Category: Conferences

Reflections after being a visitor to UN HQ (New York) event

Prior to my recent visit to the UN Headquarters in New York I was not really sure what to expect. This was, in part, as it was difficult to get information online (Google seems to default to information on tourist/information tours rather than visiting for events). Therefore, I thought I would capture here:

  1. some tips for anyone attending such events for the first time (akin to a first time visitor guide)
  2. some reflections on this experience, including reflection on the UN, how to run events more generally, etc.

I should say these are from a position of ignorance – I do not have a qualification in international relations (or related discipline) so (as mentioned in the last post) these are the feelings of an “outsider” coming in. It is also fair to say that many organisations and events are confusing when you first attend and by day two many issues are resolved, this is true enough for a lot of the below but I thought there was some value in capturing this before I forget my time there.

The event I attended did have an “information note” of 17 pages. I will try and avoid repeating what was in that although I did find that too long, repetitive in places and (alas) inclusive of information that is not really needed anymore (e.g. information on local currency is Googleable – far better to focus on what is really needed and unique to the event/venue).

Things to know before you go

1: Passes/security

As you would likely expect, you need a pass to get through security. There are then some internal security areas you can and can not access based on your pass (for example you can get from the gift shop areas to the conference rooms but not beyond into the secretariat office space).

Temporary day passes for event: I was offered a one-day pass as I was presenting. It is worth knowing these seem to be deployed by UN staff literally handing them out by the guest entrance at the time they tell you to be there. How this works in bad weather I have no idea but when I was there you could see people handing out passes by the gate most mornings.

Longer term passes: as travel was an issue for me I wanted to register for the bigger event, rather than just go to present and then leave. This required registration online and there were multiple options – it was not clear to me which option was the correct one so you need to hope someone in your organisation is okay with UN-lingo and can guide you (kudos also to my side event’s UNITAR contact for helping with questions).

Once you are registered you have to attend the UN pass office, this is advertised as being open from 9:00-16:00 (Mon-Friday) and is roughly across the street from the entrance (although not with great signage and in one of the more rundown entrances, not a swanky building that many UN offices appear to be from the outside). When I arrived at 08:45ish, there was already a line being dealt with. Therefore, go as soon as you can, some people even mentioned they got their passes on the Sunday, I can not confirm if this is possible but it would 100% make sense for them to open on a Sunday before a big event. When I left at 09:30ish the line was out the door and down the street, none of those people outside will have made the opening session that started at 10:00. The line is slow moving but there is free Wi-Fi within the pass office. It is relatively painless to get the pass – you show your registration confirmation and passport. Note you get a photo taken there (I think you had to upload a photo in advance but this is not used for the pass) that is printed onto the pass (although the webcam approach to taking pictures was not great, I was too tall and had to duck whilst I saw other people who were too short for the setup).

Entrance security: Security guards at the gate do check you against your photo so if you are one of those people who changes hair, glasses, beard, etc a lot your photo might become out-of-date. I kept forgetting to take my sunglasses off much to the annoyance of the security guards. Unfortunately the entrance security does not differentiate between groups coming on tours and those attending events, therefore, I got stuck behind a large group of teenagers on one day which slowed passing through the airport-style scanners. Basically you do not want to be in a rush and should allocate plenty of time.

Pass returns: this was an odd experience – passes have an expiry date printed on the front (the Friday of the week for me) and instructions on the back insisting passes are returned. However, when I tried to return the pass on the Thursday, when I no longer needed it, I was told to keep it for any future events. This seems bad on multiple levels – the instructions on the card are wrong, the plastic cards are seemingly not recycled and presumably there is a level of security risk too. I presume the idea is that you can bring an old card for future renewals if you go again?

2: The UN as an organisation

The side events and different things going on during the week seemed very siloed, asking questions of UN staff seemed to reinforce this. Whilst those of us on the outside might think of the “UN” it is clear those more ‘in the know’ will see a series of entities. This is not unique to the UN, of course, I have worked for multiple organisations who have been going through their “one company x” phase of trying to bring units together, the UN no doubt has similar conversations internally.

One solution to the challenges put forward by a number of people during the session on the SDG related to water was that a “special envoy” was needed. I feel inclined to agree with the limited number of countries that said the UN should really already have enough powers to move the agenda forward without adding more layers/roles.

There was also a hint of cult of personality with a lot of António Guterres on videos on screens in hallways, photos around the place and references to him in talks. I found this odd for an organisation about humanity’s collective history and power.

3: The UN hierarchy

Few of the more senior UN, World Bank and other speakers stayed after sessions to discuss or network (in contrast to the external organisations who presented in the Learning, Teaching and Practice [LTP] event*). Meanwhile a lot of the work, such as laptop management and moving slides, was delegated to interns. Talking to a few interns it does not sound like it is the best place to work and in this regard the UN seems to take some bad practice from being based in the USA and their approach to workplace relations.

* Kudos to the diplomat from Switzerland who presented to the LTP side event (and did not just attend the main event as others seemed to).

