commitment – to their unique continuous learning needs – to the diversity of learner work context – to how are you going to measure impact. Never fear that this holistic environment will most likely include a LMS; though, it may not be the cornerstone it once represented. In reality, the technology (LMS included) has to come last in this design effort. The biggest mistake many organizations make is pursuing the purchase of a LMS when they are merely “ready” to do so. “Ready” as in funded, executive buy-in, and a willing IS organization, etc.

Unfortunately, “ready” and “readiness” are two very different things. If a holistic learning strategy and roadmap are not in place that embrace the continuous nature of learning, a potentially “bad” vendor selection could easily happen despite best intentions. Honestly, this is not grounds to blame the vendors. It’s our own fault for taking a myopic scan of LMS choices without realizing how the formal aspects of learning (training) are linked to a continuum that drives the six “right” things I mentioned earlier – most of which are informal in nature and consumed downstream from the classroom…out of reach of the LMS.

So…is this exclusively about the LMS? Not likely. This “holistic” approach I described is valid regardless of the technology platform(s) considered. The focal point is the learner – more importantly, it is the learner in their work context for it is within the work context where the lion’s share of learning is (or soon will be) taking place. So whether it is an LMS or a social Media solution, the learner and their work context need to be key drivers for making functional technology design decisions and platform choices lest we try to customize our way into a blissful relationship with our technology.

The Art of Training People and Bears Using a Learning Continuum

Have you ever been to the circus and watched a bear ride a bicycle? For this to happen, that bear experienced formal learning and acquired some significant skills training; the very same skills you and I learned in our youth. The bear’s classroom is a hundred-foot diameter circle that doubles as their workspace. Our learner’s “circus ring”, defined by the classroom, is where they demonstrate proficiency either by doing something successfully or by passing a test of one sort or another. If their classroom doubled as their workspace too, our training effort could stop there. Unfortunately, it does not, and if our contribution to their learning stops there, we may as well be training bears.

I described the PDR Learning Continuum in an earlier post. Today, I will use three learning situations with examples that demonstrate how the productivity of our bear friend could be enhanced if learning continued downstream from the classroom. Our call to action, as a training organization, is simple – expand our scope – move downstream beyond formal learning (training) – out of the classroom – and into the work context – where we can expand the role we play as professional trainers to influence and embed sustainable performance into the work context.

This expansion does not mean that our formal training efforts are of no value, they are – and they always will be part of most learning solutions. However, if our contribution to the business mission is to create readiness and sustainability in the workforce, our scope and our skill sets need to expand. The Learning Continuum, through use of the PDR Model, gives us a framework to reach beyond traditional, formal training events to the learner’s workspace – downstream from training – and into their work context.

The Role of Formal Learning

To illustrate how we can leverage the Learning Continuum, consider our bear friend in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1

The first two phases of the PDR Model, Prepare & Deploy, represent the training the bear experienced on his journey to competently riding a bike – in a circle. Remember that the circle, all one hundred or so feet of it, serves as both classroom and workspace. The learning environment is highly controlled. The administration of skills from trainer to bear is very structured, and demonstration of skills learned by the bear confirms proficiency by riding around the limits of the circus ring.

Level one evaluation looks good based on the smile on the face of the bear munching his sugar cube reward. The pre-test/post-test improvement of perfectly demonstrating navigation of continuous circles confirms a valid level two. Training complete! Predictable, sustainable performance is a lock. Why? Remember, the classroom IS the workspace. What could go wrong? If only it were that simple for us humans.

The Role of Informal Learning – Application & Implementation

Something about training a bear to ride a bike in a circle just seems wrong. Where does a bear live? Where do they work? Right! The woods. Work is foraging for berries and such – in the woods – not riding in circles for sugar cubes. Which leads me to the following statement – What a waste of bear talent! You might scoff and think to yourself – well, what else could a bear do?

I base my answer only on one thing – the training we do successfully. How would we ever know if we could influence behavior beyond the circus ring? We stop the training as soon as they can ride in a circle. Who knows what a bear might be able to do with that bicycle had we equipped them to expand the use of their new found skills in their workspace – if we had supported the bear in the application of his new skill in a larger work context – downstream from his hundred-foot world. Think about it. Imagine if that same bear had the opportunity to take that bicycle out of the circus tent to support his day-job and ride it into the woods to forage for berries. See Figure 4.2

Figure 4.2

One could argue that this may be a little far-fetched, but hear me out. If we had introduced how to use a global position system in the classroom (during the Deploy phase) in experiential, berry-finding simulations with the appropriate Performer Support Objects (PSOs) – job aids – this bear’s productivity would triple. Where would it triple? Right where it matters most, in the work context – in the woods – during the Reinforcement phase of the Learning Continuum – downstream from the controlled environment of the classroom. How could this happen? We embed task-relevant job aids (PSOs – informal learning tools) into the bear’s workflow. We practice using these PSOs in the Deploy phase in a controlled environment. We practice using them in task-relevant simulations with stated intent that these are the same informal tools for use in the field…err…the woods. We successfully routinize (implement) informal learning tools into the bear’s simulated workflow even before he returns to the actual workflow.

No more shuffling into the woods to forage for berries. This bear is riding, and he is prepared to use his technology effectively. He consults his handy job aid to program the GPS functionality in his smart phone (his…ahem… Blackberry…c’mon, no iTouch here…he’s a bear) to locate the best berry patch. We are talking about one highly productive bear here. Triple the amount of berries in a fraction of the time, and he is still able to get to his circus job on time. Truly, we have transferred valuable skills into the work context and the bear has tangible, measurable results to show for it. However, it gets better…

The Role of Informal Learning – Knowledge & Performance Refinement

The Reinforcement phase goes deeper still. It can become social…as do bear on occasion, especially after a couple of brews. See Figure 4.3

Figure 4.3

So now, we find our bear friend totally pumped. He has his berries, it is only 4PM, and he does not have to be under the Big Top until 7:30. So what would any respectable bear do? Certainly! He would have a beer or two to cool off. He would also be compelled to brag about his accomplishments to his bear buds. In other words, he would socialize his discovery with his bear colleagues.

Where would he do this? Of course, at www.SmokeysBerryBushBusters.com, a social networking site for bears who view foraging for berries as an art form. What could be easier than posting an awesome discovery to a network of peers and bragging about how many berries you managed to forage in less than five hours? So, he did. He shared (posted) what he thought was a best practice to the community. Within a few minutes, one of his bear friends responded and shared something remarkable – something he had not considered. Turns out, he could have ridden his bicycle down to Kroger’s grocery store and purchased the berries already picked and cleaned – by the quart – in less than thirty minutes! So much for short-lived bear bravado.

Closing Thoughts

I must confess that the bear scenarios were a bit bizarre, but will wager that those of you who endured the whole post will retain the concept. In reality, this post is not as much about bears or about knowledge workers in their work context as it is about those of us in the training organization. It is about how we have such a significant downstream opportunity to harvest post-training learning. Take the discovery made by our bear friend pumped about using the bike and the GPS to score the mother of all berry bushes. If he had not had access to a venue to “socialize” his best practice, he would continue to do the same thing. He would never have known (or at least not as quickly) that there was a better solution to the foraging-for-berries effort. Informal social learning enabled post-training learning.

Now here we discover our challenge. How do we, as training organizations, capitalize on the presence of social media? I think our first step requires becoming proficient in the use of Web & Learning 2.0 technologies in the course of our own workflows. By accomplishing this, the opportunities will fall into our laps on how we can expand our reach beyond the classroom and downstream into the workflow – into our learner’s work context. That is where they turn to tribal knowledge when they cannot remember. We fear the inconsistency and potentially invalid information gathered from the tribe. Trust me on this – Web 2.0 just raised the ante. Frequency and ease of accessing the tribe for knowledge just got easier, and it is never going away. We had better become part of the tribe – actively harvesting post-training learning – using the Learning Continuum for what it was intended to do. How else will we build the better bear?

Change Leadership: When Change Management Is Not Enough

Ask any IT professional if they have a repeatable process for Change Management (CM) and you can expect an unequivocal “Yes we do!” as the response, and likely suffer a sideways glance wondering what motivated such a ridiculous question. Actually, they have no other choice when we consider the nature of Change in the scope of their IT world. Systems constantly change to meet new business demands, and/or software applications need frequent additions or modifications. Rigorous testing procedures, validation, and documentation are required. Timelines and project management accountabilities assigned, synchronized, monitored, and jeopardy situations identified to activate contingencies (planned in advance). This all makes perfect sense, right? Now consider this question: “Is IT the only organization in your enterprise involved in Change?” Of course not! Why then are they the only ones with a formal, repeatable Change process?

