After just doing this post last week on the topic - coincidentally in my email inbox just the other day came this quote in the subject line:

Who Should Be On Your Short List?

For making an informed decision? In this case about LMSs. The advert read on…

Short Lists Made Easy – Selection Tools Help Busy Learning Professionals Make Important Buying Decisions…Quickly

This – relying on a “short list” – is versus relying on “the crowd” – and I agree.

It’s often all about what crowd you source from.

It’s pretty critical when you ask/know: “what could possibly go wrong?” An important question to ask oneself at the onset of answering something important – not trivial.

If it is high risk and/or high reward (two sides of the same coin) – then target your crowdsourcing. The crowd’s opinions and knowledge/skills and experience vary widely. Narrow the crowd. Shorten the list. Especially if you are in a hurry and aren’t looking for a wide array of responses/inputs.

Can you get answers to your queries that are closer to six sigma? And is that somewhat or highly desirable – or not? It’s not always what you need/want.

As always, it depends.

Think it through carefully. Ask: What could possibly go wrong? Where is Murphy? What are some of the potential unintended consequences? How could they be avoided? And if unavoidable, what then?

There is a time and place for almost every approach, every type of thinking. Turn-Turn-Turn. But it is “always” situational. Always right or wrong – or even indifferent – in a context. And all contexts are not created equal.

Do the homework – do the critical thinking.

Think – don’t blink – unless that is what your situational context demands!

# # #

One size does not fit all. Blends usually work better. Not always. But most often.

As always, it depends.

There are many stakeholders of an Enterprise:

• Society/the Planet
• Governments
• Owners/Shareholders
• Executive Management
• Management
• Customers
• Employees
• Suppliers
• Communities

They each may have different demands and desires, but most want Performance Competence at one or more levels of the Enterprise: Enterprise, Process, Teams and Individual People.

To enable that Performance Competence the Enterprise must invest in the tools/techniques for Formal and/or Informal Learning and Sourcing.

Formal versus Informal
One type of blend. Formal is planned, deliberate. Informal, not so much – or “at all.” And that’s OK.

Another type of diversity.

Learning Overview
The key question: is learning – which is ability to recall – needed/necessary “and” feasible?

Should that be “invested in” or not? If recall isn’t needed – although it may be desired – it may not be feasible/practical? You may want it – but it might be like zero defects – not feasible in a world chock full of variation.

Formal Learning
Pushed or Pulled. And tracked. Planned because of its criticality “to the Enterprise.” It’s high risk – high reward. You got to make “it” happen. You measure the heck out of it – both the process that makes it happen and end product – the competent individual and/or team. You insist that the Learner finished their Modules and successfully!!!!

Should be focused on the terminal objectives: performance competence. Not topical competence.

Informal Learning
Pulled. On demand. Not planned or tracked. Traditional and/or non-Traditional. You don’t measure the heck out of it 9 ways to Sunday. You don’t care if the Learners “finished their Modules.” You hope they got what they needed and then bailed!

Learning Summary
Learning leads to “recall” or it failed miserably! When the Learners/Performers don’t get opportunities to practice in the job, in the workflow/process, you re-train. To enhance future recall ability – when needed. Because of the high Risk/Reward nature of the performance and its consequences.

Rule: High Rosk/Reward needs FORMAL LEARNING. Less Risk/Reward defaults to Informal Learning.

Sourcing Overview
When people do not need to recall – or that isn’t practical – let them source what they need. Source data or people.

Formal Sourcing
Pushed and/or Pulled. But planned – and then tracked. Pushed when needed: think: pop up help screens when on certain pages. Or the giger counter clicking when near radioactive materials.

When the Performers don’t need to “recall” – or when that – desirable as it might have been – isn’t feasible/practical. So you let people source the facts and guidance that they need to perform.

Informal Sourcing
Not planned, not tracked. Data and guidance made accessible – but – whatever. Whatever, whenever, however.

Sourcing Summary
When you don’t need recall ability – or it’s not feasible – let ‘em source!

PUSH versus PULL
Another Blend-type. Another type of diversity.

Push is – make them do it! Pull is – whatever.

Formal can be either Pushed or Pulled. Informal is typically Pulled.

Learning & Sourcing Modes/Media
Watchwords: this to shall pass. Or- this too shall change.

Whatever we have now – is likely to be different as technology advances roll on… and on… and on.

More modes/media exist today than back in the day. Some fall off the table and some remain.

Today – and I may be missing some (please comment):

ILT-synchronous and a-synchronous, on-line meetings, WBT, Coaching, Mentoring, Web 1.0, Blogs, Social Networks, Wikis, Mobile Phone/PDA, etc.

What Governs and Constrains?
Task performance requirements. What’s available. Development/implemenation and maintenance first costs and life cycle costs.

Recall – or – Not Recall?

That is the question. Or a question.

Formal or Informal?

That is the next question!

This is important:

“In fact, the evidence from the past 50 years of research on this issue is unequivocal – unguided or minimally guided discovery and constructivist learning programs simply do not work for more than a very small percentage of people.”

From ASTD 2005 Research-to-Practice Conference Proceedings “How to Turn Research into Successful Practice: A Technology of Performance Design for Organizations, Teams and Individuals “ – Richard E. Clark Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California – clark@usc.edu

# # #

I attended the following session at the ISPI Carolinas a couple of months ago. George Smart delivered the program. He was excellent as was the session.

Managing Change : Tipping PointTM

Situation: Most corporate change efforts never get their desired results, especially concerning changes in corporate culture (re-engineering, CRM, teambuilding, quality, coaching, just-in-time, etc.). Making change “stick” is challenging because there is no “silver bullet” for every business problem. In Leading Change, John Kotter estimated that 85% of companies fail to achieve their objectives. Paul Strebel, in the Harvard Business Review, reports that 50-80% of Fortune 1000 change efforts fail. These numbers are huge – and alarming.

Solution: The Tipping Point Simulation™ is a nationally successful half-day leadership development simulation showing managers how to set up changes that last. In small teams, participants compete on a case study to see who can make strategic decisions to create a lasting change – on time and on budget.

Appropriate for: The Tipping Point Simulation™ leads leaders to discover and address the most common causes of failure during large change efforts such as major technology shifts, mergers, process improvement initiatives, acquisitions, and corporate reorganizations. The variables are drawn from the experience of many change agents and research. However, the simulation is not a prescription for resource allocation; it is a tool to promote dialogue. The model leverages the fact that, at its heart, an organizational change is an idea and ideas spread when people advocate them. Appropriate for those with headcount and/or budget authority, general management development programs, those internal managers assigned to take the role of internal consultant, and university MBA programs.

*** *** *** ***

Check it out further here.

# # #

From Bersin & Associates – Modernize Corporate Training: The Enterprise Learning Framework:

…L&D professionals, must “formalize” this informal learning environment and make sure we align our investments toward talent management and the needs to build deep levels of skill.

Our research shows that 68% of knowledge workers now feel that their biggest learning problem is an “overwhelming volume of information.” This information exists in many formats, it is often out of date, and they are not sure how to find what they need. In some sense the need for “formal” training is greater than ever (you can make sure you get the right information presented in the right way).