I personally have a real problem with the approach of people being called “his/her excellency” and “distinguished representative”. I appreciate these are senior diplomats, heads of UN agencies, etc but it just reinforces elitism and self-importance. I would personally get rid of “right honourable” in UK politics too, as well as the honours system, because it all just feels like nonsense to me (do career diplomats/politicians deserve such praise?). On a very practical basis, with so many countries and many speakers in some sessions, you would save time by simply saying “country x next” rather than an elongated version (see also companies that insist on outros and intros on videos – time adds up folks).

Chairs of the main sessions also seemed to leave at the halfway point, I guess this is standard behaviour but it seems rude (to me) if everyone else stays for the duration. I appreciate this is “the day job” for UN staff and, therefore, not special but it is a useful reminder to us all that the mundane is often not so for everyone in the room. No doubt there will have been other people there, like me, where this might be a once-in-a-lifetime experience.

3: Ear pieces

This might sound stupid (maybe the whole blog post does? let me know in the comments) but I had always presumed the UN ear pieces (that you will likely have seen on TV) were for translation.

In reality, you also need them for the English speakers (the vast majority) as the sound system in the room is very quiet (I guess so you can hear the ear piece over the in-room audio). Unfortunately, not all the chairs in galleries seemed to come with an ear piece and they also had a tendency to get tangled up with the chairs and other ear pieces.

UN ear piece

Ear piece

4: Expect dry

I am sure it is recommended, due to the diplomatic nature, but be warned – the vast majority of speakers and presentations are very very drily delivered. Even senior UN people seemed to mumble into microphones and most speakers read from scripts. Again, I suspect this is a failure of the system (rather than individuals) as statements are published – nonetheless there are ways to be better via presentation skills, storytelling, etc. The pre-prepared nature contributed to a lot of repetition between country speakers. There was also a lot of repetition when some people presented at a side event (report launch) and then a wider event on the same topic. Kudos to Tajikistan who seemed to break the mould and specifically said they were going off script to avoid being repetitive in one session.

The main sessions had different types of speakers – panellists, discussants and then the representatives from countries. The country speakers got 3 minutes each – when people overran their mics were cut, leading to odd giggles among some gallery attendees, you get your laughs where you can I guess.

5: UN as a conference venue

Some things about the UN experience were great; the Wi-Fi seemed very fast, rooms are setup with audio facilities (for translation but also for live coverage on UN TV and amplification in the room), everywhere was very clean, plenty of toilets and water fountains…

…less good was that screens in the bigger rooms basically are not viewable from the galleries, meaning, when slides were used they were pointless. This might be why slides were not used much in the bigger sessions. Ultimately a few additional screens in the galleries would have been great given download links and other resources were shared via PPT.

It was also very difficult to catch people’s names and organisations – this was okay when the electronic nameplates were used to show the name of the speaker (I even got one) but reinforced for me one value of Zoom – that you can see peoples names! (Yes the website had speaker details but not always easy to check on that).

The smaller conference rooms (I presented to about 50 people in a room for 120ish) were fine but ultimately a basement conference room is a basement conference room. I didn’t really enjoy having to sit to present but the setup of having the slides in front of you, rather than behind as normal, was quite nice as a presenter (if difficult when attending sessions in terms of knowing where to look). If you are reading this before presenting at such a session – keep your content high on your slides : the rooms are not setup for most chairs to see the bottom of slides once projected.

The space is not great for networking, the conference rooms have some seating outside but otherwise it is really just a couple of different coffee/food units. One of these is very badly placed as it creates a lot of ‘coffee machine noise’ every time a conference room door is opened (at least in conference rooms 5 and 6 where I spent a lot of time). The food was actually quite good and not too expensive (New York in general seemingly being very expensive) but I suspect most people disappeared off for lunch elsewhere (the high level event folks certainly disappeared off while side event people, like me, seemed to stick around in the limited time between sessions).

Final point, a lot of event management seems to be left to the security guards stationed on lifts, room doors, etc. I suspect there could probably be benefits from a few less international relations graduates and a few more event management people on staff.

6: A way forward?

Ultimately, the UN HQ is just a building.

Yes, it is a building with iconic architecture and history but I perhaps had too idealistic a view before attending.

I am perhaps reading too much into things but a few statements during the week hinted at a realisation of the problems in the UN system and the interactions with NGOs and other stakeholders including : “drop the egos and collaborate for real” and a need to “come out of egos and logos”. Not to mention countries with political problems using their 3 minutes to simply complain about each other (which of course predates the UN and goes back to League of Nations problems).

President Trump and others have threatened UN funding. Having attended for a week, you could certainly see room for improvement, alas, I guess voting through changes is unlikely to ever happen. At the same time there were hints of a lack of funding (or bad spending of money there is) with worn furniture, the screen issues, etc. Activities could certainly be reviewed, for example, is calling on banning mobile phones in schools a good use of resources?

Submitting a proposal

I am not sure how much of this experience is universal to other events but for the side event I spoke at (2023 SDGs Learning, Training and Practice), at least, the process was time consuming with a lot of tight deadlines implemented from the UN host side. Was the effort worth it? Questionable.