Culture of Continuous Learning and Change

Take IT out of the equation for a moment and consider a transformational change like continuous learning. Are there not technology standards, workflows, and certifications that demand low tolerance for error, elimination of poor quality output, and avoidance of extraordinary waste if not executed effectively? Change of this nature certainly calls for robust CM activities. Unfortunately, implementation of a transformational change of this nature involves shifting thinking, changing behaviors, and driving new outcomes – preferably the sustainable variety. Tactical CM is a requirement, but it will not generate enough momentum to bridge the gap between deployment and implementation. This is a perfect example where Change Leadership (CL) is required to expand the scope of shepherding sustainable Change in and across the organization.

Regardless of the nature of Change, ripple effects across related or dependant business functions imply interdependent changes in human performance. CM works well with the tactical aspects of changes, but let Change engage people to pursue new strategy and embrace new thinking and the key CL principles of inspire and influence become invaluable in generating critical mass.

Going back to our continuous learning example, there are three critical categories of business enablers that must be addressed with at least as much rigor as IT’s tactical components of Change. Each has tactical components, and each is rife with new thinking with implications that embedded traditions must change. :

- Learning Culture – Is continuous learning a strategic priority in the organization?
- Learning Methodology – Is learning design capable of supporting a continuum?
- Learning Technology – Is access to learning seamless, frictionless, & ubiquitous?

Certainly, you would expect an IT model to be involved with technology, and in some cases, methodology. What “IT models” do not typically address, nor do most CM efforts, are effective and sustainable impacts in the first category – Culture, be it learning-oriented or otherwise. Here is where the CM approach comes up short. The missing ingredient is leadership and its change-critical drivers of influencing, inspiring, and integrating different behaviors – and ultimately – driving different, measurable, human performance outcomes. Cultural changes imply involvement of “people”, and people need strong, consistent leadership when Change requires different performance and expectations of different outcomes – not the least of which are new knowledge, skills, and competencies derived through continuous learning.

When behavioral expectations change, individual contributors need answers to key questions, whether they express their desire to know verbally or covertly through resistance and even sabotage of Change initiatives. Consider the behavior impacting, people-relevance of answers to these questions:

- What are my expectations?
- What will I have to do differently? When?
- What’s in it for me (WIIFM)?
- Who is dependent on the success of my contributions? What is at risk if I fail?
- What are expectations for my department due to this Change?
- What value does my contribution bring to the business because of this Change?
- How will I know if I am successful – my department – the company?
- What does everyone else think about doing “it” differently?
- Who is going to train me – when – where – how?
- Where do I go for support after training?
- Is this Change temporary or permanent?
- Does senior leadership support this Change?
- We’ve tried this before…Why will it be any different this time?

None of these questions represent shocking revelations to any of us involved in enabling effective human performance; yet do we address all consistently as a function of effectively managing Change? Neglecting to anticipate the importance of answering these questions are often the unseen factors that contribute to the undoing of the best-managed Change projects.

CM prepares them to DO.

CL prepares THEM to do.

If we manage Change effectively without leading Change for the people involved, we have only addressed half the equation to achieving a sustained capability and can anticipate proportionate results.

Effective Change Management ≠ Effective Change Leadership

We have to give credit to our IT brethren because they recognized the importance of building a “machine” to ensure accurate repetition of a rigorous process consistently regardless of complexity. Were they visionaries, or were they just employing good survival instincts? Honestly, it is a bit of both, especially when budgets are so slim that only a few projects get through funding scrutiny and get the cherished “green light”. Who can afford to botch an expensive project, when it represents one of twelve others originally under consideration? Do not misunderstand; CM is essential, and it always will be. This paper makes the case for an additional layer beyond CM that addresses inclusion of critical attributes of leadership. Why? Effective leadership exemplifies a positive business culture for Change through three critical deliverables:

- Influence new behaviors by people
- Inspire acceptance of Change by people
- Integrate Change into new or different routinized work habits of people

Foundationally, CM does not have a primary focus on these three aspects of effective leadership. CM is better adapted to handle tactical things like processes, workflows, and project management. CM does not address the cultural leadership aspects of influencing, inspiring, and integrating necessary behaviors that drive sustainability of well-managed Change. Change Leadership (CL), on the other hand, does address those missing cultural aspects. Omitting or disregarding the cultural/people implications of Change are often the top reasons why well-intended Change does not deliver sustainable results.

We have all been part of significant Change efforts and endured organization-wide, deployment gala events to kick-off a new way of doing things. Total Quality Management (TQM) back in the 1990’s come to mind as a classic example. We all remember the party to celebrate adoption of TQM methodology – the balloons, the clowns, 3-bite shrimp, and cheesy noisemakers, but by the time the confetti disappeared, things were well on their way back to business as usual. What Change? TQ-what? Guess what? We nailed deployment, but somebody forgot implementation!

Deployment is deceptively easy. Take vendor evaluation and selection for new learning management systems as an example. Industry statistics reveal that more LMS owners are not happy with results of their deployments than those that are. Why? Are those statistics reflective of deploying the wrong technology? Unfortunately, dissatisfaction most often stems from poor implementation. CM, in and of itself, failed the test of producing sustainability – despite flawless deployment. “Cultural” elements of a change in learning technology should have been simultaneously addressed – should have been aligned across multiple levels within the organization – and only those three CL deliverables of influence, inspire and integrate could do that effectively.

Try to change something decidedly more nebulous than a piece of hardware – like organizational learning – or choose anything else that is fraught with embedded values, belief systems, and reliant on modifying or separating from trusted tribal knowledge. Watch those in the organization who dig in their heels and resist your efforts, impeding your chances of driving efficient, effective, and sustainable Change.

If effective CL is not integrated into whatever CM model your organization uses, human resources (the people – not the department), necessary to make the Change effort “stick”, will not respond consistently or willingly to the notion of “build it, and they will come”. CM handles the “build it phase” because that is what it is best suited to do. The “getting them to come phase” is exclusively CL’s domain – without critical engagement and leadership necessary to inspire and influence adoption of the Change, chances of sustainability are greatly diminished. First-hand experience predicts that CM alone will not sustain Change, no matter how effectively we managed the deployment effort.

Critical Success Factors for Leading Change

There are ten critical success factors specific to a repeatable Change Leadership (CL) model. Simultaneous application of these factors with the traditional, tactical regimen of effective CM is foundational to sustainable results. They include:

- Validation – How do we convince business-organization-department-individual that Change is necessary? What is the business case for Change?
- Calibration – What are the tangible business performance indicators of successful change? Are there intangible benefits to include?
- Sponsorship – Which leader is willing to commit to the change, be accessible and visible to the organization and the Change team?
- Value Proposition Cascade - What is the “localized” value message at every level impacted by the Change?
- Road Map – What is the plan to communicate, prepare, inform, equip, sell, train, and support this Change event?
- Mobilization – What resources need to be engaged to execute the road map? What is the timeline of events? Who is involved?
- Deployment - What are the scope and logistics of the GoLive event? Is there a pilot launch or an en masse flash-cut for GoLive?
- Implementation – How does the change event integrate into routine workflows?
- Impact Assessment - What really changed? How and when and who measures the outcomes? (see Calibration)
- Sustained Capability - How do we effectively communicate and celebrate success? Share best practices? Harvest learning? Integrate into future learning?

Notice that we separate deployment and implementation in this model. Deployment implies the physical aspects of activating the new technology and/or writing new methods and procedures to use a new process effectively. Implementation, on the other hand, involves influencing people to use the technology effectively and/or to follow new methods consistently in the context of doing their jobs. Implementation involves “people” functions and requires leadership to inspire and influence their behavior as well as set expectations to integrate Change behaviors into day-to-day work routines. Leadership must visibly reinforce the Change effort in a number of ways. These drivers form the cultural heart of CL.

Change Leadership’s Impact on Performance Enablers

Change looks good on paper. In fact, Change plans are very similar in design to football plays drawn up in the team playbook. If the team executes a play exactly as planned, the result is a touchdown. Why then does that philosophy not work consistently on game day? Every play (plan) is perfect until players (people) are involved and actual performance is impacted by any number of influences, including the more obvious, like failure to perform effectively, lack of preparation (readiness), lack of ability (knowledge or skills), or environmental obstacles to execution from an aggressive defense (internal resistance or external obstacles like regulatory demands or direct competition). As any performance consultant will tell you, there are several categories of enablers that affect human performance. The severity of impact determines whether a Change initiative will be successful, or more importantly – sustainable. We can bundle these human performance enablers under several categories listed below with several examples:

- Leadership – Clarity of Vision, Mission, Direction, Business Strategy & Goals, Effective Communication & Direction, Coaching & Feedback, Leadership & Management Effectiveness, Appropriate Dashboard Metrics, Effective Change Management, etc.
- Capability – Knowledge, Skills & Abilities, Competencies & Attributes, Selection & Staffing, Performance Management, Training Programs, Curriculum Alignment/Maps/Tracks, etc
- Motivation – Personal Needs, Team Dynamics, Compensation & Incentive Plans, Rewards & Recognition, Career Development, Inclusion, Wellness, etc.
- Process – Business Policies, Business Process Definition & Documentation, Task & Sub-Task (Methods & Procedures), Workflow Efficiency, Operational & Job Design, Operational Roles & Responsibilities, Process Improvement, etc.
- Resources – Technology Infrastructure, Connectivity, Access to Content, Access to People, Software, Performer Support, Tools, etc.
- Environment – Organizational Design, Ergonomics, Measurement Criteria, Metrics, Internal/External Influences, Diversity, Culture, etc.