*** *** *** ***
I generally liked what I read in this Post.

What seemed to be missing was a focus on the Processes for the Enterprise to drive Requirements for Knowledge/Skill – and the recognition that some K/Ss needed to be learned prior to the moment of need and some need to be learned in the moment of need. And that is determinable – via analysis of Enterprise Processes.

Understand the Processes’ outputs/measures and tasks and roles/responsibilities of the learner/Performer – and then the enabling K/Ss. Then determine when and how to deploy/make accessible.

Perhaps that notion in buried in their white paper – which I will review soon. Perhaps you should as well.

You just can’t create content and put in systems to connect with it and with others – getting 3,000 hits on your queries isn’t performance support – it’s performance retardation. And with a negative ROI.

# # #

Memorial Day weekend 1973 and I am just recently out of Boot Camp (San Diego) and two months on my ship – the USS Okinawa – and more immediately had finished with a short visit with my KC Family (as opposed to my Chi Family) – and I’m driving the old man’s car from Kansas City to Indianapolis where I will be doing 6 months at “A School” at Fort Benjamin Harrison (now an industrial park in the NE suburbs of Indy).

Print and Broadcast Journalism. 2 Schools.

Guy’s Boot Camp Picture – Something to show the folks back home that you survived the learning experience.

School at DINFOS – the Department of Defense Information School. This is where my love of acronyms began – in the USN.

The old man loaned me his car because he was so happy/so proud.

When I got my draft notice at my apartment back in October of 1972 and called home with “the news” – he was at my door with a Navy recruiter within 60 minutes. That recruiter told me the sufficient amount of lies – “you’ll get any A School you want with your test scores when you are in Boot Camp” – as I had seen this coming with the testing and physical I had to go through in the summer of 72 – and my chosen Schools were now full as the recruiter checked at his office the next day. Don’t worry!

And then there was that 2 years in the Army versus 3 years in the Navy versus 4 years in the Air Force. And the Viet Nam war was not over – yet. THAT happened while I was in Boot Camp in January – and then the war and the draft ended simultaneously. Timing IS everything.

Just like for my dad. He had joined the Navy as soon as he could – and WWII ended for him while he was in Boot Camp. Like father – like son. Navy men.

It had been raining most of my drive that Memorial Day weekend in 1973 and I had tuned in the Indianapolis 500 race on the radio. It was raining there too. I was headed to my A School after spending a short time on my ship on the Deck Force in Long Beach CA where my ship was home ported and in dry-dock. You see all of the schools that I wanted when in Boot camp were still full – and so I did not get any of the “A” Schools that I wanted – and I spent two extra weeks after normal Boot Camp (if Boot Camp could ever be referred to as Normal) learning how to scrape paint and paint ships.

There is a wrong way and a right way and a Navy way. You learn that quickly in Boot Camp. Or they punish you and 74 of your closest colleagues. They call that team building in the civilian world – where lack of team cohesion doesn’t often lead to death versus continued life. Different context – don’t you know.

It never rains in Southern California – and so I had not experienced rain for months. And I’d never been to Indy – although I had previously been a Hoosier (La Porte, 5th – 7th grades). So I was entering new territory. New Learning experiences. I was 20 going on 21. And the command of my ship had decided to send one of their own to this A School rather than take whomever the School sent them. They were about to install a 75 TV Closed Circuit -TV systems on board – and that was being done while I was away at school.

I arrived at the Army Base with my paperwork in a jacket (never ever lose that jacket son! I was “counseled” at full volume along with my peers).

I was checked in and escorted to my dorm room where I met my new roomie – Pat – who was in the Army. I had a car – so we decided to “blow this pop stand” as the phrase in Chicago went in the 1960s (WLS) – and head out to a local bar – and not the bar at the Enlisted man’s Club – but off base – to explore our new surroundings.

Me at DINFOS – in our barracks/dorm room. A Photo of Guy The Navy Sailor – by Pat of the US Army- for our Print Journalism class.

The bar we stopped at turned out to be a gay bar – and the bartender told us after we ordered and he served us. We finished our drinks while trying not to look around at everyone else who was staring intently at us – with our very short haircuts. We weren’t welcomed – not that it would have bothered me a whole lot – but we both got out of there after that first drink and drove downtown Indy – around the fountain downtown – and then headed back to our NE corner of Indy and The Fort. And the bar at the EMC.

After the holiday – we started school with Army and Air Force and Navy and Marine and Coast Guard members – an all branches school – which was cool. Lesson learned: the AF officers didn’t feel a need to denigrate their people to get the job done. Not so for the other branches – at the time – back in the day.

The next Memorial Day – 1974 – I am on a WESTPACT Cruise. Western Pacific Cruise – in the South China Seas – not as you’d think of a civilian cruise. Days and weeks at sea – patrolling the coast of Cambodia mostly. Waiting to evacuate the capital and our embassy there. Didn’t happen – that cruise – and after an 11 month cruise we went back to Long Beach and soon moved our home port to San Diego. A great place to be – unless you are a poor sailor.

But on that first cruise – in between numerous times at sea – it was interspersed with time in ports such as Hong Kong and Singapore – where I had my first Singapore Sling at the bar at the very British/very famous Hotel Raffles. Just watch the very old Charlie Chan movies to see what that hotel and bar looked like “back in my day.”

Mike, Dennis and Guy in Hong Kong – walking above the city where all the artists sold their wares.

When we weren’t patrolling the South China Seas we spent most of our time in Subic Bay. I had White friends and Black friends and Hispanic friends and Filipino friends, and as it turned out – just as I was getting out of the Navy I discovered that several of my friends where gay friends. In fact, I am the god father of one of those gay men’s sons – and that came about a few years after the Navy – and a year before he came out. You learn a lot, informally, every where you go.

You meet all kinds of people, every where you go.

The film chain where a 16mm film projector “fed” a TV Camera – I had two for continuous programming – no need to stop for reel changes.

Rewinding each film reel before sending it on to the next ship was a routine job task.

A pile of Programming from AFRTS – the Armed Forces Radio and TV Service – my source of Programming in 16mm film and 2 inch video media.

Wallace hanging out with friends Brousard and Jackson – Bill took the picture. All “last names” because that’s how it was.

In my Dress Blues before a day or two in Hong Kong – probably late ’73/early ’74 – the 2 stripes give that time frame away.

The old and the new in Hong Kong. That’s a Mercedes Benz – which is what most Taxis in Hong Kong were back then. The Rickshaws were the old style Taxis in Hong Kong – and I rode them both.

The Memorial Day after that – 1975 – I am on my 2nd WESTPAC – – which ended up a 13-month cruise – and we have already completed the evacuations of both Phnom Penh, Cambodia AND then Saigon South Viet Nam – earlier in April 1975. That helicopter in Miss Saigon – was from the USS Okinawa. LPH-3.

600 Sailors taking care of 2400 Marines. And my job was to keep all 3000 of them “occupied” after work hours with TV entertainment – and my 5 minute nightly newscast. To keep the fighting down. So I never ran the commercials. To keep the fighting down. After all – you don’t “train” Marines to kill all day long – and then send them down to the mess decks to eat with he sailors – without something happening. Get real.

