The big question for June

LCB's big question for June is

How do you spend your time?

I've been puzzling over how to answer this, whether to answer this at all... I am happy to say that Clive Shepherd has done the answering for me. Read his answer and ditto me in on most of it.

The big exception for me is that I do work long hours. Ridiculous hours. Unlike Clive, I don't yet have a steady flow of work coming in, so I spend a lot of my time searching for opps and then writing bids for them. As I improve at this, perhaps I will even begin to win some of the work, rather than having to rely on my network all the time!

Also, I am still busy with a Master's degree, and I spend a lot of time reading for that. I really should stop reading and start writing, but I can't seem to overcome that hump.

Having said that, I take time off to do whatever I want, whenever I want. Tomorrow, my husband has taken the day off, so I've given myself the day off, too.

March's big question - workplace learning in 10 years

The Learning Circuits Blog's big question for March is

What will workplace learning look like in 10 years?

I hate being asked to predict stuff, because I genuinely don't feel up to that task. I'm just not at a high enough vantage point to have a wide enough perspective, a big enough picture.

I like this conversation between Jay Cross, Harold Jarche and Clark Quinn. Totally raw, all the natural blips left in, rather than being edited out to leave a seamless, slick video. I suspect we might see more resources of this kind serving as learning materials going forward.

I also like Harold's post, which takes a look back at what learning looked like in 1999. It is important not to lose sight of that disconnect between home and workplace technologies. We also need to bear in mind that, while that disconnect is disappearing or even swinging around to the opposite corner for us in some developed countries, those in developing (or even less-wealthy developed) countries are still going to be experiencing a gap for some time to come.

And it is here that I would like to focus my contribution. As the organisational, sector and national boundaries come down and we see online conferences being attended by a global mix of people, we are going to be increasingly impacted by the gap between the leading edge and the developing masses.

For example, I regularly attend (and enjoy) George Siemens's online conferences, but it has always saddened me that we have so few delegates from Africa. Previously, there would be just one or two. This last time around, there was a much larger number. This is an exciting indication that an increasing number of people in the developing world are gaining access to the technology necessary for them to join us in these synchronous online events.

BUT

their connection speeds made it difficult for them to attend some of the sessions. So, having finally got the wherewithal to attend - perhaps having had to persuade a few powers that be that it wasn't a waste of time, they found themselves restricted to the outer courts.

Let's consider an analogy: There's a kid who always has to watch the others speed off on their bikes to have adventures and make all sorts of wonderful discoveries. He doesn't have a bicycle of his own, so he can't go. His parents tell him he's too young. Then the day of his birthday rolls around and he wakes to find a bicycle all his very own at the foot of his bed. Hugely excited, he dashes outside to join the others as they set off for yet another adventure. But he can't keep up. His bicycle isn't fast enough, and the training wheels keep catching on things. He has waited all his life for this moment, only to watch the others speed away from him.

So, should the kids with the fast bikes slow down so that he can keep up, now that he has a bike? Or should they keep going at their own speed, leaving him to follow as best he can in their wake?

In other words, as the late adopters begin to trickle on board, with technologies or skills that can't keep pace with our own, are we going to be prepared to slow down so that they can keep up? Are we going to restrict the technologies we use to things that their bandwidths/connection speeds can cope with? Or do we keep doing what we're doing as a way of encouraging them to leapfrog intermediate stages and join the party... bearing in mind that some of the constraints will be outside of their control?

I predict that this is an issue that is going to face us with increasing regularity over the next 10 years.

You might argue that open conferences constitute a separate issue from workplace learning. I don't agree. I suspect that many of the responses to this question will talk about how the organisational boundaries are going to come down and people are going to connect with each other in neutral spaces. So how do we address the provision of learning resources in the face of this kind of inequity?

We can't just stick our fingers in our ears and shout "Lalalalala". The problem isn't going to go away. And it is our problem. We talk about collaboration and connecting and all that malarkey. This is where we get to prove just how committed we are to those ideals when the playing field isn't level.

And it isn't level. Not by a long shot.

Big question: making it up as I go along

This month's big question from LCB is around the economy.

What is the impact of the economy on you and your organization? What are you doing as a result?

You will notice that we are more than halfway through the month and I am only just getting around to answering. This is due to the nature of the response!

You see, I am my organisation! Up until September last year, I was one of 28K people working for a blue chip corporate. Then I found myself peremptorily unemployed. I have been advised by more than one person who is in a position to know about these things, that I had a strong case for constructive dismissal. But that's not really how I roll. I preferred to look on the situation as being a case of divine intervention. I had been thinking about striking out on my own for a while, but I just couldn't pluck up the courage to jump ship. I guess I needed a push, and I got one.

Had I been working within the blue chip corporate, when this question came up, I wouldn't have been able to answer it, since I never got to see more than my little patch. it was a bit like being in a glass bottomed boat: I only got to see the patch of sea in my immediate environs.