The tactical nature of CM addresses process and resources, and often, some elements that fall under environment. The tactical nature of new processes and workflows may also imply improving capabilities through training programs and continuous learning that deliver new knowledge and/or skills, thus bolstering essential competencies.

CL also embraces capability through continuous learning as a function of strategic business alignment; however, the overlap ends there. CM does nothing to address motivation or leadership requirements of the people involved. Can you see where CM’s role has the potential to fall short after the tactical activities of deployment are successfully completed? Integration of CL will fill those important cultural gaps that were never the intent of CM to cover.

Change Leadership as a Repeatable Model

The solution? Deploy and implement a repeatable CL model around the efforts you already expend to drive effective CM. This approach will carry your organization beyond deployment of Change and deliver integration of Change that renders sustained capability. There are several reasons a repeatable model is important:

- Establish consistent, “localized” expectations regarding Change early and often for those on the receiving end of the initiative.
- Establish consistent expectations and rigor of process to those on the driving end of the Change initiative.
- Compress the timeline for planning and preparing for leading Change by utilizing templates to ensure consistency of approach.
- Provide a process for frequent formative evaluations throughout the timeline to fine tune and align (or re-align) an effective leadership approach.
- Provide a robust, two-way, feedback loop across multiple levels of the organization to ensure consistently aligned communications.
- Identify actionable, dashboard metrics aligned with appropriate levels of management suitable to reinforce identification and communication of tangible results.

It is critical to implement a proven, repeatable Change Leadership Model that seamlessly integrates all ten critical success factors with the CM diligence already utilized by your organization. Remember that driving effective Change is only tactical in nature – until people are involved. Being able to address varying complexity and the continuous nature of Change are primary drivers for establishing a methodology that lends itself to repetition. The needs of people involved in Change are no less complex or varying than the tactical nature supported by CM.

Change in any business is inevitable, and one of the few things we can count on to be consistent. Desired outcomes are not automatic, and they are certainly not sustainable without effective, post-deployment reinforcement during implementation. Reaching those desired outcomes are determined by how well we “manage the process and lead” the people who are going to perform differently due to Change.

It may be time to add a little CL to your CM.

Harvesting Learning’s Fruit: A Downstream Training Investment

Nothing beats rave reviews in level one verbatim comments and nothing better than everyone scoring perfection on level two assessments, unfortunately, the real action that matters is manifest downstream from where we earn our accolades. In an earlier post, I introduced the concept of a Learning Continuum defined by three phases:
• Prepare – to create readiness in our learners prior to formal training
• Deploy – delivery of formal training in a variety of blends
• Reinforce – post-training implementation intended to sustain capability

As a panelist in a recent webinar on “The Future of the Business of Learning” (7/23/09) I placed significant emphasis on the Reinforce phase of the Continuum and made a reference to the need to “harvest” what learning produces in the work context . Several participants remarked that harvesting was a new phrase to them, which in turn has led me to writing this post today.

I have developed a graphic illustration that I hope gives you a sense of what harvesting means and when we accomplish it. My guess is that implementation methodology will suit the organization attempting the process, but confident the sequencing to be somewhere downstream from the formal training event where we plant the seeds of knowledge and skills. Refer to Figure 3.0 for illustration as you read.

Figure 3.0

As professional trainers, we “plant” seeds of knowledge and skills in a variety of ways in formal training venues. The planting process takes place as we ready learners during the Prepare phase and then practice in the safe environs of the Deploy phase. I do not want to focus on those things we already do well; rather, the downstream activities found within the Reinforce phase of the Learning Continuum is where we will concentrate our time in this post.

Fertilize & Cultivate

Lately, many dialogs in the forums I cruise circulate around the insertion of social media into the learning mix. Downstream from formal training is an opportune moment to make that connection. I hasten to add; however, that social media does not represent a silver bullet solution. My point in mentioning it is the added capability to enable collaboration among learning stakeholders in communities of relevance. Learners, managers, training staff, and SMEs all have a vested interest in what happens after training with respect to reinforcing learning through coaching, knowledge sharing, and in the case of sales people – boasting and bragging. Yes, I was in sales for many years and know what to expect.

Relevant communities of practice or interest are excellent venues to accomplish both push and pull of relevant information that supports knowledge retention and serves as fertile ground for the ultimate reward of harvesting knowledge and best practices that otherwise would remain locked in the heads and hearts of top performers. The task is to diffuse the “knowledge is power” paradigm by rewarding those who share their knowledge in the community. Larry Pruzak’s book “Working Knowledge” addresses a concept called “knowledge currency” that defines the exchange of value for knowledge. His point is that value does not always have to equate to cash, but there should be a mutually acceptable transaction to incentivize sharing. Often that can be simple recognition.

In the Deploy phase, we acquired level 1 & 2 evaluations from which we predicted positive performance. As we know, neither of those evaluations are accurate predictors of performance, much less sustainable performance. Nevertheless, downstream is where we need to check in with learners to see if the Performer Support Objects (PSOs) were effective as well as relevant to their actual work. If not, we need to know why. If they were, we need to know to what extent…and what would they change. This conversation feeds our ability to acquire level 3 evaluation to confirm transfer of training to successful execution of work.

Harvest – Intentional Discovery

This activity is not something we all do, and those who do may have a unique approach that will not work for anyone else. For me, I see this as the ultimate validation that my training efforts rendered fruits for harvest. This is the perfect opportunity to harness the creativity of top performers by capturing best practices and homegrown tools they have created. From this harvest, we can re-package for others who have not reached a level of mastery and dramatically shorten their learning curve and time to competency.

I describe harvesting as intentional discovery to make a point. One could argue the line between fertilize/cultivate and harvesting is a bit blurry, but I feel there is a time component that must pass – just as we wait for crops to grow – before the communities and the experiences of using PSO tools in the work context are mature enough to render firm opinions by the users. I don’t want first impressions, I want conviction that a PSO worked or it didn’t. I cannot fix it if I do not know where or why it failed to support. Likewise, this effort is done with intent to serve the fine-tuning of existing training efforts and formulation of new tools or re-engineering of existing tools. Notice in Figure 3.0 that harvesting closes the loop with Planting and also impacts Fertilization and Cultivation with discovery and excellent experiential feedback that can only make better seeds to plant for the next crop of graduates.

Living in Learning is Resource #100 @ eLearningLearning

I’m anxiously awaiting a shroud of balloons and confetti at the news of being number 100. Living in Learning is a new blog that renders rants, raves and ramblings of one who wakes up every day living in learning. Recent momentum centers on the evolution of training departments into business partners who create continuous learning environments. The current of learning matching the flow of business should yield a single velocity where learning and work are part of the same motion. Precious few of us see training budgets increasing. At the same time, more and more of us face justifying continued existence as cost centers. It’s doubtful that trend will do anything but increase.

The days of tracking training activity are long gone. Justifying how busy we are delivering training and pointing to level one and two evaluations as our promise of performance have not gone away – have not diminished in importance; rather, they have become part of something much bigger – contribution to a continuous learning environment. I read about traditional training being dead and/or less important, but cannot buy that line of thinking. However, the danger of training’s importance in the organization is real if the contribution to the corporate mission cannot be articulated in terms of tangible results – results based on measurable, tangible value – results that implant a sustained capability.

Stellar level two evaluations that confirm knowledge transfer in the training context are essential, though not enough. The shift in accountability for the training department is expanding to show that same level of success and that same consistent impact in the work context. That shift does not, nor will it ever, portend the demise of formal training. What is does do; however, is expand the scope of responsibility of the training department into unfamiliar territory – designing learning solutions that are effective on a learning continuum, where most of the consumption of learning assets is downstream from the domain of our formal learning expertise.

In a nutshell, that describes the momentum behind Living in Learning. New competencies are required that move beyond the traditional scope of existing design, development and delivery models. The mission becomes one of creating seamless, frictionless and ubiquitous environments where the right learning is accessible to/by the right learning at their moment(s) of learning need- in the right amount – in the right format – to/from the right device(s). Methinks that’s bigger than ADDIE and broader than knowledge and skills. It is bigger than any one of us as we work in our profession. We (as training professionals) truly are Living in Learning, and as the tagline on the blog reads: Where we think, work and share together – we learn.