Steps included:

  1. Submitting a proposal
  2. Then being grouped with other organisations in a thematic session
  3. Resubmitting a joint proposal with the others in the thematic session
  4. Preparing slides and summary to summit
  5. Presenting
  6. Submitting final slides and a summary.

We found out at the event that we were 1 of 10 selected from 130 submissions.

Prior to the event it would have been helpful to see examples of submissions, to have support with being (force) grouped into co-presenting with organisations you had not met before, etc.

During the event it was a shame the #SDGlearning hashtag did not seem to get much use but it could have been promoted more. Another reminder for my own practice and the need to group/promote our activities better on LinkedIn as we know that helps drive an increase in our audience.

Summary

An eye-opening experience, whilst disappointing on some levels also one where I met a lot of interesting people.

“Show me the money”: Some personal reflections on the July 2023 UN High Level Political Forum

I recently spent a few days in New York City to attend the latest United Nations (UN) High Level Political Forum (HLPF). This event was focused on a subset of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and how the world is progressing toward achieving these goals (spoiler alert: not at all or not fast enough).

This was my first trip to New York since 1996. Some things were the same as then – Tom Cruise was still on Times Square billboards, in 1996 it was for Jerry Maguire, in 2023 it was Cruise driving off a cliff edge for the latest Mission Impossible. Perhaps the most long-lasting cultural legacy of Jerry Maguire has proven to be the “Show me the money” (NSFW) scene. In 2023, the UN sessions sounded similar, with near desperate calls for funding to fix the world’s problems before we all, metaphorically for some and literally for others, fall off the cliff. So, is achieving the SDGs, in fact, Mission Impossible?

The Outsider(s)

Based on my level of access, I basically spent the morning of the four days I attended watching from the gallery as the HLPF discussed topics. Day one was in the famous General Assembly room, the other days in a smaller conference room:

UN Headquarters conference room 4

I will do a separate post on my reflections on the UN experience, and I will instead attempt in this post to just summarise some of the more interesting points from the sessions.

The three afternoons, for me, were attending the “Learning, Teaching and Practice” side event – which I spoke at on one day – plus an additional lunchtime event which took place to launch a new report. Again, I’ll do a separate post of the experience of submitting, resubmitting, and presenting a proposal to this event but will include some of the more interesting content and takeaways in this post.

Whilst this is my attempt at a write-up, daily write-ups were handed out and are available online from IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development). These are less full of Tom Cruise related wordplay, than this post, and are actually very comprehensive.

Oblivion

As a Brit, especially as a child of the 1980s, there was only thing I could think of walking away from the event:

We're doomed Dad's Army gif

Indeed, the HLPF event left me largely dispirited and fearing that we may, finally, be facing oblivion as a species. Virtually every session stressed that the SDGs are way off target and there was limited confidence of achieving them without huge effort – the introductory session suggesting only 12% of targets are on track.

Since attending the event, I have watched the aforementioned Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning film and the plot, as has been heavily advertised, is that Tom and the gang faceoff against a deadly Artificial Intelligence. What is less well advertised (spoiler ahead) is that the American government (and others) are trying to control this AI in anticipation for, what the film outlines as, a third world war to control our dwindling world resources. Whilst this feels farfetched in some ways, we also have to consider that even if the AI threat is exaggerated the potential for wars over water, oil and other resources are all too real.

The start of the “SDGs Learning, Training and Practice” side event (the event I presented at) suggested that “shocks” such as Covid, war(s) and natural disaster have been negatively impacting the SDG agenda. In reality, given the event was focused on post-covid solutions, we surely face huge challenges given the post-Covid “new normal” is a normalisation of increasingly extreme weather and political challenges. Indeed, the eve of the event had seen horrendous flooding nearby in New York state and extreme temperature warnings in the southern USA, as well as much of the rest of the Northern Hemisphere.

Risky business

Many sessions called for something like we “can’t keep doing same things we have always been doing”. However, there seem to be no easy answers and even if the money/finance models that many sessions were calling for existed there is, of course, human nature to contend with from a corruption and waste perspective. Any investment, be it from an NGO, government, private sector or elsewhere will come with considerable risk unless based on global good practice.

