Reflections on #LT17uk

I only had around 6 hours in the Learning Technologies exhibition this year (for those who’ve never been – that’s not a lot!) and it helped me stay focused – mostly just walking the hall and meeting people (I stuck to the plan and spent much less time in the free seminars).

Your experience of such shows is, obviously, influenced by current personal/workplace concerns – but here are some of my takeaways…

wp_20170207_12_18_10_rich-2
Listen to the fortune cookie!
  1. Authoring tools – is it now time to move away from Articulate (see my previous posts on the trial of 360 and problems with Rise for more)?
    1. The ramifications of the changes with Articulate have been identified as one of ten eLearning trends and this infographic actually does a fair job of summarizing the big topics that were evident at the wider LT show.
    2. There remain a vast number of options and its perhaps now the case that one has to look at multiple tools – splitting out software simulation, VR, presentations, etc?
  2. LMS or HR platform – after almost a year in role I feel in a better position to consider the pros and cons of the current setup and possible alternatives.  Stick or twist?
    1. Interesting to hear Harold Jarche’s views that whilst there is rebranding and changes to the companies involved there remains not “a whole lot of new” – I would agree.  VR/AR/MR was more prevalent but still lots of stalls with content, platforms, etc.  An in the platform world there remain the big players (like Cornerstone) and lighter touch options – as well as multiple Totara partners.
  3. L&D capability – I’ve got a Kirkpatrick certification course with DPG coming up (I’ll blog in more detail why as I appreciate that’s a controversial choice!) and it was interesting to consider where we’re strong and where we may have gaps beyond that topic.  Should we all do DPG’s new 70-20-10 programme?
    1. I wouldn’t really think about 70-20-10 approach as something to be workshopped/developed but it looks an interesting approach to rolling up performance consulting, modern design and evaluation all in one development package.  The challenge, I guess, is if this should be topics new for people or is really certifying existing knowledge and behaviors.  Also if this is of value over the existing 70-20-10 Forum, etc.?
  4. Future of learning and performance – I mention above about VR/AR/MR but there was still a lot of content and blended learning talks.  What is the future?  How do we balance individual knowledge/skills growth with shorter term engagement/empowerment?  What should be the balance of individual career development, long term wider workforce planning and short term performance?
    1. There still seems to be a lot of push on concepts that have been around longer than I have.  However, it is difficult to challenge this considering I am more than aware that even my own organization is still very face-to-face orientated!
    2. There were more interesting bits though – including TTS and their performance support system (that offers some interesting possibilities for exposing knowledge out to the point of need – not buried in an LMS or Intranet).
  5. Future of Learning within organizations.  The Learning Tech show always involves some navel-gazing and there continues to be the feeling of a split between the “performance” element and more of the “corporate university” type model.  Are they mutually exclusive?
    1. To do my own bit of gazing, I’d say not.  An approach for, say, leadership development can incorporate formal learning and certifications.  Indeed there’s the option to revenue generate if you open your doors.  The apprenticeship levy will also influence how L&D teams tackle these issues and it was interesting to see the likes of bksb and Tribal on the exhibition floor.
    2. Curation remained a theme but it is one that remains a concern for me.  Kate Graham puts it on her blog “In L&D we trust”, however, I fear this may be wishful thinking considering what has happened to library/information teams.  This comes back to my own view on the need for merging/bleeding of skills between marketing, learning, knowledge and more.  Curation is of value but how this works in practice must add value and capture the needs of the organization.  Again, the TTS style approach may be a useful way to break from the “LMS first” dynamics of too many L&D teams.

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.

 

Havas Talent Bites event

I’m well behind with event write-ups but thought I’d just get down, in rough form, some of the key takeaways from this event back in October.

It was the first time I’d received an invite and all the presentations were really good.  Apparently the topic of workplace/organizational/employee culture was ‘softer’ than some they’ve had in the past but there was still plenty of good data and takeaways.

Glassdoor

  • data, including their own, shows engagement does impact performance
  • improvements to culture and feeling valued more important than increases in pay for engagement

I queried some of the data in terms of cause and effect, for example can you argue share price performance is linked to good engagement scores on Glassdoor surveys or are people using data such as Glassdoor’s to impact their share buying behaviors?  Obviously share buying algorithms are complex but it’s also probably fair to say your company will perform well across multiple metrics if culture is good.

  • data shows importance of transparency, recognition, communication from leadership, solicitation of feedback, listening to feedback

I used Glassdoor a bit when job hunting but don’t think I actually used it when researching my, now, employer.  So the event was a useful reminder to use it as part of the brand positioning, particularly for ‘people’ teams trying to build engagement and a feeling that learning is important [or indeed that learning is work and work is learning].  Indeed a few jobs ago we actively responded to comments on social media about my department – some examples were given in the Q&A where orgs are really joined up on this and actively using gd as a brand platform.

Sage

Talked about the transformation of their business and the importance of cultural fit for new hires and bringing existing staff along.  There was discussion around recruiting by attitude and training the skill from there.  Their leadership model aiming to: Align, model, coach, reinforce way forward.

Liked their idea of having staff engage in “Social Fridays” – 30mins every month on how to engage with social.  Hope to snowball from your people into quality recruitment and support transformation.  They are also offering training to non-employee groups, including alumni and those on maternity (which is a great idea).

Havas

There were a few snippets, stories and ideas in this that I liked including:

  • The way to portray culture as the connection between the “I” and “we” in the workplace.
  • The point that if you are going to articulate the company’s values and behaviors then you need to reinforce those at every touch point.  Including describing the work of the organization via the behaviors (I doubt many do this very well).
  • Consistent recruitment, including ways to avoid unconscious bias, also important.

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.