PDR Design Model Supports Shift to Learning Design in the Work Context

The concept of a learning shift represents a course correction by the USS Training Department. We are under full steam and headed into the shallows, and are in danger of running aground. We are trying to fight an insurgency with an army equipped with tactics and weaponry that do not fit the field of battle. Choose a metaphor of your own; bottom-line is painfully clear – the learning game has changed, and our tactics and methodologies that worked so well in a traditional “training war” are not as effective in a non-traditional battle called “informal learning”. Our tactics need to shift because we no longer serve the expanded scope of the knowledge worker’s environment. In fact, we face the challenge to re-shape, and in some cases, create a continuous learning environment. Our rules of engagement have to expand (or shift) to accommodate a new field of battle and a potential imbalance of focus. (See Figure 1.1)

Figure 1.1

The concept of WORK CONTEXT represents the lion’s share of a continuous learning environment when we consider aggregate opportunity to learn. Obviously, the aggregate is not limited to classroom or on-line venues we depend on to deliver formal training. Learning is not shifting into the work context – it is catching up. We are behind the flow of business, and many of us build design and develop solutions for the bigger slice of the learning opportunity pie. Not only does that change our rules of engagement, it changes our approach to discovery.

Expanded Scope of Discovery

If knowledge workers are not in training, they must be at work. I suppose in order for Figure 1.1 to be completely accurate, there should be a third slice labeled “off-task” or more accurately “goofing off”. Even if we include that third slice, the bigger slice of the pie remains work context. In the August 14th post, “The Learning Continuum – Using the PDR Design Model” I introduced you to the concept of expanded discovery that should precede application of the traditional instructional design model – ADDIE. In that post, I shared the moments of learning need that our learners will confront both inside an outside of the classroom. (See Figure 1.2)

Figure 1.2

If we (as professional designers and trainers) are successful in expanding our focus from the learning event and successful transfer of knowledge and skills, we will find the learner in the crosshairs. With the learner truly serving as our new target, it is easy to see why the five moments of learning need re-define our focus. Within those five moments, we traditionally spend our time and energy in the first two moments – the domain of formal learning – the smallest slice of the learning pie. Our greatest opportunity awaits our design, development, and delivery support in the last three moments of need. The type of learning that is rapidly trending upward is informal learning. The shift is on, and we find ourselves either pushed or pulled into the work context.

Rules of engagement have changed. My choice of new tactics is applying the concept of a learning continuum that takes a holistic approach to the whole learning pie, and at the same time, embracing the potential of five different moments of learning need. (See Figure 1.3)

Figure 1.3

The smaller slice of the learning pie represents the first two learning moments. It also represents the Prepare and Deploy phases of the PDR Model. Most training organizations do this very well, and application of the traditional design models (i.e. ADDIE) serve as a comprehensive approach. Unfortunately, the work context is where we find alignment of the Reinforce phase – right in the heart of the work context. Training industry pundit Josh Bersin shared research during “The Future of the Business of Learning” that indicated the rapid increase in the use of informal learning. When we take a holistic look at the entire “pie”, it is easy to see why.

Environmental Attributes in the Work Context

Once again, our point of focus is on the learner – not the learning – and more importantly, the measurable outcome(s) we expect the learner to produce. I will not rehash the role of the PDR Model in this post; rather, I would like to show you a completed template that integrates the continuous nature of PDR within the work context. Before we can integrate the PDR Model, we need to understand the attributes of the learning environment that influence design, development, and delivery decisions.

These attributes represent a significant share of the expanded discovery effort, and they can be bundled into three groupings that surface in our expanded discovery:
• Space – a blend of physical location, workflow, risk and urgency
• Media – the most compelling mix of mode and venue
• Systems – the most effective and efficient application of technology

These three groupings, comprised of a number of environmental attributes, are not exactly on equal footing. A distinct relationship of hierarchical dependency exists. Of the three groupings, Space is primary and describes critical attributes of the work context that can influence Media. Attributes of Space and Media then combine to drive Systems. Notice how two other learning environment groupings drive Systems requirements, versus Systems serving as a key driver. That relationship is worth more time in a future post, but for the sake of this document, we will settle on the hierarchical dependencies that surface along the PDR learning continuum. Permit me to use another metaphor to describe the relationship among these three groupings.

Envision throwing a stone onto the surface of a perfectly still pond. As we watch, concentric rings of disruption begin to expand outward toward the periphery. Where the stone strikes the surface is ground zero. The periphery is not hard-wired to ground zero, but it is wholly dependant upon (influenced by) the conditions stemming from whenever and wherever a ground zero event erupts. This metaphor represents what happens when a learning moment of need erupts along the learning continuum. The relationship of Space to that of Media and Systems is the equivalent of ground zero to the periphery of the pond. Everything starts from the point of impact – the learner’s moment of need. If we define Space by the descriptive attributes of the stone that created ground zero, Media and Systems are the periphery and influenced by the attributes of the stone that created ground zero. The size and weight of the stone, angle of entry, velocity on impact, and where it landed will influence the periphery.

PDR in Action

Following is a template (See Figure 1.4) that shows a training scenario that has both the PDR Model applied as well as the attributes of the work context. I will use a sales training scenario from the Pharma industry to serve as our example, and just for the record, Product Development and Product Marketing conspired to throw the stone.

Let us first examine ground zero – the point of impact. An innocent phone call from Product Marketing started the chain of events we have all experienced in our training organizations. They plan to launch a new drug into the sales mix and have requested that we, the highly responsive training department, develop new product training to support the rollout. Piece o’ cake! We take calls like this everyday. If Product Marketing is true to form, the rollout is next week. Gulp! Actually, that too is another story for another time…

The traditional chain of events that unfold usually include a training needs assessment, and if memory serves me, that focused on features, functions and benefits of the new drug, the core components of any sales training effort worth its salt. Oh yes, and then there were pricing models and volume discount calculations that rivaled string theory. Do not forget the complexity of actually placing an order into the system, which by the way, is also a brand new user interface…and remember; there will be no training during business hours. We sell product during business hours – not take training. This is not a drill. Can you hear the claxon horns going off and the scramble to battle stations?

Everything happens like a well-oiled machine. The designers assess and design; developers develop; trainers train; learners learn; and sustainers…wait a second…who said anything about sustaining? We have our level one evaluations that say we excelled. We have level two evaluations that confirm knowledge transfer. We have done our part.

Sound familiar? If we consider our job finished upon graduation from training (formal learning), our job may really be “done” when our evaluations can only confirm training activity instead of learning impact in the form of sustainable results.

Figure 1.4

How to read the Matrix: The matrix provides learning environment attributes down the left side with key discovery points posed as questions. Across and aligned with each attribute, the three phases of the PDR Model are shown. Note how the answers vary within each phase of the learning continuum despite association with the same attribute.

If our task (and it should head in this direction) is to drive sustainable results through a continuous learning environment, the scope of our discovery efforts just got bigger. The design focus shifts from the learning solution to the learner and the environment where they learn – the environment where they confront one or more of their learning moments of need – the work context.

The results of that discovery drive an iterative approach to the use of ADDIE. I do not want to imply that this means we apply the entire ADDIE model in consecutive iterations; rather, we consider design decisions (within the model) as many times as the attributes of the learner’s work context change with the learner’s transit of the Learning Continuum.

Learning Space Discovery

Learning Space is at the heart of the work context and is at the top of the hierarchy when it comes to shaping influence across the rest of the continuum. This fact alone is why we center our focus on the learner and not the learning.
• Who are the stakeholders? In a holistic approach to continuous learning, the stakeholders range from the learner, designers, facilitators, managers, mentors, colleagues, help desk, and even clients or customers. The learner may be at ground zero, but who works on the periphery, and what role in the learning moment(s) do they play? From a design perspective, we may have different content solutions depending on the stakeholder role that must be satisfied. If we plan carefully, we just may be able to re-use content or re-purpose it for different stakeholders. The key point here; the environment is bigger than the learner is.
• Where are the stakeholders physically located when they confront their learning moment of need? In a controlled training environment, we know where the learners will be. In this example, the learner (the sales rep) is on the road during the Prepare phase handling their pre-work. In the Deploy phase, they are in a hotel room enjoying a distance-learning event after hours while colleagues at Corporate are in a physical classroom with the instructor. After training, in the Reinforce phase, the sales rep is back on the road. Their manager and help desk personnel are desk-bound at corporate.
• Where are the stakeholders in their workflow when they confront their moment of learning need? This one is a little trickier. The learner may be directly engaged in their work (i.e. sitting in front of a potential client), or totally disengaged (i.e. driving to their next appointment). This example shows the learner listening to a podcast while driving during the Prepare phase. After training (Deploy), the learner is selling back in the field in the Reinforce phase. This phase is where we have a huge opportunity to promote sustained performance. The learner is in their workflow (work context) and moments of learning need must be satisfied at the point of attack with targeted learning objects that support their WORK as well as their learning. A perfect example in this selling situation is a competitive product matrix that is downloadable for a blackberry for the reps use, or to a laptop for live presentation to the client.
• What is the level of business urgency? What is the risk attached to flawless execution? Typically, urgency and risk are not significant factors in Prepare and Deploy. In the Reinforce phase; however, or in the work context, flawless execution can have a direct impact on revenue generation from closing a successful sale. The usability and relevance to a job aid (PSO) goes up dramatically when flawless execution attaches significant risk (loss of business, loss of life, injury, excessive material waste, etc). At this level, we can acquire expanded discovery through interviews with top sales reps (or SMEs), sales managers, possibly even clients themselves. Without fully understanding the performance expectations within the learner’s work context, we will be hard-pressed to develop relevant PSOs that serve the dual work/learning role.