Mavericks

Success stories and concrete ways forward were relatively few and far between, but there are clearly people out there managing to achieve the seemingly unachievable, some of the more interesting examples I made note of:

  • The SDG Atlas (https://datatopics.worldbank.org/sdgatlas) was one of the few tables with resources that could pass as “conference stalls”. It looks like an interesting site with access to SDG related data for transparency and comparison.
  • Whilst emission targets and other SDG challenges led to advocacy for renewable energy through out the week a number of speeches through the week still made the counter case and asked the world not to throw out gas and to include nuclear as options. Indeed Senegal, expressed a need to use its oil to fund improvements to the poverty situation.
  • If looking for mavericks the most impressive speech of the week came from Edward Ndopu, (SDG Advocate, youth representative) who stressed the need for diversity, inclusion of those with disabilities and more in our shared futures. You can see a transcript here.
  • Work being done on water access (outlined in this session, which I learned quite a lot from given I am not an expert in this area) and the point made that it needs to go beyond just water – that it makes sense to combine water projects with electricity access projects, etc. This was a good example of where the siloed approach of agencies, NGOs, etc needs to be challenged and many talks called for big picture “whole government” thinking. At the same time there were a number of sessions stressing real success is when local people and governments are empowered as they know their situation best. Overall, getting the balance correct will likely depend on existing government models and the balance between local/centralised. A Swiss diplomat, for example, making the case that the Swiss canton system is local-first and therefore, potentially, in a better position than some countries that over centralised power.
  • Fundação Antonio Meneghetti (a school in Brazil) outlined their education model which, whilst not too revolutionary in some ways, at least suggested that young people can be engaged with global issues and be better positioned to deal with world challenges (as well as helping tackle limitations from class/social status).
  • I personally liked a presentation from International Movement ATD Fourth World, this session made me think about the language we use. One key point was to consider people as “currently experiencing poverty” rather than calling them “poor” and “temporarily homeless” rather than “homeless”. The point being that these conditions can, and should, change and we should not classify people by them. You suspect this will become increasingly important as more of the world face flooding, fires and other disasters.
  • There was minimal mention of standards to ensure quality, but one or two people thankfully did mention them, otherwise you fear the calls for cash will lead to a lot of waste and probably dumping of poor solutions on the countries needing the most help.
  • There were some mentions of examples of good work being done, for example Denmark working in partnership with South Africa and India bilaterally on water projects. Similarly South Korea was one of relatively few countries to proactively offer support and data to others during the general HLPF sessions.
  • Morocco mentioned desalination as key to their water strategy given climate change, I remember this being the big hope in the 90s. This article suggests it is technology that is finally being used more and more.
  • The IFMA Foundation (who I shared a session with) did a really good presentation stressing the impact of building on lives and climate and the need for good facilitates management to help ensure the SDGs are met, including through their membership, education programmes, etc. A good example where an NGO or professional association have a clear link, via their profession, to SDGs and the common good.
  • The UN itself was called out for doing enough in a couple of sessions – specifically that peacekeepers do not use renewable energy when deployed and the UN HQ campus lacks solar panels and other tech.
  • Finland and others highlighted that investment in energy had been accelerated, in their case due to a decline in access to Russian resources but ultimately to a good result.
  • Sweden, interestingly, using Gothenburg as an example to convert a big city into a greener version with lessons to be learned for others (that would seem to be covered here). Nusantara (the planned new capital of Indonesia) was also mentioned as a city being built to be sustainable.
  • Some of the delegations handed over their slots to other parties – one advocated for https://www.climateview.global/ as a tool that is useful to tackle funding and capacity challenges.
  • https://www.resolve.ngo/healthgrid_sierra_leone.htm– Electrifying healthcare facilities in Sierra Leone, sounded like a really good project to combine water, electricity and healthcare services (I also liked another talk that said to focus on “services” not “access”).
  • The hope/potential for global south to develop through local supply chains was mentioned a few times, however, this sounded more aspirational than in place. What was more optimistic was that the tech is largely in place, the challenge is more the delivery due to financing and other resources. This included better deployment of open source solutions. Therefore, plenty of opportunity for learning and capacity building professionals!

After “I Disappear”ed

After leaving the event I did have chance to join “VNR Lab on Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships and Engagement (HLPF 2023 Special Event)” online remotely. This was a slightly odd experience having presented at HLPF just the week before. For this event (https://media.un.org/en/asset/k1v/k1v0qmae5q) discussions were held around how countries are engaging stakeholders in Voluntary National Reviews, reviews that may be presented at HLPF by diplomats but with lots of people working on them in advance. As with a number of the other events, there was a panel, “lead discussants” and contribution from the room. 

For engaging stakeholders tips were shared, including from Portugal. Portugal sought to include all of government and all of society in their approach to the SDGs and VNR. It was said that this was leading to a national picture for sustainable development in Portugal with wide involvement and shared ownership. 

A technical committee, with thematic structures [subcommittees?], is the approach being followed by the Maldives. The Maldives highlighted a few things still needed, including funding in general and capacity building around data management. A speaker from Tanzania, meanwhile, insisted for a need to focus on who the VNR is actually for and that if the SDGs are to actually ensure no one is left behind. It was a challenging presentation asking if we, globally, are achieving this with our policies and asking if people in villages, people with disabilities, etc. are being involved fully in the processes. 

A speaker, with a remit of how the private sector can be involved, highlighted the major issue that the private sector have not been included in VNRs enough. From their perspective (Fiji) they highlighted the need for small and medium sized companies, in particular, to be involved via funding to support growth and success. 

Interestingly, given Portugal were invited as an example, there was a point made in the Q&A from the Portuguese private sector, that they were not involved enough. All in all, a sign that it is problem for getting the right people involved, in making people engaged with the SDGs via the VNRs and still a lack of financing.