Looking at the timing of the start of my solo venture, just as the economy went into freefall on a scale that made a blip on Everyman's radar, I can adopt one of two stances.

On the down side, L&D is always (foolishly, to my mind) the first thing to go, so organisations cut back on the learning provision to their staff. This means there is less work to be had, so the outlook might seem bleak.

On the up side. As the L&D budget gets cut, so - often - does the L&D headcount. Many companies choose to outsource instead. This is where I come in. Those companies with foresight look at ways in which they can encourage their staff to minimise the impact of the crunch on the bottom line. Sometimes they bring in people like me to help them. So the outlook might seem quite rosy.

I am not an economist. In fact, if there is such a condition as dysfinancia - I have it. I can't trot out models and forecasts and all that malarkey. I have to stick with things like ethos and values and all that intangible stuff.

One thing I have promised myself: no matter how tough it gets, I am not going to start being stingy with my advice and suggestions. I am not suddenly going to start charging people for sharing the benefit of my experience. I am not going to stop contributing to discussion forums where my perspective may be of help to people desperately trying to develop learning solutions on tighter budgets (or even no budget at all, in some cases).

And another thing (I am going to take a deep breath and say this 'out loud', because I have been through a rough patch in which my confidence has ebbed):

I am damned good at what I do!

I understand learning. I understand learners. I am unafraid to ask the difficult questions. I am unafraid to push back and say why a thing should be done differently (or not at all). I am ever ready to champion the cause of the learner and his/her perspective.

Hopefully, all these things will count in my favour. Hopefully, so will things like the fact that, when a client recently approached me for a quote for Articulate training, I told them that if I were making the call on behalf of their (non-profit) organisation, I would opt for the wealth of free resources available from Articulate themselves instead of spending money. And, if I were to spend money, I would opt for the training they provide, since they do so at a price I can't hope to compete with.

Hopefully my integrity will become a hallmark of my brand.

Hopefully I will weather this storm, because I have no desire to find that my principles have a price tag, after all!

Better than that, I hope to be able to help a few others weather it too.

Oh dear, the dreaded annual question!

Learning Circuits' big question for December is rapidly becoming something of a tradition. And like a certain other December tradition, it's one I dread - although for entirely different reasons.

Why do I dread having to tell you what I learned about learning during the course of the year? Because I learn so much, but I don't keep a record of it. My views and my professional progress change imperceptibly with every new post I read, with every online seminar I attend, with every in-the-flesh conference I go to, with every article I read, with every conversation I have with another learning professional, and sometimes even during conversations I have with people who have nothing to do with learning.

So let me give you an analogy. My sister-in-law is a potter. A proper one, with a studio and a wheel and a kiln and everything. When she sits at her wheel, she starts with a lump of clay and ends up with a pot. But ask her how the pot changed during the 17th minute of the process and she won't be able to tell you. By feel, she reacts to the minutiae of the clay and the wheel and and and. The difference is that, before she starts, she knows what the finished product is going to look like. At the start of each year, as I begin to throw another learning pot, I have no idea what it's going to look like at the end. In fact, I can't say I start a new pot every January!

So let me just list a few off-the-top-of-my-head things that have made blips on my radar this year:

• Cathy Moore's post on action-based learning gave shape to some of my thinking about the point of workplace learning initiatives
• Sort of related to this, 2008 has been, for me, a year in which two mantras have been 'workplace learning is about change' (although it's not always easy to get the commissioning client on board with this!) and 'what's it for?'
  
• I have discovered that I am synaesthetic, which has had a revelatory impact on my understanding of myself and my approach to learning and teaching, and information management in general
  
• There are influential people out there who hold the same view as I do about formal education... but that doesn't seem to change anything
• An increasing number of people are standing up and being counted on the bah humbug side of the learning styles fence... but this doesn't change the almost religious ardour of those on the other side of it
• Blogging is dangerous and freedom of speech is conditional
• Academic learning is not the access-all-areas learning space I thought
• Just-in-time performance support is learning... so there!

That'll do for now, I think.

Going off half-cocked

Tony Karrer has taken it into his head to replace this month's Big Question with a Big Stir. I sense an increasing frustration with our profession in the ranks of those who are 2.0 savvy, and it goes further and deeper than the issues Tony has raised.

By way of my contribution, I think I could do no better than to share some link love with Don Taylor for his recent article in Training Zone magazine, and with Mark Berthelemy for his response.

I touched on this same nerve recently, when I agreed to have one of my papers (which debunks learning styles) published on the learning pages of our company's intranet. Why is that so many learning professionals are quick to embrace a theory that generates neat graphics without first checking the underlying theory, and then to defend it to the hilt?

My husband has an excellent expression that he saves for such situations: "My mind's made up - don't confuse me with facts!"