We were in Subic Bay – our home port away from home port. A bunch of us had bought 10-Speed bicycles and had gone out for a ride in the mountains surrounding the base.

I still have a “ticket” issued by the Shore Patrol for running a stop sign on base a couple of months later – when we returned from another ride in the mountains.

I had seen their jeep and had fully stopped at the sign before proceeding – but everybody I was with just rode through the stop sign – but you know how that goes – the SPs gave each and every one of us a ticket – our ration of **** – as it was referred to in the military back in those days.

But our ship was leaving the very next day – so we just all laughed about it. Sail on brother.

Memorial Day 2009.
Our troops serve us admirably in two concurrent war efforts. Plus elsewhere across the planet.

It is tough duty and the pay stinks. And the living conditions? Typically worse.

May I suggest you consider giving up your first class seat to anyone on board your flight sitting in coach in uniform? And call to their wait staff at the airport bar to have them bring you THAT bill – if they are in uniform? I don’t travel much at all anymore – so I cannot continue my practice of that.

Which is something I learned I learned from some British and Australian business men in Hong Kong (Kowloon actually) at Ned Kelly’s Last Stand – a favorite bar for us poor sailors on leave for a day or two – as they bought us pitcher after pitcher of beer – and said their thanks to us – EVERY time we went there. That bar is still there today. Click here.

Thanks to them. Thanks to those who serve us today. Thanks to those who have also served. Pay it Forward. Pay it Back.

To those who ask: Where is MY bailout?
They are in uniform – buster.

Next question? Something not so self-centered, not so self-absorbed.

Bless the troops – and let’s really take care of them upon their return. And take better care of their families while they serve. Pay for Performance. What price freedom?

# # #

Some are calling for blowing up (figuratively, not literally) the Training Function. It is not meeting the current needs – nor is it prepared for meeting the future needs.

So- blow it up and start all over again (Tobacco Road, my mind continuous the song lyrics from the 1960s).

That would suggest Discontinuous Improvement versus Continuous Improvement.

But I would suggest that the Training Function should get it’s act together by getting its Process-act together first.

If the people running the show at your Enterprise Training/ Learning/ Knowledge Management Function(s) don’t have their act together, process-wise, then I might start there.

Well actually I would start somewhere else before I launched into process improvement using Lean and Six Sigma tools and techniques – but I would eventually get there, and soon. For time and money is a wastin’ – shareholder equity that is.

I would first assess the maturity of our ISD processes.

But ISD processes are more than your version of ADDIE. More than your structured approach to Training (SAT). More than my CAD – Curriculum Architecture Design. Much more.

In my model – which you should adapt if you cannot adopt – I have 47 such processes that are necessary for a Training/ Learning/ Knowledge Management Function. They are grouped into 12 buckets, and those are grouped into three segments…leadership, core and support…

They are covered in my book- T&D Systems View – which is available as a hardback and Kindle at Amazon.com – and as a free PDF at http://www.eppic.biz/ – and provides an assessment tool and design tool for your revamping your T&D/ L&D/ KMS Function.

And my book – lean-ISD – also available as a hardbound and Kindle – and as a free PDF at http://www.eppic.biz/ – provides a proven approach to those processes traditionally thought of as ISD – the ADDIE level of ID and the Curriculum Architecture (for creating performance-based T&D Paths) level of ISD. Those are at 5 and 6 O’Clock on the T&D Systems View model/graphic.

You really need to start at 12 O’Clock high.

At 12 O’Clock you are connecting with the leaders and needs of your Enterprise – something that you should have done BEFORE this tough economy – and getting aligned. To serve them and their priority needs.

Is it too late to get your act together process-wise – and do you now need to “blow it up and start all over again?” – or is there still time to systematically tackle improvements in parallel versus in series.

And if it is time to blow it up and start all over again, what is or will be your guide to rebuilding your Phoenix from the ashes?

# # #

Call me a sceptic, a contrarian, an old f*rt.

Whatever. Grey-beard. Grey-head (not quite yet – but it is coming).

Does the “Wisdom of the Crowd” AVERAGE you up, down – or out?

If you average OUT – what have you accomplished – take the highs and lows and find the median. Like guessing the weight of the Ox.

OK if you are guessing – and playing a gambling game.

What should we do about global warming? Ask the crowd – and collectively they’d get it right? After they averaged “out?”

Getting the right people on the bus BEFORE venturing out on the journey – is an attempt to average up, not down, not out.

Heck – I’m certainly not right all of the time. Not even most of the time. Neither are you.

Life is full of variances. And “non-intuitive” facts. Like leaning downhill over THAT downhill ski (snow skiers know from whence I speak). Lean over the edge ma’am – and you’ll be just fine!

OK – you’ve really got to trust your ski instructor (the ego-maniac right?) to “do what he advises.” Lean out OVER the downhill ski and put all of your weight on that – and – don’t lean back toward the mountain.

Yeah. Right.

If I have to rely on the WISDOM OF THE CROWD – then better be hanging with the right folks.

While not PERFECT – Six Sigma – or otherwise…I like ISPI – the International Society for Performance Improvement.

I’ve been a member since 1979. Actively.

And I think that has averaged me up.

# # #

A couple of months ago I asked on Twitter something to the effect: “is it LEARNING if you find something online or on paper or via asking someone for data/guidance for one task – and then go on with other tasks?”

I think it is most often Sourcing – and not often Learning.

Why? Learning involves recall during the moment of need. Sourcing involves getting what you need and then: forgetaboutit.

But as always, it depends.

Is using any Social Network/Social Media part of Learning and/or Sourcing?
It can be both right? I might actually later recall something “learned” while on that web 2.0 tool.
But was that the intent?

Or was the intent to provide me and others an electronic pathway to someone and/or something – some content? Again, if it was intended to enable me to recall later – then that’s Learning.
Otherwise it was for Sourcing.

Is using a Knowledge Management System Learning and/or Sourcing?
Again, if I recall something when needed later then learning occurred. But was that the goal?
Was the goal to have me memorize for later recall on some specifics – some data/facts or some task guidance? Most often not. But sometimes. But it probably was not the intent. But a KMS could be used to provide pull access to instructional and informational content.

Is using any EPSS – Electronic Performance Support System Learning and/or Sourcing?
Same as KMS.

What Drives the Choice of Learning Solutions or Sourcing Solutions?
For the various stakeholders’ sake I hope it is the Performance Competence requirements of the individual and teams of Performers (workers) given their process/workflow requirements.

There are Many Alternatives for both Learning and Sourcing.

Yes, and in both the Learning space and in the Sourcing space that will keep on changing with the constant evolution of technology.

Look at what technologies you already have in place, and know which are planned for later – and/or make a rational case for new ones. Ones that will have some legs into the future – and won’t end up being old/dead technology sooner than they can be depreciated by the accounts.

Oh yeah – that reality. The bean-counting reality.

Hey – if it were your Enterprise YOU WOULD be thinking about this aspect too!

What kind of R’s can you get for the I’s?
As in ROI.