Show us the money perhaps.

Back in the face-to-face game (re-socialising in the Covid world)

After a long time I was back facilitating “in the classroom” at a conference/event this month.

I have to say it was disorientating but enjoyable. A couple of observations to capture for now:

  1. Face-to-face training events are never just about the designed training. The social interactions, networking, side conversations, etc. can be very valuable.
  2. Virtual has a lot of benefits, not least the equalising effects.

On point 1 – is there any other profession/industry which sells itself as one thing only for value to be gained from another? The nearest equivalent I can think of is going to a football match – the social elements (walking with friends/family, pub, etc) often outweigh the enjoyment of the game. Is it time that we are honest about what value “training” events really bring?

On point 2 – Meeting people face-to-face I found myself making many more “first impression” judgments, even having to check myself from doing so in my head. I also met a lot people only previously met on Zoom and it has to be said a physical meeting creates, for me at least, at lot more realisation/judgment of diversity issues from height to weight, sex, disability, fashion sense, etc etc etc that are not (as much of) an issue online for me.

The skills to pay the bills: Learning Technologies Digital Days (March 2022)

I blogged a few weeks back that the Learning Technologies (LT) conference and exhibition had been delayed. Since then, three days of online talks were announced and run to somewhat plug the LT gap, under the branding of “Digital Days” (DD) – #LTUK22.

I have tried to summarise how I was feeling during these DD sessions via the power of gif:

Say skills one more time.

“Skills” was the buzzword. No doubt about it.

Thoughts on the sessions (skills)

Now I perhaps have to jump straight to the final day and Don Taylor‘s session to say that he did set out clear warnings about the “skills” bandwagon. This was timely and I particularly liked a section where Don had gone through the archives to try and find the genesis of this current buzz/focus. Interestingly it seems the initial focus was on “knowledge and skills” (i.e. that knowledge workers need ongoing development) but “knowledge” has been dropped through the news, consultancy, white paper, WEF, etc. hype cycles (LinkedIn have been at it since the DD). As Don explained, what we are now seeing is, amongst other things, lots of tools promising AI-powered solutions to the supposed skill crises. However, his call was to remind us all that skills alone do not lead to performance. As always, L&D needs to push back on the latest trends and concentrate on what we know, for example that knowledge alone does not help either (see, for example, this recent argument about needing more than knowledge for real transformation). In a few of the sessions, including Don’s, there was mention of what we really mean by skills, how/if the word is being used to encompass knowledge, if it is just rebranding of competency/capability, etc. Personally I revert to KISME (knowledge, information, skills, motivation and environment) as pretty much encompassing what we need to consider (with a doff of my cap to performance consulting accreditation with Nigel Harrison way back when). If anything, KS and the M/behaviour combine as the competency. Ultimately every org talks about this stuff differently but as Don and others suggested in the DD we are really just talking about people’s ability to ‘do the work’.

RedThread Research’s excellent recent podcast series has shown how business leaders have identified changes and implications around the ‘skills agenda’ [if I can call it that] (for example Deloitte being clear on the importance of skills, not least in ensuring their agility to create project teams). However, you presume this goes beyond the tech skills (which are obviously the bit that does change quickly as argued on the pod) into other things like engagement/project management (activities which also require a lot of behavioural competency). Indeed Deloitte’s model of development paths (as explained on the pod) sounded less than revolutionary – basically a formalisation of 70/20/10 concepts for ongoing development of competency.

The Fosway Group’s DD session mentioned the growth in skills platforms but also (just has been in the case in the past) the issue of what needs to be in the learning platform versus a HRIS or other location. Personally it feels like you really need to take a big picture view of your ecosystem and link things together as appropriate. The session called this something like ‘out of the box ecosystem-ness’ which is probably more suggestive of aspiration than the market’s reality(?).

RedThread did have a slot in the Digital Days too, with a focus on learning content. This session had various messages but I did like the idea of moving “from control…to facilitate”, this has always been part of my mindset to some extent (probably due to my learning experience growing from libraries rather than teaching). The growth in content however, of course, means a greater need for personalisation and RedThread did argue that if you are embracing a skills focus then you also need to think about content from that perspective. They argued for a 4 category approach to learning content:

  • specific and durable
  • specific and perishable
  • generic and durable
  • generic and perishable

The suggestions on what to do with the above was fairly straight forward but I guess makes sense for those who feel overwhelmed with content. Ultimately the most useful bit, for me, was a quote that asked a key set of questions:

“What’s the strategic change that’s happening? Is your learning content relevant to get to those organizational outcomes?”