The Big Question for March: Scope of Learning Responsibility

This month's big question from LCB is

What is the Scope of our Responsibility as Learning Professionals?

I don't think I'm tackling this from quite the intended angle but, as a third party learning provider, I often find it difficult to draw a line between what is my responsibility and what is not. For example, it is not strictly speaking my responsibility to tell the client that a proposed change measure is doomed to fail. I am simply supposed to build the learning solution to support its implementation.

However, I see myself in the role of trusted adviser and, if I don't give them my perspective then I feel I have betrayed that trust. Of course, they can choose to ignore my advice/recommendations, but I will build that into my risks and assumptions because (and this brings me to my second point) I'm blowed if they're going to lay the failure at my team's door. Failed change intiatives or implementations too often get blamed on the training. No amount of beautifully wrought learning solutions is going to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.

I am not a business analyst, but I have been horrified to discover that I am sometimes the closest thing to it to have sight of the proposed change programme. My exposure to various transformation projects over the years has taught me to notice when key provisions are not in place. I wish I could lay claim to masterful tact and diplomacy in these situations, but I am afraid that would be a false claim. Nevertheless, our responsibility is for the delivery of a workable learning solution. If the solution is to be built for a doomed change implementation, it would be both churlish and irresponsible not to say so - besides, it could hardly be termed workable!

On to the more nuts and bolts aspects of the provision. Far too often, learning professionals seem either to ignore or try to compete with the "learning from the bloke at the next desk approach". I would venture to say that this is pretty likely to remain most people's first port of call, so I would recommend working with it, rather than against it. Of course, you can't control what the bloke at the next desk has to say, but I find that identifying a network of champions is a helpful approach. These people are then identified to the user audience and to one another. They form a mutually supportive network and cascade their support out to their wider teams. Special provision is made for them to ensure that they are enabled to achieve this. This might mean that the learning solution has to include a workshop or communication to the line managers of said champions to prepare them for the implications of this support role and to advise them on how to adapt the champions' KPIs so that their support work is not seen as an interruption of their "real job" but a key part of their role within the team, and one on which their performance will be appraised during their next review.

I would suggest building solutions which include provision for user generated content. Features such as:

• discussion forums and/or noticeboards
• tip of the day/week/whatever
  
• FAQs - manned by the champions and drawn from the discussion forums
  
• jargon busters' corners (some form of wiki - although it sometimes doesn't to let the audience know that that's what it is!)

The content of these spaces is outside of the scope of the learning professional - although you might provide a starter for 10 to get the ball rolling, but providing the space for this interaction, actively promoting user ownership of the learning process and contribution to the learning content is part and parcel of the provider's responsibility. After all, it's their business. They're involved with it day in and day out. Who better to make suggestions about improved ways of doing things? Sadly, I have to admit that few audiences seem ready to assume the mantle of this approach, accustomed as they are to "being told", but we can't use that as an excuse.

My own view is that my job as the designer of the learning solution is that of empowerment. I aim to design a learning solution that hands the baton over to the user. To this end, I like to involve as many of the users as possible in the design process - not only do they know the business, they know the audience better than anyone.

And that rather rambling, slightly incoherent contribution is my 2p worth.

The Big Question about the big question

Tony Karrer has provided an explanation as to why March's big question has not been forthcoming. Apparently, the LCB (Learning Circuits Blog) site has been wheelclamped by Google as being a spam blog. Interesting. Web 2.0 is (in large part) about conversation. LCB is about conversation. But it appears to have fallen victim to its own success - the volume of traffic in and out has attracted the notice of the Google policebots.

Dave Lee, communicating through the sidebar, jokingly suggests that the big question for March should be "Do you really exist if Google says you don't?"

This is a conspiracy theorist's dream come true. Supposedly, no-one is in control of the web, supposedly it is driven by the world wide community, and yet, in a case of mistaken identity, LCB has been cut off and now has to fight to clear its name and be "released". It's all too "Enemy of the State"

February's big question

The big question for February is "What questions should we be asking". Of course the responses to this will vary widely depending on each individual's field of interest and endeavour. As usual, I will make no pretence at having an objective, global view, but will seek only to speak from my own persepctive.

As a learning designer, I find that the people who requisition learning are often out of touch with the ultimate user audience: namely the learner. In fact, on a current project, I had to explain to one of the client reps what a learner was. This is the person I care most about. I wish the only question ever needed on a learning solutions project was: What will work best for the learner? In the absence of this idyll, I would like to ask:

• How do we bridge the divide between he-who-signs-the-cheques and he-who-will-use-the-resource?
  

How do we overcome the fact that he-who-signs-the-cheques (hwstc) often couldn't care a fig for all this newfangled learning theory stuff: just build me something that I am familiar with, but make sure that it is 100% effective (what do you mean the two things are mutually exclusive?).

I'm sure I'm going to kick myself as I later think of a far more relevant question, but this is where my head is at today.