Another reading catchup

Another in the occasional series looking at some of the reading I’ve stockpiled with reflections for anyone who might be interested in the topics covered:

It’s never too late to learn [Journal of Workplace Learning; Vol. 27 Iss 6; Russell Paul Warhurst and Kate Emma Black; 2015]

An attention-worthy approach (from Newcastle Business School) to the empirical study of workplace learning – as the articles puts it:

The informal, incidental, tacit and social nature of much workplace learning poses methodological challenges in ascertaining from respondents exactly what they have learnt and particularly, how their learning has occurred (Fuller and Unwin, 2005; McNair, 2013). Therefore, visual elicitation techniques were deployed in advance of interviews to assist participants in exploring such tacit learning accomplishments and implicit learning processes. Three visual techniques were used:

(1)  Timelines: Participants were requested to depict their work over the preceding ve years as a horizontal line showing the degree of change, and learning, as gradients on that line against a vertical axis scaled from “set backs” through “stability” to “rapid”.

(2)  Sociograms: Participants were requested to indicate whom they interacted with over a typical month, the nature of this interaction (e.g. face-to-face or electronically) and how signi cant they felt these interactions were for them.

(3)  Pictors: Participants were asked to produce a visual representation of how they viewed themselves in their social worlds, in response to the question “How do I see myself as a later-career manager?”

I thought the three approaches above were interesting ones considering the challenge in getting professionals to reflect and think how they have developed.  Indeed they could also be used to visually represent impact of programmes to, in part, tackle the evaluation challenge.

I have recently been running a series of workshops at my organisation on career development opportunities – in part around the advantages that the May changes to apprenticeships will bring.  The ability to retrain, even if you have a degree or other qualification, via an apprenticeship is a key message.  Thus I liked the idea that “ageing populations need to be seen as a key, growing, natural asset rather than, as typically construed today, a liability”.  The article itself focuses on informal learning but realistically there will be opportunities to think again about skills development via multiple routes.  “Later-career workers need to be alerted to the learning potential within their jobs and the capabilities to leverage this potential” – yep!

How to enhance the impact of training on service quality?: Evidence from Malaysian public sector context [Journal of Workplace Learning; Vol. 27 Iss 7; Abdul Rahim Zumrah; 2015]

Whilst it is common sense to presume training needs to be reinforced/transferred to actually have an impact on quality this article argues for a positive relationship via a measurement approach.  Overall it is useful in reinforcing that training alone will not impact on performance:

The finding of this study is an important outcome that has not been empirically determined previously in the literature, which highlight the significance of transfer of training as a mechanism to enhance the impact of training on employees’ performance (service quality). This finding provides support for the social exchange approach, suggesting that where employees perceive the support from their organization (they have been sponsored to attend training programs by organization), then feel an obligation to engage in behaviors that benefit the organization (transfer the training outcomes to the workplace) and are also willing to expend more effort to fulfill their organizational goals (delivering quality service to organization’s customers). The finding of this study also responds to calls for research to investigate the mediating factor between HRM practices and employees’ performance (Tremblay et al., 2010). The finding also helps to clarify the ambiguity in the literature in regard to the relationship between training and service quality (Beigi and Shirmohammadi, 2011; Chand and Katou, 2007; Cook and Verma, 2002; Hung, 2006; Schneider and Bowen, 1993; Zerbe et al., 1998). Specifically, this study extends the literature by providing empirical evidence that transfer of training has a mediating effect on the relationship between training and employee service quality in the context of the Malaysian public sector.

How to Solve the Content Discovery Problem [Brandon Hall Group, Presentation Deck]

A topic of interest to me with my library/content/information route into the world of learning.  Unsurprisingly it identified the challenge of content:

94% of companies say that managing the expanding content library is a challenge presented by today’s learning environment

It also picked up on a point I regularly make and have previously tried to argue should be increasingly irrelevant through decent organizational design:

content overload is only getting worse with siloed organizations using their own tools

In other words, departments such as KM, marketing and L&D should be working together but instead buy their own solutions and thus overwhelm internal and external clients.

One of the solutions for the learner experience is federated search – which was the hot topic 10ish years ago when I did my library/information MA (especially for HE orgs) but corporates seem to have failed with this.  Indeed, in some ways such as looking at experts and peer based collaboration, the corporate world is still catching up with academia.