Learning Media Discovery

Now that we have defined the work context, we have parameters that give us the lines to color within as we select authoring tools, rich media components that will work within the venues acceptable within the work context of the learner at their moment of need.
• What is the most compelling mix of mode and venue? Consider every variance of the learner’s physical location in each of the PDR phases, and add in where the learner is in the midst of their workflow:
o Prepare – in their car/disengaged/no urgency/no risko Deploy – in training/higher level of engagement/low urgency & risk
o Reinforce – in front of potential client/maximum urgency/ maximum risk
Can you see how urgency and need to perform flawlessly point to consumption of smaller objectized learning assets during Reinforce, and yet very different media works better in Prepare and Deploy?
• Authoring Tool Selection – Note how the authoring tool selection changed based upon the physical location across the continuum – from creating steaming audio to PowerPoint with embedded video, to PSO job aids to share with the client during the sales call.
• Source/Re-use/Re-Purposing – We must also weave these considerations into authoring tool selection. Critical to maximizing re-use is recognizing the work context in which the learning assets are used. If that is not identified, we leave ourselves open for redundant design efforts and time-consuming re-work.
• What is optimal size of the learning objects? – Here again, we must have advance knowledge of the work context. We cannot stream a 15-minute program to a sales rep in front of a client. The learning moment has a dual role of illustrating a feature function learning moment for the client. Having that foresight as a designer implies they are intimate with the selling process and the challenges inherent in overcoming objections.

Learning Systems Discovery

The final grouping of attributes can turn out to be more restrainer than driver when, as in this example, we plan to stream audio to MP3 players in the hands of sales reps. First, we have to have the technology in place to stream audio; and second, the field sales reps must have MP3 players in their possession. Streamed audio likely came out of a decision that considered burning CDs as an alternative. My point is this – supporting a continuous learning environment and the capability to do so wind up being the driver of technology decisions. If buying bright shiny technology and then trying to adapt learning to it is the approach, work context was likely not a consideration on the front end.
• End-user Devices – Going back to the stakeholder audience, keep in mind the learner is not the only end-user in this equation. For simplicity, I have only addressed the learner in the template. Notice how we use a different end-user technology in each PDR phase.
• Delivery Systems – Keep in mind that delivery does not always mean we are “pushing” learning assets to the learner. The just-in-time nature of PSOs implies that the learner may be the point of originating a request to “pull” an asset into their work context for immediate consumption.
• Network Access – Whether push or pull or both, the implication is that the learner has available and adequate bandwidth to accomplish the transaction. Designing an embedded, high bandwidth video into a learning asset that may be queries in a questionable bandwidth situation may not be a good idea. If the video is that critical and the learner is mobile (untethered), a DVD may be the better choice.
• Access to Content – Seamless, frictionless, and ubiquitous would be a good place to wind up regarding access. While that may be nirvana for many, our task is to get the right learning into the right hands at the right time and in the right amount. Where it resides must be easily accessible. Why make a learner log into the LMS, re-launch a training course to page through to a useful matrix? Access should be direct link accessible to a content repository outside of the LMS to support the Reinforce phase of the continuum.
• Utilization and Tracking – Through Prepare and Deploy, we pretty much have tracking nailed. Unfortunately, we track activity, not results. Head downstream from the classroom in the Reinforce phase, and tracking is limited to gossip and rumors if we do not proactively survey or interview learners. Within the Reinforce phase is our greatest opportunity to gather intelligence or harvest effectiveness and relevance on PSOs and other assets used within the work context. Harvesting (moderating) actually becomes a job role when social media is utilized and communities of practice begin to blossom. Harvesting best practices becomes an essential take of training because the re-design engine should continually inject improvements and discoveries from the field into both formal learning content and informal repositories and communities.

Summary Thoughts

I realize this has been a whirlwind look at the PDR learning continuum compounded by attributes of work context and learning context. The abbreviated template suits limited display of thought in this limited venue, but hopefully, the idea of addressing a multi-faceted learning continuum came across. In addition, I hope you were able to see how ADDIE still works but in an iterative way. Training traditions remain safe, though where growth is most prevalent is downstream from our comfort zone.

Any way you slice it, the role of training has expanded beyond the well-worn boundaries of tradition. With that growth there arises the need for expanded skills and competencies within the training organization. Consultative skills necessary to question and discern the true nature of the work context is paramount. Relationship building with the line managers and top performers are essential, for within their world does the business machine run. Intimate knowledge of workflows and processes are critically important. A working knowledge of technology capabilities and limitations are critical to making valid design decisions. Gone are the days when the target was comprised of completed modules and delivered content with acceptable evaluations, and with it went budget and funding.

The shift to a continuous learning environment is as much about saving the training department as it is driving sustained capability within the workforce. We have to point to more than learning activity to justify our existence and worthiness of budget dollars. We should have line of sight into results and affects enabled and sustained through consumption of our learning assets. Sadly, those that matter most are downstream from where we spend a majority of our time. The sooner we embrace the 95% of a learner’s time to learn informally, the better off we will be.

The Learning Continuum – Using the PDR Design Model

Many of us cut our professional learning design teeth using the long-held tradition of the ADDIE instructional design (ISD) model. In our blogosphere I have heard how “old school”, and in some cases, how obsolete this foundational design model from the 1960s has become. If age denotes obsolescence, then I am in trouble for sure. Obsolescence can be averted when a willingness to change, a willingness to re-think, to re-apply proven methodologies is baked into the model. With that open-minded mentality, I confess to listening to the debate and wondering if the ADDIE model really is falling short, or if our application of it is worthy of re-examination. Somewhere in my past, I recall a nameless face saying, “If we continue to do what we’ve always done, we’ll continue to get what we always got.” – or something along those lines. Insightful words to be sure, certainly not an overt indictment of ADDIE. I must qualify my defense of ADDIE by recognizing its validity as long as the environment where applied has not morphed beyond the scope of intended use. The “environment” I reference is manifest in the new face of where we learn – our learning environment.

I recently had the honor to participate as a panelist in the July 27, 2009 online discussion sponsored by Learning Trends, ISA, and Training Magazine Network. The half-day event, hosted by Tony Karrer, Jay Cross, Harold Jarche, and Ray Jimenez, examined “The Future of the Business of Learning”. In the first hour-long segment, an Industry Perspectives panelist, Josh Bersin made an observation that validated one significant trend in particular – the rapid increase in the use of informal learning. Countless definitions of informal learning exist, and from what I can see, they are all consistent in application – learning that takes place outside of formal learning venues like training in the classroom or online (e-learning). Popular phrases like “just-in-time” learning, or as I like to call it, Performer Support, fall under the category of learning informally. It is important to include many venues beyond “job aids” and object-oriented solutions as informal. We should also embrace the role of subject matter experts (SMEs), knowledge bases, coaching/mentoring, and the collaborative benefits of social media.

Probably the most significant observation Josh made seemed to me to represent a “call-to-action” more so than validation of a trend. He described a dire need for us, as learning professionals, to embrace the concept of learning environments. As training departments go, most are not equipped to sustain a learning environment. Not to sound contradictory, but we all have a learning environment. The problem we face is composition. How dependant is our “environment” on the application of traditional training? Josh shared a factoid that an employee spends 4% of their time in “formal learning”– a.k.a. training. My math tells me employees spend 96% of their time working. This is extremely significant because our workers are confronted by moments of learning need more often in their work context than they are in the classroom or online. In their work context is where informal learning opportunities surface as best of breed learning solutions. These informal solutions better serve individualized needs flavored by varying degrees of immediacy and business risk when flawless performance is required.

I would take Josh’s learning environment suggestion one-step further and recommend that it should be a continuous learning environment (CLE). If 96% of a worker’s time is continuously engaged in their work context, so then should their opportunity to learn be as continuous. To accomplish this CLE, we must sustain a holistic view of the work context as the source for learning moments of need. The challenge is that my moment of need may not match yours. Compound that single variance across multiple job roles and work functions, and you can see why there is a need for holistic discovery around the work context to consider in the design of learning solutions. So what do we do? We whip out ADDIE and complete a knowledge and skills-oriented, training needs assessment and storyboard a solution on a pre-determined authoring platform to publish to the LMS. Bingo, another training event is unleashed, targeted to the 4% that has little to do with the 96% that matters most – where sustained capability is the only real relevant measure of success.