Roundtable participant quoted on RT’s slides

The event finished with Nigel Paine, I recently blogged agreeing with some of Nigel’s arguments in an article and I similarly found myself agreeing with much of his DD presentation. Learning was pitched as needing to help with transformation by moving from “safe spaces to brave spaces”. This is fair, enough and to some extent an acknowledgment of the need for ‘stretch‘. However, I would say the humane requirement for having safe spaces at work remains, it is not to say that a team building day can not have a safe (culture) but also be very challenging in terms of team aspirations, agility and development. There was mention of Communities of Practice (CoP) as argued for by Wenger, this always get my support as CoP theory was one of the areas that hooked me in learning design in my MA and got me into my career in learning. Nigel correctly tackled the focus on skills, arguing that deep understanding of problems will lead to learning offerings made up of multiple components (people, content, data, technology) under the auspice of appropriate governance. There was a call to reframe, rebuild and redefine learning to grab organisational development, make knowledge management organic and more. All-in-all, a wide ranging call to action that I have probably not done a great job of summarising. There was also a bit on indicators of success.

Indicators of success

Nigel correctly suggested the organisation’s strategic plan has to be the basis of learning’s work. Learning should make promises that developing self-learning groups and other solutions will positively impact on the plan’s goals. Ultimately I think this is the challenge – we might know that learning needs to be reframed when the “classroom assumption” and “training ghetto” are not good for our organisations but how to prove this works for an organisation with very fixed views on “training” and divisions of labour based on that.

As well as the Digital Days, I also recently watched an excellent session in the Content Wrangler series, entitled “Rewinding the Web: The Internet Archive and Its Wayback Machine“. This session reminded me to look again at archive.org and the excellent Wayback Machine. These are tools I have used a lot in the past but not so much in the last couple of years. Anyways… I thought I would have look to see which of my “to read” wish list of books are available to borrow via the archive.org loan system. One such book was an early edition of “Learning and Development” (by Rosemary Harrison). This book’s editions are nice snapshots of L&D status (the online edition being from 2003). According to the book (which reads like it is essentially exam prep for CIPD qualifications) there are a number of L&D “indicators”:

  1. Integration of L&D activity and organisational needs
  2. Provision of value-adding L&D function
  3. Contribution to the recruitment and performance management processes
  4. Contribution to the retention of employees
  5. Contribution to building organisational capacity and facilitating change
  6. Stimulation of strategic awareness and development of knowledge
  7. Design and delivery of learning processes and activity
  8. Evaluation and assessment of L&D outcomes and investment
  9. Role and tasks of the ethical practitioner
  10. Continuing professional self-development

Ultimately if we consider such a list as what an L&D professional can be assessed on (see also the English Apprenticeship standard) then clearly skills (be it upskilling, reskilling or right-skilling) are very much only part of the puzzle (I also quite like this list as too much focus historically has probably just been on point 7) both as a professional and in what we (can) help with (if empowered to do so by management). Therefore, as Don argued on day 3, lets remember skills but not forget everything else L&D teams can/should be doing.

Thoughts on sessions (Case studies)

There were a couple of good case studies showing how we do have to go beyond skills to really impact our organisations. The British Red Cross and Girlguiding both simplified and aggregated learning for their stakeholders on new platforms. Both took plenty of time to analyse issues, the stakeholder experience, etc. Both found their improved online learning platforms have led to retention, recognising stakeholder’s past experience and building on that (not mass sheep dipping). I liked the Red Cross simplification of message by their presenter, their Chief Learning Officer:

There were some other aspects that sounded similar to models I have used in the past, including Red Cross having a buddy relationship between central learning and those with those responsibilities at site level and the Girl Guides retraining their classroom trainers to run virtual classrooms/webinars. Overall, good examples of being strategic, holistic and delivering modernisation of stakeholder experiences.

[I probably attended a couple of other DD sessions but I’ll leave this post as it is already long enough !]

“Learning Transformation” : January ’22 edition

January and February have historically been important periods of reflection for the learning industry (at least in the UK) due to the Learning Technologies conference and exhibition (with its adult/workplace learning focus) and BETT (with its <21 education/school focus). This year the decision has been made to push the Learning Tech show back from February to May but I thought I would still take some time now to just reflect on where we are in terms of the evolution/transformation of learning in early 2022.

The language of learning transformation

Firstly it is difficult to ignore that “transformation” is a word being thrown around a lot online and in the media in relation to learning. What people are generally speaking about is the result of the Covid period and that, in terms of transformation, what people are really talking about is the response to the loss of the physical classroom as an option to facilitate/deliver education. Whilst the need to work without a classroom may be revolutionary for some, for example compulsory aged schooling teachers who had never facilitated much/any online learning before, for those of us who (at least in part) self-identify as learning technologists this has been a period that is actually largely evolutionary, not transformative nor revolutionary.

If we think less about schools and universities for the rest of the post and try to just focus on the transformation of workplace learning then too much of the conversation around “transformation” in the last couple of years is, obviously just in my opinion, about laggards catching up. Therefore, what we might be seeing in 2020-22 is those L&D departments who were stuck in the “Training Ghetto” either being transformed into virtual ghettos by Covid or finally waking up to doing things they probably should have always been doing. The “ghetto” idea is of course Don Taylor’s (the chair and organiser of the Learning Technologies show). Don has recently suggested there is a bigger change happening (“all change in L&D” blog post) that goes beyond the quite narrow lack-of-classroom focus of much of the discussion. I’ll come back to Don’s argument from that blog post later.