Or- what is the R in terms of the “Costs of Non-Conformance” (CoNC)? What is the problem or opportunity worth? And what are the life cycle returns versus just the immediate returns?

And- what is the I? What are the “Costs of Conformance” (CoC)? What will it really cost to put this in place? And what are the life cycle costs versus just the first costs?

Types of Returns
Here is my model for ISD – seven types of Returns/ CoNCs – that a wise Investment might provide. Use it as a framework to help you decide the potential value of the Returns in your context.

# # #

Again – the Multi-Generational Differences and Implications for Learning Design – garbage (a polite term) hits my computer screen. Multiple times within a short time frame.

First I saw it in ASTD’s most recent T+D, and then again in an ISPI Chapter meeting notice/announcement.

Janet Clarey debunked the ASTD stuff (another polite term) before I got around to it. Thanks Janet!

What can we in this field of endeavor do about this? How can we fight back?

Should be propose a week or an entire month designated to debunking Instructional Design myths? And ask everyone to post on them all week or all month month long? Not to just debunk – but to bring out the research on these myths.

Could we even come to some semblance of agreement on what these myths are – and why they are invalid – and in what contexts they are invalid – and in what contexts they might be valid?

We have to be careful ourselves about over-generalizing.

Overgeneralizing concepts/practices such as Informal Learning.

For experts, it – Informal Learning – is certainly a viable/valid approach. But it is not so for novices.

What are your pet peeves about invalid concepts/practices in our profession – Learning?

How might we more thoroughly clarify what is valid and when/where – and what is not?

# # #

From Janet Clarey…

I don’t know what title to give this post…UNCLE maybe?
By Janet Clarey on Brandon Hall
In this months T+D there is an article called “One for the Ages” about tackling the classroom generation gap. It assumes there is one…

***********
Right on Janet! Thanks for debunking this garbage – and it’s from ASTD – they ought to be ashamed!!! And they certainly should know better!!! Where is their quality control? Where are their research folks?

Why are these falsehoods so darn prevelant in many of our professional venues? Is it the influence of vendors promoting the hip and happin’ for a quick buck?

# # #

The September 28th, 2006 issue of Success Magazine had a quick, one-page article listing the ten lessons learned by Neil Rackham, author of the best seller, Spin Selling.

Each was explained in more detail, but here are the 10 Lessons.

1. Generate Trust
2. Don’t Talk To Much
3. Ask Questions
4. Reasons Don’t Always Persuade
5. Be Persistent
6. Help People Answer Their Own Questions
7. Focus on the Person, Not the Product
8. Prepare
9. Keep Learning
10. Be Creative

Which of these fit your professional context?

Neil is known for Sales consulting. He was originally a researcher focused on Performance Improvement and Learning and one big effort took him off to the world of sales.

I’ve known Neil Rackham since 1981 – when I met him at MTEC – Motorola’s Training & Education Center – the forerunner of Motorola University.

As the Brits often say: Brilliant!

# # #

Warning – Opinions Coming…

Many who know me know that I see more to ISD Processes than ADDIE – or even more than Curriculum Architecture Design. Those are just 2 of the 47 in my T&D Systems View model, book and prior life’s consulting services.

A recent BPTrends Spotlight reminded me that I had long ago intended to address the maturity of ISD Processes using the Capability Maturity Model framework – used for many process types but its genesis was in Information Technology. See the BPTrends content for more background.

Hopefully you find this useful in assessing exactly where your Enterprise is on the maturity curve…

Level 1 – No ISD Processes are Organized
ISD, such as ADDIE is unique to each practitioner. Everybody does it “their own way.” As such ISD projects are NOT predictable in time/schedule, costs or quality. If a project went well, you just got lucky. Probably shouldn’t been at the race track’s betting window that day too.
But that is not good stewardship of shareholder equity. That’s no way to run a railroad or any other business. Whatever, whenever, however.

It ought to be a crime.

As the Maturity Model suggests – this is a very immature approach to ISD. Perhaps in your world this is appropriate. Perhaps not.

Where are you? Is it here?

Level 2 – Some ISD Processes are Organized
Here someone somewhere is getting a handle on some of what is needed to run an ISD (or a Performance Improvement) shop – at the business unit level.

Some processes may have been mapped formally and some people may actually be following the defined processes locally. Perhaps some are following some semblance of ADDIE plus other processes.

That’s a start – but there is more to any business entity than its New Product Development process, which is all that ADDIE is.

Is this where your organization is currently?

Level 3 – Most ISD Processes are Organized
As obvious by the title this is where more and more ISD Processes are mapped, communicated, and perhaps followed/adhered to – as driven by the Enterprise.

It can happen! I’ve seen it!

Is this where you are at?

…now please note the difference coming – this next level seems to me to be more of a “step increase” than just being at the next level…

Level 4 – ISD Processes are Managed
The language of organized versus managed should be/could be telling. It’s the difference between having an organized view of your processes – and actually managing them using data.
Do you know your own “development ratios” for your different types of deployment and complexity? Can you be predictive about costs, schedules and quality? Can you see where some efforts actually beat those standards – and where others do not?

Is this where you are currently at?

Level 5 – ISD Processes are Managed and Improved
Here the data being collected continuously or statistically is being used to find areas in the processes for tightening up and/or loosening up – improving them.

I am a fan of a Tom Peter’s phrase: loose-tight and tight-loose. That means/suggests that some processes should be tight. And others should be loose. And it sometimes means that that need is a situational variable. Be flexible when planning and conducting your ISD efforts.

Is this where you are at? Continuously improving your ISD Processes using data versus opinions? Cool! Well done!

So What? What’s the Big Deal?
If you were the single shareholder of your Enterprise you’d already know the answer. It would be your money that is being put to best use rather than wasted.

So ask: what’s in it for me/ the learner/ the management/ the stakeholders?
WIIFM/L/M/S?

Summary
My book, T&D Systems View might be a source for your maturing efforts for your ISD Processes. It is available as a hardbound book and a Kindle book at Amazon.com – and as a free PDF at http://www.eppic.biz/.

Now please don’t think for one moment that I subscribe to the thought that you should perfect each and every one of the 47 ISD/T&D processes that the book overviews – and provides you with an assessment process and tools to self-determine “where you are at” across all 47.

The book is intended to identify the more critical, in terms of high risk and/or high reward – two sides of the same coin – so that you tackle improvements based on the ROI potential.

Not all broken systems/processes are of equal risk/reward. And there probably are bigger fish to fry outside of the ISD/T&D domain in your Enterprise. Perhaps your biggest target is way down on the Enterprise list of issues to address. Perhaps not.

Improvement investments are business decisions. Invest in improvements as if it were your own money – and I think you’ll be fine!

But that of course – is just my opinion.

# # #

Warning: Opinions Follow…
　
Work at Learning Overview
I am taking this to mean (for me and this post) – working at “learning more” about learning and the training methods to make learning better, faster cheaper for the individual Learner and Management and other Enterprise Stakeholders.