The filtering is then the challenge.  However, whilst the presentation suggests a “personalized feed” integrated with other business applications I wonder if this ignores the UX of some tools.  Content, generally speaking, will have some level or motivation/gamification built in to their platform.  So is the solution, instead, a combination of apps by audience/need?  The presentation instead suggesting Edcast as the aggregating “knowledge cloud”.  The traditional model probably being the topic/course centric LMS.

The takeaways are fair though and the kind of issues I have tackled in the last 15ish years:

  • Traditional content models cannot keep up with modern business needs
  • Keeping content current and fresh can be a challenge
  • Legacy content can also become unusable
  • The modern learner wants choices, personalization and a familiar interface
  • Subject matter expertise exists farther and wider than most organizations can reach

12th annual Keeping Pace report [Evergreen; 2015]

Very late catching up with this one but another document on a topic of interest – online “K-12” education – and this report helps highlight how the US (in this area at least) are considering a variety of approaches to improve outcomes and meet demand.  IMO a form of UK online free school is surely needed.  Indeed the report identifies the kind of needs, from the American online ‘charter’ school equivalents, that the UK could tackle:

In the case of elementary and middle school students, many attend an online school due to temporary reasons (illness, injury, behavioral issues, allergies). In high schools, many students move to an online school because they are behind and at risk of dropping out of school altogether.

Thus dispelling some of the myths such as the US demand coming from geography and there would not be the demand in the UK.  Indeed there are some positive messages on impact too – such as in Florida where “students outperform state average in end-of-course exams”.

The Disruption of Digital Learning: Ten Things We Have Learned [Josh Bersin]

A newer piece, as it was published this week, with a lot of good stuff summarizing the state of play for those of us who like to say we work in online/digital learning.  It is a little US centric and knowledge-worker focused in places (which to be fair it acknowledges) but it is one of the better things I’ve seen from Bersin for quite a while:

http://joshbersin.com/2017/03/the-disruption-of-digital-learning-ten-things-we-have-learned/

Overall, it really drives home that the myriad of tools now available means the boundaries between home/work/learning have effectively gone.  Indeed I’d challenge the point about people spending so much time on email always being a negative – yes, a lot will be junk keeping people away from “specific” work but how many of those emails are learning experiences?  Even if the learning is just related to clandestine organizational cultures or rabbit holes of bureaucracy?

I especially like that Microsoft Teams got a mention having had a first look this week.  MT does an awful lot of what your traditional LMS would – discussion groups for communities of practice, VOIP/video for tutoring, task lists for activities/assessments, content sharing for reading/watching/reflecting, wikis for collab authoring, etc etc.  SCORM, I guess, would be the elephant in the room for most LMS deployment but there you’d be looking at if that content is really what you want going forward.  How we might combine MT and xAPI is very much on my “to do” list.

There are things to criticize – for example a lot of this isn’t new just being delivered differently (e.g. microlearning) but as mentioned earlier a lot to like too.

I’ve got a whole ‘reading’ folder on my desktop going back many months so expect some more of these posts soon…

Evaluating my impact: preparing for Kirkpatrick certification

Ever since I started attending workplace learning related events, it has been clear there is an undercurrent in the industry of criticizing the Kirkpatrick model. There are the views it is too old, simplistic, outdated, etc.

Personally I try and avoid criticism for anything I am not in a position of authority on – for example I feel I can criticize politicians for lying, their interpersonal skills, etc. but not necessarily their skill at the practicalities of being an MP such as passing laws.

Whilst I have worked with different evaluation models I have opted to pursue Kirkpatrick certification (as mentioned previously) to really try and crack evaluation/impact for my team and my wider organization. Thus, I will be in a more authoritative position to consider the pros and cons of Kirkpatrick.

Unlike some L&D teams, I would say we are closely aligned to business objectives and do a reasonable job of challenging top down and bottom up requests for programs, performance improvement, etc. However, evaluating success in tackling the issues is tricky and, as I inherited an L&D policy specifically saying we will use the Kirkpatrick levels to evaluate, then we are following that route.

I’m hoping the two-day program will empower me around evaluation in general but specifically being able to make use of the appropriate models. Or it may well make me a more vocal opponent.