For those of us who have focused on eLearning (online learning, digital learning or whatever else we want to call it) the last couple of years is far less transformative, at least of the surface of things. That said, simply turning out SCORM modules or LMS courses is obviously not the way forward either – transformation will mean different things to different people. The Google Trends data (I had embedded it below but for some reason it keeps breaking in WordPress) would suggest a “start of the pandemic” spike in interest in what some of us have been doing for a long time. It would be wonderful if we could break this spike down between parents, school teachers, universities, L&D and other groups.

For workplace/organisational/membership/employee learning we could also see this as (instead of being specifically Covid initiated) being learning departments getting hit by the previous buzz around Digital Transformation of work and the preceding but related developments such as Big Data, Web 2.0, etc etc. Personally I would say continued evolution of practice was coming no matter what and Covid has accelerated some good and bad practice. One thing that I can agree with from a recent protocol Source Code podcast is that the panic and rush resulting from Covid led to a “disservice” for online learning.

A recent L&D Disrupt podcast (link to YouTube version) on launching an L&D department from scratch really reinforced for me that there is a pretty standard approach to what many of us do, have done or would do in that situation. However, the language on Disrupt was interesting. No two L&D departments are likely to be equal in terms of the quality of their needs analysis, their exact approach to design, etc. The Disrupt pod also made points about moving from a previous over-reliance on classroom training – is this still, really, what people are talking about by learning transformation, even in workplace environments?

Scope of learning departments

Arguably little has changed in regard to learning department scope. L(&D) departments are expected to maintain stakeholder relationships to develop and deliver appropriate learning strategies for their organisation(s). These learning strategies should reflect how performance improvement is being supported, to help colleagues deliver organisational strategies, behave appropriately and meet their goals. This needs to be aligned with (or part of) talent management – for example having apprenticeships or other ways to replace lost talent, deal with succession, develop managerial confidence/competency, etc.

I love Guy Wallace’s historical perspectives via Twitter and elsewhere. His recent WOINA Syndrome (What’s Old Is New Again.) blog post is great on how we rehash so much stuff. I seriously doubt WOINA is unique to learning within organisations (after all leadership theory, mindfulness and other areas go as far as to rehash ancient philosophy) but you do have to wonder if “transformation” as marketed by consultants, vendors, etc. is really transformational. New lipstick on a pig perhaps? The recent protocol Source Code uses the argument that more lifelong learning is needed due to the pace of change (a debatable argument) and that tech can enable this (less debatable). I tend to think this need and the demand from many employees has always been there – L&D can be the facilitator of upskilling in this model where previously the load was too often put on the individual.

Any organisational learning should be using personal, team and business targets to change knowledge, skills and/or behaviours. Simples. However, Don’s all change argument is that valid in that L&D is no longer “focusing on building and delivering content”. Indeed my first L&D role, rather than more learning/education focused, was initially about managing content. We have clearly moved on from that space with social learning. Where L&D teams continue to struggle is perhaps when the personal, team and business measures are still hidden from them? We hear a lot about data being abundant in organisations but I do wonder how many orgs really have clarity over performance and how many companies still promote based on simple measures (e.g. sales/revenue) or popularity (often risking negative DEI implications). Proper use of data could well be transformational for many on their practice within a scope that is less transformational.

Learning/instructional design

Call it what you will, the scope of L&D work is still likely to need something resembling analysis, design and delivery of learning and change solutions. Usually these will still come from something resembling an ADDIE project, even if the design/delivery is not about authoring content but instead curation or another solution.

I know there is justified hate out there for the use of “instruction” and ADDIE but, personally, these are semantic arguments we can live without as ultimately organisations divide labour between teams based on skill and experience. Therefore, learning and change projects should reach the L&D team as the experts in learning and change.

Ideally this should not be simply the “throw over the fence” approach to perceived requirements that jumps straight to DDIE. Proper task analysis should mean solutions tailored to stakeholder needs, ideally with those stakeholders and the target audience involved throughout. Of course, as always, what the audience’s needs are might have been misinterpreted, misunderstood, misrepresented, etc, etc. None of this is new or transformational.

Masters of our own destiny

Mastering the balance between latest market trends and WOINA has to be part of the solution of what the future of learning will look like.

I have written before about how some terminology has been usurped in work/corporate climates – for example information professionals/scientists losing the “information” moniker to the technologists. Similarly information work around curation often died out, for example information teams in law firms lost staff in the face of internet tools, yet curation has been a buzz word in L&D circles, in part thanks to further tech changes. What we perhaps need to finally acknowledge is that a training team can not “own” or “manage” organisational learning – we can lead, facilitate, curate, communicate, etc. We need to demonstrate the behaviours and show the value in personal development, knowledge sharing and related activities. Nigel Paine’s transformation plans for ’22 mentions L&D’s role should be in that it “encourages the whole organisation to take responsibility for working and learning together”. This is in part about the skills gap that Don focuses on as the change – i.e. organisations face skills shortages, not knowledge/content per se.