Learning at Work Overview
I’m taking this to mean (again- for me and this post) – the workplace learning environment that Learners find themselves in and that their management contends with while they attempt to make Learning happen that is meaningful to the Learners’ function in the Enterprise. And the Learning (some still call it Training like me) solutions/products to create/enable learning.

Work at Learning
As a manager of a team of consultants for 25 years in an external consulting firm and more recently a manager of managers and individual contributors for Learning & Development function for the past 18 months inside the type of organizations I used to consult with – I have always believed in professional development. I disliked the notion that the cobbler’s children had no shoes.

I have used membership AND participation in local professional groups for my staff as a vehicle as one component in my staff development efforts. My choice was always the local ISPI chapter – but ASTD and other affinity groups’ local chapters might have been fine as well.

In my first job my manager took her team to the local NSPI chapter meeting (as ISPI was known back in 1979) and signed us up for committees. Back in the day managers did things like that. Today – not so much. That was my model. So I encouraged my consulting staff to belong and participate – and I paid for their membership and meeting fees. I did that for 25 years in my consulting firms.

For the past 18 months I have been unable to make those kinds of calls – actively encouraging membership and participation AND then putting some money where my mouth was. I still encourage but I cannot pay.

I cannot insist – a stronger type of encouragement than suggest – as I used to as I saw it as both a learning opportunity and a marketing opportunity. Funny thing, now that many of my former employees are out on their own as single shingle consultants and small consultancies – I see that they’ve upped their game in local and national membership AND participation significantly.

Nowadays there are many additional avenues to development of ones professional knowledge and skills. The promise of IT of the 1970s has really arrived with the tools of web 2.0. Blogs, Wikis, Social Networks, Webinars, Audio and Video Podcasts, and on and on.

But as the Romans said in Latin: caveat emptor – let the buyer beware.

Nowadays the trick is to separate the wheat from the chaff – the good stuff from the bad on your own. Whereas I used to trust the wisdom of the crowd at a local and national ISPI venue for proactively doing that so that I only saw valid content – that’s not so true in today web 2.0 spaces. Anybody, just like me, with an opinion can share that opinion online and potentially reach millions. Yikes!

There are still too many instances of web 2.0 spreading “garbage as science” that I worry about my staff learning things not true. Things that have pretty much been invalidated by research despite the “controversies on the net“ that go on and on. Invalid things such as designing learning for different learning styles (which is different from learning styles themselves). Designing learning differently for multi-generational differences. Or that retention myth: “People remember 50% of what they see and hear and only 10% of what they read.” Or use of MBTI and other like approaches. Or having the audio track read the screen text to the Learners in WBT.

Of course, garbage as science isn’t limited to web 2.0. I had a disagreement with a large consultant firm’s e-Learning expert about the demo module that they shared with us. When I questioned their audio reading the screen text – they responded with some gobbledy-gook about what research says about that – and also noted that the Learner could turn the audio track off. I sent them some real research findings about THAT nonsense the next day. They still call on me looking for business.

So what is a Professional seeking to develop themselves to do nowadays? Should they seek a blend of the old and the new? The traditional approach of using affinity groups in combination with the new fangled web 2.0 resources? I think so. I myself have recently joined WLP – a SN site started by Will Thalheimer, whom I trust as a research-type guy, and whom I first met at ISPI about a decade ago.

Maybe you should join too. The site is here. It is for independents – which I still am in my spare time.

Learning at Work
My focus here will be Formal Learning – as Informal happens anyway – and web 2.0 tools are more EPSS than the Learning/Training tools as often touted. If you look it up on your EPSS or paper job aid while “in the workflow” and then get on with it – was that “learning” or was that simply sourcing? If you use a SN to seek an answer to your question in the moment – is that learning? Leading to recall later? I think not. At least, most often not.

As always, it depends.

And of course web 2.0 tools can be and should be used in Formal Learning – as appropriate to the “what is to be learned” and the “whom is to do the learning” situation.

Is Formal Learning always Social Learning? No. Read the instructions for your wood router and then rout some wood. All by yourself. No real need to join a wood routers affinity group online or down the street at the DIY-Lumberyard.

Is Social Learning “often” a better way to learn most things?

Yes.

We are after all, social creatures. Really tricky things to learn might require some coaching with feedback. Even real tricky wood router-ing. I think it’s why traditional classroom training is often preferred by many. To socialize with your peers. Too bad so much of traditional classroom training was and is bad. Gives it a bad rep.

Same thing happening to eLearning. Hurried development sans analysis and design – just do it – guess at some objectives and make up some text and throw in some gratuitous graphics while managing the screen’s white space. Oh and don’t forget the stupid multiple choice and matching “tests for understanding.” Oh wait – am I writing about eLearning or traditional classroom training? Hmmm.

Poor Learners. What we subject them to, to help them learn to perform better.

Poor Managers. What we arm them with to help them develop their people to perform better, arriving at performance competence faster and cheaper.

Poor Enterprise Stakeholders. What we undertake for significant investments in time and dollars for the too-often too-little or even negative returns that result – resulting in them not really trusting us and sometimes cutting our budgets and staff in tough economic times.

How to improve the “learning at work?”

Do the analysis of the terminal performance competence and the enabling Knowledge/Skills required before using valid design approaches that will lead to “recall when needed” – and before using cool tools for rapid prototyping and development.

Without the clear understanding of that context – of “the ability to perform tasks to produce outputs to stakeholder requirements” – how can you reasonably expect your Formal Learning solutions/products to hit the mark, hit a home run, hit a decent ROI?

With that performance competence context insight you can better determine whether that Learning should/could occur in the workflow and/or prior to the moment of need. Then you can chose which modes and media make sense given the Learners’ work-place context and their learning-place context – which may or may not be different – with the conditions and constraints of their reality.

Is the manager’s job really designed to be the coach – or they too often being very busy at other parts of their job which will always win out in the battle for limited time and attention? And have they learned how to be a coach? Or is the Learner really on their own – like it or not?

Is rapid development inappropriate? No. As long as it includes analysis and design on the front end. Involving more than one SME/Master Performer can bring that insight into the hurried efforts – and having a developer who knows good design approaches that really leads to learning (recall) will lead to better Learning solutions – and having them working in collaboration is the ticket to better, faster, cheaper routs to Performance Competence.

In my opinion.

# # #
　

The Twitter Song – not how I feel – but a great song to remind us to not take ourselves too seriously!

Thanks to Steven J. Kelly – who has given up on his Twitter Experiment. I have not.

What are your favorites?

# # #

I am not an “Engineer” although I believe that I “engineer” both Instruction/Information that enables performance of tasks, large task sets, whole jobs, processes, and sets of processes – whatever is needed in my Client’s situation.

I “engineer” I/I for use in the workflow and prior to the workflow – and for both prior to and then in the workflow. Where the Workflow is the same as in the Process.

I do that by first getting clear about the “who” needs it. Who’s performance are we attempting to sustain and/or improve?

Then we get specific about what Performance – and what do we mean by Performance. I mean which Outputs are to be produced to what measures/standards, involving what tasks and by whom? And against that “ideal” what are the Clients now getting and why – my “gap analysis.”