The pre-work includes some nice detail behind the levels. Indeed there are references to deal with some of those regular topics of criticism. However, whilst ‘the 70’ is referenced as covered in the ‘new’ Kirkpatrick model, the template forms still reference evaluation of “training”.

A particular challenge for myself in the past has been evaluating solutions’ real impact on the bottom line; in a world of multiple factors (KSME) how can we (L&D or a wider project team) claim an impact. Indeed I raised this at the Kineo/Boost evaluation session. The pre-read refers to using ‘indicators’ and this will be particularly interesting.

Expect a blog later in the month once I’ve been on and reflected upon the certification program!

Avoiding cynicism during tradeshow season

This week and next I’ll be doing my usual pilgrimages to the BETT and Learning Technologies exhibitions.  Some of my notes from previous years are on this site (BETT16; BETT14; LT16; LT15; LT14).

On reflecting about what I want to get out of these shows this year I realised the growing levels of cynicism in my previous reviews.

I then read Laura Overton’s mind shifts for 2017 piece and realized that it is perhaps as I’ve just now just been around a while!  Obviously I don’t hold Laura’s level of experience but her fourth point resonated:

I’ve been going since it started years ago and it is great to catch up with old friends. However it’s a time when cynicism can abound, particularly with those who have been around a bit.

After all, we’ve been talking about how the latest tech will change the world, about performance, the need to get managers on board, to communicate more for decades.

These are not new ideas but our cynicism and fixed mindset thinking kicks in when we believe we see no change.

Whilst the concept of disruption is all the rage right now in L&D, fundamentally we need to apply the idea of radically transforming the norm to our own thinking, especially our cynicism. A growth mindset will ask – why no change? Was it that the time wasn’t right? Is the time right now? What can I do to make a difference now?

One weakness I have is that I perhaps do not take enough positive feeling from the change and impact I’m having – instead frustrated by the slow pace (or lack of) clear change.  Rather than just thinking “yeah, heard this before” I’m keen, this year, to get more out of the events:

  1. Get a feel for what may be possible from BETT – 3D/VR/AR are of real interest to me at the time being as the practical skills in my workplace would lend themselves to these types of technologies – making virtual learning far more real whilst maintaining a safe learning environment (well VR would at least).  If Microsoft don’t have a Hololens, to try their take on AR, I’m going to be disappointed.
  2. More generally BETT should be a good opportunity to get a feel for what is happening in schools – as I’ve argued before: an understanding of this is essential for workplace learning pros who want to build suitable inductions and optimize future readiness.
  3. At Learning Tech I’m going to be more of a ‘guide’ as I’m taking my head of department to the show and she will be a ‘newbie’.  As we have a meeting in the morning we’re likely to be restricted to about half a day in the exhibition so I suspect it will be something of a whistle-stop tour – that should be good as it will stop me listening to as many of the free presentations.  I think last year, in-particular, a number of those sounded like broken records.  It should be a great opportunity to drive home some key messages and some of the things I keep banging on about…

and on that last point – Laura’s 6th point (“believe in yourself”) is another worth reflecting on.  This time last year I was looking for work and was increasingly frustrated – both with (only some it has to be said) agencies (due to lack of contact/followups/etc) and with conversations/interviews where I felt I could contribute to an organisation but the recruitment processes were frustrating or annoying.  Thankfully I’ve found an organisation where my skills and experience are a good fit – now just to avoid the cynicism and keep on driving on performance improvement and employee empowerment!

Apprenticeships: more following the October guidance

Having continued to reflect since my last post on this topic as well as taking in the October guidance (both through reading and a couple of related events).  It’s starting to look a lot clearer now…my current view on the three main options for employers:

Ignore it all together…

A lot of companies will continue to ignore apprenticeships as the 20% off-the-job and new division between providers and assessment organisations will not be as efficient as what can be done via other development approaches.

It’s not just about the levy – company’s existing training will have some level of value and quality.  I’ve always felt workplace learning, FE and HE need to be much more joined up and its good that the levy is starting to make people look wider than their existing silo, for example the OU working with people consultants from KPMG for a wider solution.

There remains though a lot of snobbery in learning, including:

  • from apprenticeship providers about the quality of non-accredited workplace learning
  • about the lack of skills in HE from FE and employers
  • the HE snobbery around degrees being of most value.