Presence of the “96%” does not mean ADDIE is obsolete. It means ADDIE is not enough, at least not when its application is limited in its original intent of creating linear training solutions. Training, in any delivery venue you choose to use (F2F, on-line, synchronous, asynchronous, etc), represents only one item from column A of the “Chinese menu” of learning. The learning meal must satisfy the hunger of our knowledge workers, and they need the ability (the individualized freedom) to choose more solutions that cater to their respective hungers. Freedom to choose from column B implies that something exists there as well. Column B is loaded with consumable objects like Performer Support, on-line access to subject-matter experts, discussion forums, and a host of new social media solutions. In other words, training by itself is no longer serving as a balanced learning diet, especially when satisfying the hunger means we are sustaining human performance.

The PDR Model
The PDR Model does not replace ADDIE; quite to the contrary – it includes it. The PDR Model embraces the context of a holistic CLE, and it does that by superimposing a learning continuum as a framework for designing a diverse menu of learning. The key foundation of using PDR directs our design, development, and delivery efforts to align with the learner’s work context. Before going any deeper, I will briefly define the three phases of the PDR Model. (See Figure 1.1)
• Preparation – the learning phase where the objective is to provide activities that contribute to a state of readiness in the learner.
• Deployment – the learning phase where the objective is to deliver formal learning assets to the learner.
• Reinforcement – the learning phase where the objective is to implement learning into the learner’s work context to drive measurable, sustainable performance.

Figure 1.1

When you look at the illustration in Figure 1.1, you will quickly recognize that we all do a good job of handling both Prepare and Deploy phases on the learning continuum. Prepare can be synonymous with “pre-work” which could mean completion of an on-line course as a pre-requisite for a formal classroom program that takes place in the Deploy phase. That would represent our traditional approach. Look beyond that to pre-training activities that require the learner to complete some non-training activity like filling out a profile on one client from their database to utilize in class. Another perfect example might require visiting a knowledge base and compete in a scavenger hunt for valuable prizes awarded in a future Deploy event. The underlying point in the Prepare phase is to raise the learner’s readiness to maximize what comes next along the continuum.

If the Prepare phase is successful, we have already covered much of the theory, fact, and definitions that no longer need classroom or online learning time when we move to Deploy. Short of a quick review, we spend our time focusing on the application of learning. Emphasis can now be hands-on, practice in a safe environment, simulations, and all things experiential. Here is where we address the work context in the form of using tools or other Performer Support in exercises that emulate the work environment where the learner must use the tool effectively back on the job. Deploy represents a safe environment in which to fail. Notice the thread of continuity that exists from Prepare to Deploy:
• The learner used the knowledge base (tool) in a scavenger hunt in Prepare
• The learner used the knowledge base (tool) in a job emulation exercise in Deploy

Okay, we have completed pre-work – the classroom event is complete, and what do we do next? Sure, we have the participants fill out the smile sheet (level 1 evaluation) and complete a testing assessment with a passing score (level 2 evaluation) and administer their graduation tattoo and turn them loose into the work environment with best wishes. Then what do we do? Right, we wonder why sustained performance back on the job does not match the promises from perfectly legitimate level 2 evaluations. So then what do we do? Certainly, we fire the training vendor for inferior product and/or lousy delivery and re-design the training for another formal learning ablution. Well, maybe not everyone does that, but I have worked for companies in the past where we re-applied training until the learners “got it” – no matter how ineffectual it was.

We all have heard the rumors of how quickly learning retention drops off upon learner’s leaving the classroom or logging off the completed online training course. (See Figure 1.2 below)

Figure 1.2

Performer Support is a valuable component for driving a sustained capability, although it serves as only part of what we find in the third phase of the continuum – Reinforcement. This third phase is where many training departments begin to tread on virgin territory. The use of job aids is not a new concept. I wonder, though, how many of us design them in as a thread of continuity – from introduction in Prepare, to practice in emulation exercises in Deploy, and then integrate into the work context in Reinforce? On more than one occasion, I have witnessed the insertion of job aids as a reactive development effort when the formal training did not produce sustainable results. They were not designed into a continuum – they were designed based on post-performance failure.

Notice the dotted line in the Figure 1.1 separating Prepare and Deploy from Reinforcement. This line represents the separation between the comfort zone of our traditional training department role from the expanded approach required to build a CLE – a continuous learning environment. The post-training work context involves more human resources than the workers who work in it. Consider the role of a manager offering coaching. Were coaching materials part of the learning solution design? Consider the role of the Help Desk. Were job aids they can “push” to the worker on-demand part of the learning solution design? Were knowledge bases with FAQs part of the design? Were there ever any intentions to capture and harvest best practices at some point in the future? Do the skills even exist within the training department to accomplish a root cause diagnostic when a performance gap surfaces?

These are tough questions, and they serve as entrance criteria for building a continuous learning environment. The PDR Model supports a continuum. So what makes it continuous? Notice in Figure 1.1 that the Reinforce phase serves as a source as much as it does a destination on the continuum. Harvesting best practices and feedback on relevance and effectiveness of tools feeds the design/re-design engine that enables new or improved Performer Support that gets baked into the introduction of “new” tools in the Prepare phase for the next learners. Accurate root cause diagnosis of performance gaps that surface in the work context serves as new targets for additional knowledge, skills, and capabilities to support learners along the continuum to improve performance.

Work Context
All three phases in the PDR Model are susceptible to CLE attributes of the learner’s work context. In addition, the moments of learning need (See Figure 1.3) will be variables that have potential to impact design decisions. Are there more than five moments of need? Hard as I have tried, I come up empty. Everything I can think of fits in one of these five for the most part. Why these moments of need are so critical is simply that my moment of need does not imply that you will have the same moment, at least not at the same time or to the same degree. Designing a learning solution becomes a moving target if individualization is part of the solution.

Figure 1.3

Formal learning – training scenarios – are often where we experience the first two learning moments. The last three are where we find informal learning most effective. It is no coincidence that moments 3, 4, & 5 are in the work context. Recall Josh Bersin’s observation that the application of informal learning is increasing at a rapid pace. The most effective learning is finding its way closer to the point of work. One of the hottest technologies today is the Electronic Performance Support System (EPSS), and it targets learning moments 3 through 5, not only in the work context, but also in some cases, right in the middle of an application process or workflow.

Permit me to provide some substance around work context. Following are several discovery questions that may be more effective in directing your thinking about what this context includes than paragraphs of well-crafted definitions. I choose to go in this direction because every work context is as different as the learner who is engaged in it.

Consider these discovery questions:
1. What are the learner’s existing capabilities and experiences?
2. What are the knowledge and skill requirements for flawless execution of task?
3. What is the functional job role of the learner?
4. What are the circumstances around urgency or duress related to effective task completion?
5. What is the degree of business risk attached to flawless execution?
6. Where is the worker physically located in their moment of learning need?
7. What are the technology and connectivity implications based upon #6
8. What is the most effective media blend to support performance based on #1-6?
9. What does a sustained capability render that is tangible and measurable?

Routine consideration of this short list of questions should precede application of the ADDIE instructional design model. You may see #2 as a familiar part of the “A” in ADDIE, but notice it is contextualized to task-level behavior as opposed to targeting satisfaction of learning objectives. Again, it sounds like I am bashing the institution of ADDIE as a valid approach to design, but hear me out. ADDIE works for formal training, and it can support informal learning as well when used to support a learning continuum. We easily see the “fit” in Prepare and Deploy phases, but Reinforcement is outside of traditional design scope and presents a challenge. Expanded discovery and an iterative application of ADDIE can overcome the challenges inherent in holistically designing a solution for any work context on a learning continuum.

Expanded Design Scope
We have already examined expanded discovery in the list of questions above. Obviously, there are more than I listed, but these set the tone as essential points of root discovery. The learning environment is larger in scope than the variability we have addressed in the work context. In reality, the nature of the learning environment drives the need to iterate when using ADDIE. Take question #6 from the list above and answer it from the perspective of the PDR Model. Can you see where the learner may actually reside in three or more discrete physical locations as they complete each phase? What about their connectivity to learning assets? Urgency? Risk?

We have a certain sense of control over learning variables when we have control over the environment. Recall Josh Bersin’s comment that workers spend only 4% of their time in formal learning activities. Well, guess what? That 4% is about the extent of our span of control over the environment. Graduate the learner into the jaws of their work context and your span of control is history, but the need for your design skills is at an all time high. Do we answer the call with our approach we depend on today? Are we spending any time designing for the 96% where learning moments 3 through 5 are manifest?

Given the learner could be in different locales, does it not follow that the choice of media – authoring tool(s) – the availability of network access (or not) – the technology in their possession (or not) – might have bearing on our design decisions? Absolutely it does.