Yes I know that some think “gap” analysis are old school, too negative. They think “appreciative inquiry” is a better route, think positively, accentuate the positive and avoid looking for the negative.

Let me digress…

If I’m looking at the performance of an army tank and it’s crew and something is not right, it rolls forward and backward and can turn – but the darn thing just won’t shoot – appreciative inquiry is not going to get that tank doing “its thing” any better. I’d better do a gap analysis. And learn what to beef up in terms of Instruction because whatever is in place right now – isn’t working – and that goes beyond Instruction to the other Human Assets beyond Knowledge/Skills – and possibly into Environmental Assets as well.

I need to know both those Target Audiences specifics (who) and the Performance Requirements (what) and then move into the enabling Knowledge/Skills (more what). And if smart and appropriate – what existing content (Instruction and Information) already exists that might be used “as is” or “after modification” to avoid building/buying redundant content. For the sake of the shareholders.

Armed with that Analysis data – or what the Engineers might call Requirements Definition data – I can design my Instruction/Information in a logical flow of: Info – Demo – Appo (application) so as to encourage LEARNING.

The graphic above shows a blank “Lesson Map” and the graphic below shows a completed “Lesson Map.”

Once you have the output-task insights and a list of the enabling K/Ss it’s pretty intuitive to backward-chain your design…describe the APPO, then the DEMO (if needed, it’s not always needed), and then sequence the INFO – and include an “advanced organizer” in the Lesson’s Intro. Or make that the first INFO block after the Open – whatever!

All of this is covered in my book: lean-ISD – which is available as a hardbound book and Kindle at Amazon.com and as a free 404-page PDF at http://www.eppic.biz/

There are many Posts covering the analysis efforts leading to design (at the ADDIE-like) level as well as at the Curriculum Architecture Design level (think Learning Paths/ T&D Paths/ Learning Continuum) available on this site. Search on “Performance Analysis.”

I do attempt to engineer Instruction – Instructional experiences that have high fidelity to the “performance contexts” of the learners/Performers. I’ve been doing so since the late 1970s – all based on the up-front data from the Performance Model.

Cheers!

# # #

A colleague was lamenting recently that her staff needed to start doing task analysis prior to their eLearning development. I didn’t ask about whether of not they were doing these “rapidly” or not. I just assumed so.

This was partially the topic of my ISPI Cracker Barrel session at the ISPI Conference in Orlando last month. That session was on my quicker-than-quick, leaner-than-lean PACT Process: RADD – Rapid Analysis Design Development. Lean-er-ISD so to speak.

As I kicked off each of the 3 Cracker Barrel sessions, I told all sitting at the round tables that I hated development sans design and sans analysis. Then at least once I said I hated all of that sans project planning – at least most of the time. I don’t really mind a lack of planning EVERY time an instructional effort is undertaken – especially when we have a solid, valid “patterned approach” is use – and especially when the effort is one of many in a chain of efforts post Curriculum Architecture Design. And I don’t mind a lack of planning for the occasional “Instructional One-Off” – when they are rare and are not the default patterned approach.

I usually explain the PACT Processes “top-down” from CAD – Curriculum Architecture Design to MCD – Modular Curriculum Development/Acquisition. RADD is a quicker approach to MCD – when appropriate.

When is RADD appropriate versus when is MCD appropriate? RADD is appropriate when the effort will produce a short module – which in PACT we refer to as an Event – the order-able/accessible set of content that one might get credit for completing. PACT produces modular content – not to be confused with a Module – which is the language of almost everyone else. Which I am fine with – not being in sync with everyone else on this. MCD is for longer outputs/products – Events. 1 or 2 or 3 or 5 or 10 day Learning Products. I still call them Training Events, or Training & Development Events.

A rose is a rose is a rose. Right?

In both RADD and MCD as well as in CAD and IAD – Instructional Activity Development/Acquisition efforts I use the same 4 types of Instructional Analysis to produce 4 types of data to influence and/or be used directly in PACT’s design efforts.:

-Target Audience data

-Performance data

-Enabling Knowledge/Skill data

-Existing T&D Assessments (for reuse potential) data

In a recognizable RADD situation – for those short modules (T&D Events) where I have been called into a client’s office to discuss their real pressing need – I have on occasion begun the RADD process right there – skipping my typical (in MCD efforts) project planning steps – because of their urgency and the lack of time. Plus it always makes a client happy to see action – and I will accommodate their bias for action when I feel it won’t blow up in “our” faces later downstream and send us off to ReWork City.

More on that – ReWork City – later.

So here is a story of me walking in to a client’s office and after they tell me what they want I jump up to their flip chart or whiteboard and begin. As a greybeard I have remembrances of doing this with flip charts before the became white boards became de rigor. Either format works – unless the white board is small. I like those that span an office wall. Clients with cubical walls most likely resulted in “we should go find a conference room” with a white board spanning its wall.

Target Audience data
I clarify who the target audience or audiences are. What are their backgrounds in experience and in education. The key point is to determine what can safely be generalized, and what cannot. I’m looking for variances to determine the incoming K/Ss likely and to determine the need for multiple entry points in the instruction so some who should can skip things they already know.

Less critical in Instructor led forums as I would then use their incoming K/Ss in some information or demonstration or application exercise. But is eLearning it only makes the Learner upset to have to wade through things they already know – unless I can branch them past that stuff to get more immediately to what they don’t know. I also want us to both think about how many immediately are to be trained and how many later after we’re through the existing population and then will deal with new hires, etc. “Who and how many will be coming through the training door?” I ask.

This quick exercise with the client allows them to tell me what they think I need to know and lets me get what I need. I write it down on the flip chart or white board – or even on paper in my notepad folio and then I show them what I wrote so they can correct me as needed.

Performance data
Usually short modules (Events) only have what I call AoPs – Areas of Performance – which is a bit of an arbitrary chunking devise for me. However an AoP is never a “topic” but is always a “task” or “task-set” – such as each of the letters of ADDIE represent a task-set.

If I were to identify the task-sets for the A in ADDIE I’d minimally be talking about the 4 AoPs of:

-Target Audience data generation

-Performance data generation

-Enabling Knowledge/Skill data generation

-Existing T&D Assessments (for reuse potential) data generation

I hope that makes sense. Not a “topic” spin – but a “task” spin. If my short module (Event) were on “analysis surveys” (which I don’t do but you might) then that is a single AoP. From there it’s a matter of teasing out the Output or Outputs within this AoP, and then all of the tasks that need to be performed to produce that output or those outputs. And then we would identify all of the key measures or standards for each Output – which might involve using my stakeholder hierarchy to tease those out.

This is a place where the client might decide that they don’t know this well enough and they decide that we need to involve others.

Master Performers are my preference over SMEs for completing this part of the analysis. After all, they should know the tasks – but in reality they don’t. They all too often operate on “unconscious competence” and it really takes working with a group of them to fill in each others gaps of insight into what they really do to do this well.

And then we – the client or the group of Master Performers assembled – would define all of the “roles/job titles” involved and defining their responsibilities per task. This will enable “role clarity” later in the Instruction (module/Event/modular Event). That documents ideal performance.