L&D’s focus can include offering strategic recommendations on the use of tools to enhance the employee (or other stakeholder/customer) experience. However, I would say we need to be careful on silos – simply having marketing select marketing tools, L&D select learning tools, etc. reinforces old paradigms. Purchasing projects need to recognise the power of digital tools to do things differently – not just replacing old ways of doing things. Don’s impression of Cornerstone Xplor seem to suggest they are taking something of a leap from old paradigms but much of it sounds familiar in ways too. Meanwhile the Source Code pod suggests AR/VR and some other metaverse like applications are the real change. However, the tech will enable new ways of doing things but many of the solutions will still, in my mind, be based on traditional ID/L&D logic – as Guy suggests with his WOINA. For example, the Novartis VR example at Unleash’18 showed how there can be value in moving scenario/location based learning into VR. As Guys says in his post: “technology advances have enabled us to do better” and I would say the iterative improvement (rather than transformation) for many in L&D will be to continue to identify when the time is right for investment in new tech for their use cases. No doubt we will see lots of bad metaverse usage as it becomes more mainstream – just as we saw bad use of other things such as Second Life – but there will be opportunities too.

Skills for success

Anyone who is unfortunate enough to come across me in person will have probably heard me referring back to my MA and MSc in how I go about my work. This might be surprising considering I recently “liked” a tweet supporting experience over qualifications:

My issue with the above tweet is really the “10+ years…experience” part, not the qualification or need for a combination of qualification and experience. Skills, knowledge and behaviours are important – mandatory recruitment requirements, like in the above tweet, ignores this. Is this because recruiting/HR are too often separate from L&D/talent management (theory at least if not practice in a particular org)?

Years of experience, for many roles, is total BS as a measure. Instead, ask someone about their evidence based practice, the theory behind their practice, their achievements, etc. No year, in no other role, is made equal to what you think a year’s experience is – even in theoretically comparable roles like, say, nursing across different hospitals. This is one area where hopefully Covid will make people realise how things have changed, e.g. a year of work experience in a 2021 Covid-impacted hospital would be very different to, say, working there in 2001. This applies in knowledge work too – consulting or sales are very different now too when you can’t travel to conferences, meet clients for coffee, etc.

In many ways the need for a combination of theory and experience is particularly important in L&D given many L&D pros do not come through an L&D education. The problem to tackle, as is hinted at in that L&D Disrupt podcast, is that people come into the learning profession through classroom experiences and we have a rinse and repeat cycle (albeit that there are good things about face-to-face learning too). Actually having some learning theory, learning tech or other related academic/professional qualifications should mean you have at least been exposed to other ways of doing things. Personally doing my MSc fully online has always been a big help in reflecting on my own practice of building such experiences, both in education and workplace learning. Do not get me wrong – 10 years of classroom teaching has value on a CV, however, rather than length of time we are really talking about a skillset as described in the LPI Capability Map or other model. It sounds like Xplor’s value is in automating skill mapping, learning resource mapping, etc – for those of us who have managed competency frameworks and related tools this sounds great but I would also hold quite a lot of scepticism over how well this will work.

Work is learning/learning is work

Difficult to disagree with the Nigel Paine in his wish for 22: “I want 2022 to be the year when learning becomes integrated with work…I want 2022 to be the time when the notion of a learning organisation, with a powerful learning culture, is not deemed an irrelevancy but is an essential part of the modern work environment.” However, this is obviously not a new concept – perhaps what we can hope for is a kinder workplace, one with an acknowledgment of long-term health issues as with live not just with Covid but long Covid and all the other health and personal issues that are too often ‘hidden’ in the workplace. Learning to encourage improvement, career development and more can be part of this more humane workplace.

However, when it comes to the wider move of learning in the flow of work I do fear this part of an automation of more and more roles, as mentioned in a tweet spurred by the Learning Technologies digital event that happened in place of the usual smaller version of the event that takes place as the “Summer Forum“:

End

This post has gone on long enough but, in summary, I think it is fair to say that whilst innovation for one organisation/professional will mean something different to another org/pro I can see transformation as being about a potential further split in the learning tech market between:

(1) LMS platforms that will continue to exist for organisations focused on “products” – this still makes sense for training providers, organisations offering CPD to members, content vendors, universities and more even if their marketplace continues to face real pressure.

(2) Xplor and other tools expand into career guidance (Don mentions acting as a career service an increasingly important role for L&D as I mentioned here) for the organisation, tying up/reskilling to roles/vacancies and acting as a reimagination of L&D into proper talent transformation.

How much other functionality makes sense in the above situations (such as social learning, collaboration, etc) will depend on the ecosystem beyond these tools. In other words an organisation may be happy with an LMS, HRIS and Microsoft Teams. Others may try and do all of this via a new talent platform. Ultimately it reminds me of a quote from 5 (!?!) years ago about whatever L&D’s focus and scope is it should behave in a way to act as “oil in the engine, not a spanner in the works”.