This is the variability to consider iterations of ADDIE – during Prepare – during Deploy – and during Reinforce.

So far, all I have addressed is the learner in the equation of consuming learning assets. How does the learning access them across the phases of the continuum? The designer has a burden of responsibility to consider all the learning stakeholders engaged in the learning environment. Consider these stakeholders in support of the learner:
• Managers or mentors who coach – What learning assets are required in support of their role?
• Trainers, facilitators who teach – What learning assets are essential for their role?
• Help Desk who supports real-time – What learning assets are required to support on-demand requests?
• Peer/colleagues who collaborate – What social venues do we support – moderate – harvest for best practices to build into future learning assets?
• ISDs who design – What expanded competencies do they need related to initial discovery, root cause analysis, work context definition, and technology awareness?
• Clients/Customers who generate revenue – What learning assets are appropriate for them in the context of changed behavior in-house?

Closing Thoughts
The list above addresses supporting the learner in the learning environment and along the learning continuum. I have not even begun to address where the stakeholder population may actually be [located] when the learner’s moment of need arises, have not addressed the optimal media blend, or the technology and connectivity implications for the stakeholder population either. All of that may be unleashed in a future post. For now, I will remove my knees from your chest and allow you to get up. It is funny how I always wind up apologizing for my passion and the resulting momentum when I get on the CLE roll. The “Future of the Business of Learning” panel did nothing to squelch the inertia behind my passions; rather, I saw it as a shot across the bow of all training organizations.

Re-inventing our training approach to expand skills and scope to address the fluidity of a continuous learning environment are not just a good idea. I am convinced sustained employment is in the mix too. If our departments do not contribute to the bottom line, we are at risk every time budget review rolls around and examined for potential for return on investment. It scares me to think that the funding we are lucky enough to get focuses on only 4% of the learner’s time on the job. Our re-invention needs to be on the other 96% where the learning environment supports continuous learning. This concept of a learning continuum and the PDR Model provides a viable framework for re-invention.

I hope this post has been helpful and has stimulated some expanded thinking. I welcome any all conversations that may come forth.

Where we think, work, and share together – we learn.
G.

The Death of Training: Rumors Have Been Greatly Exaggerated

Chances are good that I have contributed to those rumors, though not with an inkling of anything resembling malicious intent. Several of the professional groups I have joined through LinkedIn yield consistent discussion themes that register concern for the future of training. The concern comes from a cross-section of trainers, designers, training managers, and vendors. You would think tough economic times are a driver behind why this concern exists. I agree, but only in part. We were seeing signs of this before the economy went bust. Tough times have just turned up the light shining on a significant opportunity. Agreed, training budgets are shrinking and free-lance trainers and owners of training companies are wringing their hands searching for the next big thing. So…what is the next big thing in the world of training? Okay, here comes an opinion, not to be confused as rumor – The next big thing will not be manifest in the scope of training.

My point is this – training is no longer our primary source of viable learning. Here is another rumor I will attempt to debunk – The role of training is diminishing. Well…not so. Here is why I think not. Compare the size of the earth to the moon, and we can easily see the earth is larger. Compare the earth to the sun and the earth is no longer the largest object. Our point of reference, when limited to earth and moon, sets a standard for comparison. This remains a viable standard if the scope is limited to the earth and the moon. Open up the scope to include the sun and what we perceived as large is now small. Did the earth shrink? Not at all, what grew was our frame of reference. That frame of reference grew in scope similar to expansion in scope when we consider the role training plays in a continuous learning environment.

In the course of following several key blogs and actively collaborating and contributing to at least as many communities of learning professionals, I find my depth of perception and the richness of perspective on current issues and trends alive and well, growing in a wealth of diversity of thought. I am living in learning. We all are. We wake up each day in a continuous learning environment. For me, that is the new future – that is the next big thing. Rarely in this diverse mix of professional perspective and collaborative dialog am I engaged in training. However,that does not mean training has outlived its usefulness, or as has been rumored, given up the ghost. Training has not shrunk in importance. Training is not going away. We have to frame our reference with the expanded scope that integrates the continuous learning environment, its exponential growth, and no signs of slowing down.

Training is still the same “size”, but the frame of reference now includes rich diversity we find in numerous venues and methodologies that enable learning – continuously. In an earlier writing, I described the composition of continuous learning as:
• Training – knowledge and skills acquired through formal learning venues
• Information – capability supported through just-in-time informal learning venues
• Knowledge – experience enriched through collaboration and community venues

The scope of continuous learning includes training. I suppose we could say, by comparison, the importance of training has decreased, but I am not convinced that is a true statement. There are some venues where training and all the instructional design methodologies to create it (a.k.a. ADDIE) are, and will continue, to be viable contributions to learning. Training did not shrink, the world of learning exploded in size around it.

Many compliance thresholds require formal training classes or verifiable on-line certifications. Some aspects of on-boarding and new hire orientation programs are most effective in a live classroom setting. You may be able to rattle off others specific to your own industry or profession. I do not see radical change happening here. The point is, training is alive and well within its own frame of reference. Methinks the source of these nasty rumors regarding the health of training are more about the validity of learning’s expanded frame of reference than the training discipline framed by it.

If anything is in danger of dying, it is the budgetary funding of training organizations that do not expand their frame of reference to include continuous learning. Training has company – information and knowledge – in this world of learning we live in. The internet is open 24/7 and by virtue of that, so is access to information and knowledge. Throw in wireless availability and access to information and knowledge is virtually ubiquitous. Our role in the training department and our learning solutions must render venues that support training and meet the information and knowledge requirements of our learners in their work context.

To do that our perspective must move beyond the comfort zone of designing solutions limited to enabling knowledge and skills. Our end game must extend to direct linkage to the post-training domain of levels three and four evaluation – impact to performance and to the business. Both of these points of impact are downstream from the frame of reference of training. Where we often come up short is recognizing the learning value inherent in both information and knowledge that play such a critical role sustaining capability in that downstream environment. Traditional training roles do not automatically extend downstream. While it is true we plant seeds of knowledge and skills, we do little to cultivate post-training performance results , and we do less (or nothing at all) to harvest the fruits of working knowledge that evolve into valuable, re-usable best practices. We should actively harvest this crop for processing into our formal training to keep it fresh and current.

We find ourselves, in our traditional training roles, missing in action right where we need to be – in the middle of the learner’s work context. Obviously, we cannot ride shotgun through our learner’s day as they do their work, but we could be better prepared in knowing about the demands of that workday when we design our training solutions. Implications abound that our approach to learning discovery must expand to include the downstream work context in order to inject the necessary threads of continuity that extend beyond the classroom. In other words, information and knowledge are not mutually exclusive learning assets from those we design to satisfy the training component (knowledge and skills) in a continuous learning environment.

All three components are critical to producing a sustained capability. We all can take comfort in knowing that we supplement capability by designing in and delivering the correct knowledge and skills. Therein, training is safe. The value we, as training organizations, must generate, resides in the greatest learning opportunities downstream in the work context. Therein we find our greatest risk and exposure to become the source of future rumors. The worst thing that could happen is what we are all wishing for – a resurgent economy. If the velocity of business takes off and we do not anticipate what that means to the work context in a downsized workforce – the results of hiring new workers faced with steep learning curves to competency – we are in deep doo-dah. Then the rumors of the death of training may become reality – not from becoming non-essential, but from a massive heart attack while trying to keep pace with the velocity of work.

Training Must Swim to the Current to Survive

Can a training organization be like a river? Believe it or not, there are some amazing similarities, and some shared characteristics require positioning, or re-positioning the organization’s value proposition to remain in the flow. This short post looks at critical need for training organizations to be in the mainstream current or prepare for treatment reserved for flotsam stuck and swirling in the eddies.

I live near the Ohio River, and from a distance, it appears just like any other river, arcing bends and a docile, lazy current. The closer one gets, the more revealing the true diversity of the river’s flow. In the end game, the Ohio joins the Mississippi to contribute to the Gulf of Mexico. How the water of the Ohio winds up in the Gulf is where I see so many similarities to the flow, or the lack thereof, of our training organizations.

In the center of the river, we find a strong downstream current. I do not see much difference between that powerful area of current and the flow of critical business operations. Anything floating on the water moves most effectively when it remains aligned in the heart of the current. Moving toward the edges, we find the distraction of crosscurrents, swirling whirlpools or eddies, and debris snagged on protruding tree roots.

ed⋅dy - [ed-ee] noun, plural -dies, verb, -died, -dy⋅ing.
1. a current at variance with the main current in a stream of liquid or gas, esp. one having a rotary or whirling motion
2. a small whirlpool
3. any similar current, as of air, dust, or fog
4. a current or trend running counter to the main current

Things that remain in the strongest current tend to be there not by accident, but by intent. A motor, a sail, fins, or flippers propel intention into the power of the current. It requires effort and constant course correction to remain aligned with the primary current. For simplicity, I consider virtually everything else floating along or lingering uselessly by the edges as flotsam.

flot⋅sam - [flot-suh m] noun
1. the part of the wreckage of a ship and its cargo found floating on the water
2. material or refuse floating on water
3. useless or unimportant items; odds and ends
4. a vagrant, penniless population: the flotsam of the city slums in medieval Europe.