The terminal objective of the Instruction: be able to perform tasks to produce outputs to stakeholder requirements. Then I prefer to conduct a gap analysis. That is done by identifying where outputs don’t meet measures/standards “typically” and then determining the probable cause and the type of cause..

This could all be placed on the whiteboard in a handwritten version of the Performance Model – here is a Performance Model chart prettied up after word processing.

Here is one from a photo of a flip chart page containing the Performance Model chart.

This is then used to systematically derive the enabling Knowledge/Skills.

Enabling Knowledge/Skill data
I have 17 categories of K/S that I use in PACT. As I have these memorized after using them for over 20 years it’s easy for me to use them in a client meeting “off the top of my head.” You might need a job aid.

Those 17 categories are:

Definitions for each of them can be found in my book: lean-ISD which is available as a free 404 page PDF at http://www.eppic.biz/ or from Amazon as a hard bound or Kindle book.

I literally point to each Output-Task cluster on the white board and ask, “are there any “XXX” knowledge/skills needed to perform these tasks to produce those outputs to the measures/standards?” Where the XXX stands for each of the 17 K/S Categories of PACT.

So I drag my client quickly through each of those 17 categories and they tell me if there are any and I write them down. This is often another place where they decide that they don’t know this well enough and they decide that we need to involve others. Master Performers again are my preference over SMEs.

Here is a K/S Matric “typed-up.”

Here is a flip chart version:

Once we are done with the Performance data and the Enabling K/S data we are ready to assess any existing T&D for its reuse potential.

Existing T&D Assessments (for reuse potential) data

By reuse I mean “as is” or “after modification” or “not applicable.” We review what they know about what exists and decide whether or not it can and should be used “AI” or “AM.”

My goal since the early 1980s was to avoid paralysis in analysis – and – to avoid wasting the shareholders’ equity developing content that already existed.

Then What After Analysis?
Design of course. And done quickly too. And then Development following that design. Which should go quickly too given the analysis informed design efforts. And then on to Pilot-Test (or just the 1st delivery). And Revisions after that as necessary – a quick trip to ReWork City as needed. As planned in your ADDIE-like process. As in mine.

ReWork City
A terrible place to live. All too often too many Instructional Designers seem to live at work in ReWork City. They are always reworking their content because it is never close enough to ideal to move to the next step. I believe it is often because they didn’t know how to do analysis – or didn’t get a chance to do analysis – leading to design – leading then to development.

Avoid ReWork City if you can.

Unless it is by design to be a quick trip.

The PACT Processes are covered in my book: lean-ISD.

# # #

What would you do first, second, third…? What would you do in the first 30 days? In the next 30? And in the last 30 of your first 90 days?

In the first 30 days – Enterprise size and complexity depending…here’s what I would do:

1- Meet with the leaders of the Enterprise collectively (if possible) to assess how well the L&D function is meeting their needs currently, and their assessment of how well the L&D function is positioned to meet the medium term and long term given their strategies. And then we would collectively determine where any shortfalls are currently, expected in the medium term and long term – and what specific critical high risk/hard reward Enterprise initiatives need to be supported currently, and later.

2- Meet with the L&D leadership and key staff in a multi-day workshop to thoroughly assess the L&D Outputs and the provisioning Systems – labeled T&D Systems in my book and other writing on the 12 sub-Systems of the “T&D Systems View.“

The book: “T&D Systems View” would be my basis for conducting that assessment. We’d determine where the major gaps are from ideal based on the CONC – Costs of Non-Conformance otherwise known as the PIP – Performance Improvement Potential – from Thomas F. Gilbert.

Determine the probable COC – Cost of Conformance – in order to make it more ideal (but probably not Six Sigma levels of perfection). That analysis effort would create design/redesign criteria.

3- Develop a Strategic Plan and a Financial Case and a Story to share the thinking of what to do and how to go about it for review, critique and modifications with Enterprise Leadership and other Key Stakeholders.

After modification I’d have that shared further across the organization for additional review and feedback gathering. That would then be shared with Enterprise leadership prior to final modifications.

In the second 30 days and perhaps the third set of 30 days:

4- Establish a designated team to quickly develop a tactical plan and conduct rapid design efforts and integration testing leading to prioritized development efforts for quickly revising the T&D/L&D Systems and sub-Systems to meet the needs and the design criteria established.

The T&D Systems View presents 47 distinct processes in a set of 12 “Systems/sub-Systems” – which would be addressed in an integrated fashion.

Depending on the number of Systems/sub-Systems that need to be addressed and the funds available to address them adequately – this set of efforts might take the rest of the time.

Perhaps it would take 120 days to accomplish the first wave of prioritized redesign/redevelopment efforts. As always, it depends.

Here are the 12 Systems/sub-Systems and the 47 processes of the T&D Systems View:

12 O’clock: T&D Governance and Advisory System

1. T&D Governance Process

2. T&D Advisory Process

1 O’clock: T&D Strategic Planning System

1. Enterprise Strategic Plans Surveillance Process

2. T&D Strategic Planning Process

2 O’clock: T&D Operations Planning and Management System

1. Annual Operations Planning and Budgeting Process

2. Quarterly Operations Planning and Budgeting Updates Process

3. Forecasting and Accounting Process

3 O’clock: T&D Cost/Benefits Measurement System

1. Cost/Benefits Measurement System Design and Deployment Process

2. Ongoing Cost/Benefits Measurement and Feedback Receiving Process

3. T&D Project Lessons Learned Process

4. Results Reporting and Archiving Process

4 O’clock: T&D Process Improvement System

1. T&D Issues Generation and Assessment Process

2. T&D Improvement Project Planning and Management Process

5 O’clock: T&D Product and Service Line Design System

1. T&D Product and Service Line Program Management Process

2. T&D Product Line Design Process

3. T&D Service Line Design Process

6 O’clock: T&D Product and Service Line Development/Acquisition System

1. T&D Product and Service Line Development and Acquisition Program Management Process

2. T&D Custom Development Process

3. T&D Purchased Product Acquisition Process

4. T&D Purchased Product Modification Process

5. Existing T&D Maintenance Process

7 O’clock: T&D Product and Service Line Deployment System

1. T&D Master Materials Storage and Retrieval Process

2. T&D Master Materials Change Management Process

3. T&D Scheduling Process

4. T&D Facilitator and Coach Development and Certification Process

5. Facilitator-led T&D Deployment Process

6. Self-paced T&D Deployment Process

7. Coached/Mentored T&D Deployment Process

8 O’clock: T&D Marketing and Communications System

1. T&D Stakeholder Communications Process

2. Individual T&D Planning Process

3. T&D Ordering and Registration Process

9 O’clock: T&D Financial Asset Management System

1. Organizational T&D Plans and Budget Roll-up and Adjustment Process

2. T&D Physical Property Management Process

10 O’clock: T&D Human and Environmental Asset Management System

1. T&D Staff Recruiting and Selection/Succession Process

2. T&D Staff Training and Development Process

3. T&D Staff Assessment Process

4. T&D Staff Compensation and Benefits Process

5. T&D Staff Rewards and Recognition Process

6. T&D Organization Structural Design Process

7. T&D Facilities Development and Deployment Process

8. T&D Equipment and Tools Development and Deployment Process

9. T&D Materials and Supplies Acquisition and Deployment Process

10. T&D Information Systems Development and Deployment Process

11. T&D Methods Deployment Process

11 O’clock: T&D Research and Development System

1. T&D Methodology and Technology Surveillance Process

2. T&D Internal and External Benchmarking Process

3. T&D Methodology and Technology Pilot-Testing Process

Summary

I know it’s a long list. I know it’s a lot to think about. I know you wish this T&D world were much simpler.