That the levy seems to be breaking down at least the last of these, via degree apprenticeships, and getting some cross-sector conversations going can only be a good thing.  However, as mentioned in this article, if the model is to be employer led why force funding for apprenticeships only?  And will degree apprenticeships get very far if even the BBC refers to them as ‘degree apprenticeships‘ as if a non-recognized qualification.

…or sub-contract…

There’s a logic in presuming subcontracting will be the most popular route with companies who have existing L&D teams but little/no experience of apprenticeships.

You would expect few will have met the short Skills Funding Agency deadlines at this enrollment window and even fewer will attempt the full employer-provider model this time around.  The October guidance suggests sub-contracting is a valuable (upto £500k per annum) way for L&D teams to save their companies from some of the levy ‘hit’ whilst putting existing learning into more formal structures. Indeed its also become clearer in October that the SFA sees investment in management information systems as essential for employer-providers.  This and other logistics may be a big ask for all but the biggest employers and you suspect sub-contracting well allow many employers to deliver the training they deem appropriate but leverage a provider’s economies of scale for systems, standards management, Ofsted requirements, etc.

…or wait and see.

The deadlines of late November for registrations were challenging (when SFA employer engagement events were fully booked in the run up) so the ‘big bang’ of the levy introduction (the event I went to said 500 companies had attended/booked nationwide) may well become a whimper for a year or two.

That the SFA needed to send the below note out on the day of the registration deadlines shows that there’s interest – even if organisations have failed to be totally clear on who is responsible for what in this new world!

The SFA has noticed that some organisations have submitted multiple PQQs despite clear guidance.

Organisations are reminded that only one PQQ route must be submitted. Please check that this is the case.

 

Time for a rethink on ‘support’ services?

Starting my London-based career in an ‘Information Services’ team has led to me always having quite an interest in the semantics of support departments. Information has become a hugely overused term since then, closely associated with the ‘Knowledge Economy’, as business and academia have worried about the growth of technology and overload of web content in the last 20 years.  However, whilst information teams have often dwindled in the face of ‘free’ material on the open web other support services continue along.

At a CILIP event about 5 years back there was an agitated former Institute of Information Scientists member who was furious at perceived continued dumbing down, in other words, a focus on libraries rather than information science. The challenge, of course, is that ‘information’ is a term largely usurped by technology, either as IT or ICT. In this respect the BCS and other groups have usurped the second I in CILIP and there were valid opinions expressed that the CILIP renaming debacle could of done worse than to embrace the old ‘Library Association’ moniker. However, the risk with this would be to alienate members, such as myself, who have long moved on from physical spaces whilst still using an information orientated mindset (I tend to avoid ‘skills’ here as I fear that might be over-egging my pudding!).

So if “information” has become synonymous with technological solutions and support departments what for those with an information mindset?  In many cases they will be found embedded within another traditional department such as research, HR, marketing or training/learning. They may (like me) or may not have formal academic credentials in these areas but do have the option of engaging with professional bodies and potentially seeking professional status such as MCILIP, CMALT, etc.

Of course the challenge is that in ‘knowledge’ (and many other) roles ICT solutions are essential, and I include the C to recognize the role of communication and collaboration tools.

So what of all these support teams? Well, whilst ICT and the currently vogue ESN have tried to break silos they often still exist.  This often is not helped by the splits to C-Suite reporting across various groups including COOs, Heads of People and (of course) the CIO.

What I’m going to suggest today though is that disciplinary focus doesn’t help. Instead let’s pick the best elements to create a single support structure. But what to call it? Well how much your (and I’m largely talking office based support here) support make up of your workforce will impact.

However let’s adopt “Productivity and Performance”. In this model, Ullrich-esque HRBPs can become performance consultants and help identify where things need to improve and have full scope of measures (finance and other data) versus solutions (digital solutions for marketing and learning), etc.

Obviously organisations will vary but it’s starting to feel like claiming the ‘productivity’ name is a solution – as recognised by Microsoft, Apple and others who recognise software by that name. Indeed if one looks at the latest top 100 tools for learning many are not ‘learning’ specific but productivity/office focused. Many on this list would appear for a lawyer, finance, marketing and other pros.  Let’s recognize the value in the tech and bring together the support staff with different mindsets, strengths and expertise.