I have chosen both of these definitions to make a point more so than spelling out what we already know about these two common words. The eddy, in particular, is a phenomenon that is all too prevalent in training organizations today. Using the definition above, I point to misalignment of training outcomes with mainstream business performance requirements as representing the variance with the main current. An eddy typically does not move downstream with the main current; thus, it is counter to the overall “mission” of draining into the Gulf. The whirling motion is the perfect illustration of remaining busy with training but not contributing significant value to the primary business mission. In a sense, we are stuck in the eddy of traditional training and falling short of sustaining the business, and it is not working well, nor is it working consistently.

On July 23rd, Josh Bersin spoke as a panelist in “The Future of the Business of Learning” and shared that an employee spends 4% of their time in formal training. My math tells me that 96% of the time they are not. They are at work – out in the middle of the river – staying in the flow of business productivity. That is where our training efforts need to focus. We have to break out of the eddy of traditional training and get out into the current of work to facilitate learning in the flow of work context.

Josh also shared that his company’s research showed a dramatic increase in the use of informal learning. That research tracks with the shift we see in the movement of learning closer to the point of work – out in the middle of the business current. The flow of work – or the work context as I prefer to call it, is where learning opportunities align with our workers in the 96% part of their world. I actually read of a new definition in the July issue of CLO Magazine – “non-formal” learning – coined by independent consultant Lance Dublin[1] . Here we go! You know a concept is going to stick around when new variations of name and definition start popping up. That tells me informal or non-formal learning are not flotsam.

Some training organizations get it, but they are the minority looking out into the current to see what workers need in order to perform their job of staying within the workflow. What they are finding is not training per se. It is a “formalization” of informal learning, or to use Lance’s term – non-formal learning. The CLO article also references a recent survey sponsored by the enterprise content management (ECM) industry association AIIM (Association of Image and Information Management) [2] that found the business use of wikis, blogs, and social networks for collaboration and knowledge sharing has doubled in the past year – 25%, versus 12% in 2008 . Do you find that shocking? I am not talking about the results of the survey; I am pointing at the organization that sponsored it (AIIM).

This is why I used the word “shocking”. I joined AIIM in 2005 and went to the annual conference held in Philadelphia that year. The ECM discipline intrigued me because I had already drank the informal learning Kool-Aid. I was convinced a natural connection and a wealth of discovery awaited within the domain of AIIM. Hundreds of vendors lined the convention hall, and not even one had anything remotely connected to traditional training approaches. No one even used the “T” word. These people were from a different place. Turns out, they were from “the current” out in the middle. They not only moved with the flow of business; their solutions sustain the flow of business. I was shocked that the vendors had no interest in discussing LMS installations or even interfacing with training technologies we consider standard issue. Granted it was 2005, but man!

I one of my earliest papers, I wrote about the concept of continuous learning and described it as a hybrid of three components:
– Training – formal learning solutions
– Information – direct access to assets that may include informal learning
– Knowledge – collaborative engagements where best practice sharing happens

I share this because the ECM culture focuses on the last two components – not the first – not training. They did not verbally, nor through any of their sales collateral, make inferences to supporting learning applications. It blew me away. Then it dawned on me, eventually, that they were entrenched in their work context and we are not. We [training] were viewed – by what should be a sister discipline – as a separate business function with a separate portfolio of technology. When I asked the Documentum representative why this was the case, he said, and with no hesitation, “We have enough to deal with without adding in the complexities of training. We don’t get into those kinds of HR functions.”

My first reaction was to think how clueless this person was. I never considered that he looked back at me thinking the same thing. From where I sit, and with the increasing movement toward non-formal learning, ECM and training are like two bubbles of oil floating in a bowl of water and getting closer and closer, yet the transparent film that separates them remains intact. I still do not understand it. Maybe non-formal learning will break the film and two closely related disciplines will merge their synergies.

Should that “merge” happen tomorrow, I fear we, as training organizations, are not at a state of readiness to survive. I do not mean to imply ECM fanatics overrun training; rather, training finally comes around to the thinking perspectives of ECM. This new thinking is all about work context – the same work context where our learners confront their five moments of learning need. Our discovery disciplines need to become more ECM-like in that they focus on the work of business not just the knowledge and skills necessary to supplement performance. The discovery we need to acquire is desperately required to address informal or non-formal solutions we must deliver. We will not get there stuck in the eddy of traditional training needs assessment. The work context is out in the middle, and we are not. My suggestion is to keep swimming! If we stop – we will blend in nicely with the rest of the flotsam when budget time next rolls around. So let’s go – swim to the current!

[1 & 2] Executive Briefings, “Is It Time for Informal Learning to Go Formal?” By Mike Prokopeak, Editorial Director, Chief Learning Officer Magazine, July 2009 at http://www.clomedia.com/executive-briefings/2009/July/2685/index.php

Training to Learning – The Impossible Shift

Now that title should generate a ripple or two on the pond, especially when I have been so vocal about the need for just such a shift. So…is this post a confession that I have changed my mind? Not quite. Not even. If anything, I am more passionate than ever, but over the years, I have gotten smarter about moving around obstacles that stifle momentum rather than fight through immovable walls of opposition or resistance. My new approach requires the application of marshal arts – judo – to be more precise. No, not kicking butts, just taking the momentum of my opponents, and leveraging it to my advantage to wrestle them to the mat. Not to pin them in defeat, just hold them down long enough to hear me out – listen to evidence that this “shift” is not a threat.

Now that you have images of baggy outfits, bare feet and slamming bodies running through your head, I will get to my point. Too many pundits have been pontificating that there is a shift underway – a shift from formal training to informal learning. I beg to differ. It is NOT a shift. Instead, an expanded focus raises our scope beyond what expectations training can reasonably sustain. The slamming body part of that expanded scope only happens when the scope is not allowed to expand. The slamming in that scenario is the sound trainers make when downsized because of training shortfalls and declining training budgets. Now there is a threat worth generating a little angst over.

The expanded focus; therefore, is not a shift. Training (formal learning) will always be with us. What needs to change is the scope of our instructional design resources. They lose nothing in this scope expansion, so there is nothing to protect. The change manifests itself in the form of additional capabilities, and in most cases, those capabilities imply expanded discovery skills (like holistic work context discovery and technology implications). It is very true informal learning is dramatically increasing, and it is true that the increase is taking place outside of classrooms and online learning venues. While that change is external to formal learning, there is a huge opportunity to link these two venues (formal and informal) to improve our chances of achieving sustainable capability in our workforce – in their work context. This linkage implies we create a continuous learning environment that leverages a learning continuum through which our learners pass on their journey to competency.

Training is still part of that continuum, and it always will be. The role and construction of training solutions change when integrated with the additional components that also exist on the continuum (like informal learning assets). This linkage provides a critical thread of continuity necessary to reinforce learning in the post-training work context. Enabling this linkage implies a working knowledge of technology and media options and network connectivity options. Right there is where we step outside most instructional designer’s comfort zone. That is not offered as an indictment; rather, it is what I am whispering in their ear while I have them pinned to the mat.

Creating learning holistically on an environment level means that we design, develop, and deliver learning assets that satisfy our learner’s moments of learning need – always – and any time – from anywhere. In other words, to complicate that deliverable, we should render these assets seamlessly, frictionlessly, and ubiquitously. No problem. We just plug in our shiny, new, broadband-enabled LMSLCMSEPSSKMSDIGIMEISTER and we are off to the races. Were things only that simple. That “technology” is in pieces and parts, scattered across multiple platforms from as many vendors. Worse yet, most of these platforms still do not communicate well with each other. No problem. Throw in a portal to sort it all out and ba-da-bing, problem solved. Were it that simple – and cheap. Technology is not the answer. It may well be part of the answer, but we are not ready to ask THAT question. If we have not adapted our design and development methodologies in alignment with a continuous learning environment, we sure as HECK cannot define a viable, blended technology solution. The ready, fire, aim approach to technology acquisition can be really, really expensive when it comes to buying before being at a state of readiness to implement.

Maybe the “real” impossibility we have to overcome is our addiction to technology. We have to tear ourselves away from the lure of bright, shiny objects. Step away from the technology solution – for now – and integrate a holistic learning environment where design and development methodologies and delivery solutions support continuous learning. Once we have figured out how those components integrate into the holism of the unique work context of our workforce, the job of selecting the bright shiny things makes more sense.

So there you have it – another rant. It is not a shift in my eyes, it is an evolution that we either embrace or risk being slammed by a more terminal reality.