It isn’t, so let’s get on with the business of managing it and producing worthy T&D/ Learning/ Knowledge Management better, faster, and cheaper.

The book T&D Systems View is available as a free PDF at

www.eppic.biz

Warning: Personal Opinions Follow…

Either you’ve got a professional career – or just a job. If you’ve got just a job – you probably will want to just pass on this post. If you’ve got a career – read on!

Either you are treating your career seriously – or you are not.

If I can use home ownership as a parallel to career ownership – which I plan on doing here I’d like to discuss home maintenance and improvements – or rather career improvements and maintenance.

Back in the early 1980s when I was at Motorola I often heard about the ever-increasing-reduction of the half-life of an engineer’s education. I don’t recall the specific number used back then – but my take away was “Whoa Nelly” – that means they’ve got to keep-on keeping-on regarding their knowledge/skill base acquisition.

So true for many careers – because the only constant now-a-days is constant change.
　
Home and Career Maintenance Investments
According to my quick research – I first saw these kinds of stats back in the 1980s when I had to start in earnest with maintenance on my 5th house – I’d always had new or never stayed in one long enough to worry about this prior – one should plan on spending 1-3% of the purchase price or value of the home on annual maintenance.

Maintenance on a home might include painting, replacement of roofing and siding, improving the landscaping, etc. Think curb appeal.

If your house doubled in value then you should plan on doubling the investment required. If your house value has gone down recently as most have in this economy – I wouldn’t necessarily lower that maintenance estimate – but that’s just me. But it is a personal decision.

To calculate the investments you might need regarding Career maintenance you might think of the original investments that it took to get you into your career. College costs, etc. Or think of your annual salary for your starting point.

Is the 1-3% a good number for you? I don’t really know – but I think it is worth personal pondering. Have you thought about this in a while, or ever?

If not – you may be late at starting – and hopefully “better late than never” is something to keep in mind to spur you into action.

What are you reading to keep abreast with the current thinking and tools/techniques in your profession? What networking groups do you belong to – and even more importantly – are “involved with? Lurking in the corners in a session or online brings minimal returns. What professional groups do your belong to and attend their F2F and online gatherings?

Something to ponder the “value proposition of” for each possibility – and then determine what to do to up your game.
　
Home and Career Maintenance Returns
Today things are even more competitive. There is a glut in the housing market making it harder for those wanting/needing to sell than in recent years. There are people downsizing their life styles for a variety of reasons. And there are new homes coming into the market every day.

Today things are very competitive in the Career market as well. People are coming back into the job market due to their reduced retirement savings. And there are new graduates coming into the market from colleges and universities. And there are a bunch of people without jobs – all competing for your position or your desired next job.

Plus there are various right-sizing (OK, down-sizing) efforts going on and will continue for a while in many, many enterprises as the economy contracts.

This is part of a continuous cycle, which if you are as old as I am (almost 57) you’ve seen this many times in your career. This was not unexpected – just as the recovery is not unexpected. It’s just a matter of when – or how soon.

The returns for house maintenance just might be whether your house is saleable or not when you need it to be so.

The returns for Career Maintenance just might be your continued employment where you are currently at or via obtaining that next position should you need to do so.

What is the dollar value of 1-3% maintenance of your Career? And how does that compare year in and year out for what you’ve really been investing?

It’s not an expense – it’s an investment!!!

It can lead to keeping your job/career when downsizing happens – if you are successful at translating new learning into improved performance – or all those learning were a waste of time and money.

It can lead to increases in salary where you are at – or after a job hop.
　
Home and Career Improvement Investments
Just as many homeowners go beyond mere maintenance with their houses and get into improvements – one must think about that too regarding their careers.

Some improvements are radical – making a one story 3 bedroom ranch into a two story 6 bedroom manse. Or, adding a pool and the empty lot next door for a putting green for you and/or a soccer field for the kids.

Some improvements are minor in comparison. Some are painting projects. Others are kitchen improvements and bathroom improvements – which the home repair literature touts as those with the highest return rate. Putting a pool in will actually lead to a negative return – but if it’s not for the next owner and is for you – well, we all choose to invest in good times differently.

As the Ry Cooder song from the 1970s says, “Feelin’ good, feelin’ good, all the money in the world is spent on feelin’ good.”

Well, not really – unless enhancing your career and earning power makes you feel good.
And just as home improvement efforts go from small to big so too with Career improvement efforts.

Small enhancements to your career might be just keeping up with your reading of career relevant books, articles, Blog postings, etc. Learning what’s new is a continuous battle/effort. For everything is changing, evolving. Constantly.

What you know is right could now be wrong. Bloom’s Taxonomy is in question. Learning styles exist but should not be “designed for” according to the research. Designing for multi-generational differences is bogus too. And these things are still touted in what you might read – so a narrow set of reading sources just might lead you astray. Know your resources – and trust, but verify!!!

Additional enhancements can come from increasing your involvement with your professional network and joining other networks. Yes, that is plural. I’ve got professional networks from the early 1980s from ISPI and some residual from prior involvement in ASTD and Lakewood Conferences. And I’ve got much newer networks from participation in LinkedIn, FaceBook and Twitter. And sometimes these overlap. But not always.

What can these networks do for you before you are job searching? They can point you to what they are learning and their trusted/verified sources for what’s new, what’s up, and where is it all seemingly going? And then when does the course change – for that is a constant too.

And you can keep track of, as “greybeards” like me have been doing for years now – that what’s old is new again. Always a fun sport when you’ve been there and done that a few times. My current favorite is: Web 2.0 changes everything. Until Web 3.0 and 4.0, etc. come around that is. It is a continuum of ever evolving “new things/stuff.” Hey – video is back! It was “the thing” in the late 1970s. Stories are back – and they were “the thing” way way back in the day – think: Socrates.

Radical enhancements to your career could be learn something totally new and change professions.

As some professional fields begin to disappear you’ve got to see that coming sooner rather than later – and be prepared both mentally and financially to “follow the buffalo.” Otherwise you and your tribe will starve. It is that big a deal.

　











Home and Career Improvement Returns
The returns for your investments are similar to those of Career maintenance. Giving some thought to the specifics of your context will give you your answers.
　
Summary
As the various disruptions in your Career field – made possible by new IT technologies and other advances – occurs, your ability to first survive and then thrive is enabled or disabled by your thinking and your actions of the past, present and future.

If you’ve not done much in the past – you are playing catch up. React accordingly.

What’s in your plans? If you don’t have any – make some!

In my opinion.

# # #

The following are the video interviews I conducted at the 2009 ISPI Conference in Orlando…