photo credit: Joelh085

This morning my 14 year old son said that he LOVED Corvettes and I asked why.  You see, every time he and my 11 year old son see a Corvette or Mustang, they gets all excited – too excited.

“Because they are fast and cool looking.”

“Would you pick a girlfriend based on those criteria” I asked.

“No.”

“What else do you know about Corvettes?”

Struggling… “That they are really cool.”

“Coolness is a cultural factor.  Do they have style?  And why don’t you get excited when you see other typical ‘cool’ cars – like a Porche or Fararri or Aston Martin or ….”

“Aston what?”

“Have you been inside of a Mustang?”

“No, but I saw the inside and it was cool.  These tan leather seats…”

“So if I put tan leather seats inside a Gremlin (my first car) it would be cool, too.  Right?”

This was all said lightheartedly, but with a twinge of seriousness.

What makes something “COOL” and is that reason enough to get it?

Too many in our professional world are waiters – order takers.  They tell us what they want and we give it to them.  A training.  A wiki. Social something.  But we need to back up and ask “Why?”  Much of the time they say they want these things because 1) that is all they know or 2) because they are deemed ‘cool’.  Both of these were in play with my son and his cars.  He didn’t know much about other brands, nor did he really know why he liked them, but he knew what was cool.

If they don’t know why, find out for them.  Even though it may seem like a bother to them, they will thank you in the end.

This morning during our weekly recording of the Social Learning Strategies and Trends Podcast (also available on iTunes), Dave and I were gabbing about designing learning – not just training.  And he asked the question (certainly not verbatim), “Are trainers the chef or the waiter?”  I loved this!

By Jim O'Connell on Flickr

By PhotoAn.l on Flickr

Now, don’t get me wrong.  We need BOTH Chefs and Waiters.  But if there are not any true performance chefs at an organization and there are only waiters, or the the wrong people are performance chefs, the outcome will leave a bad taste in everyone’s mouth.

And we all know what that tastes like.

****

I don’t know who to credit this to, but I love it. It has been posted so many times that the originator is lost. But, THANK YOU! to whomever it was.  (UPDATE: It is from Nasa.  Thanks, Harold!)

What I love about this is that it is simple & direct. This got me thinking… Why don’t we have more of these? So I decided to create some more. And here they are…

Blog Advantages: Two-way Constant Receive feedback Searchable Archived Interactive Conversational Smaller, faster updates 1: many:many Learning increases

RSS Advantages: Pushed to you Only what has been updated Information > time spent Constant Searchable Archived Personalized content Automatic Learning increases

Social Networking Advantages: Infinitely more resources Easily contact 1000′s of loose connections yet… Very small maintenance time Searchable Learning increases

Objection #7 is a big concern. “What if people put in information that is wrong? When it went through the training department, we knew it was right. But we can’t trust that when anyone can put in everything.”

Answer: With Social Learning, if it is wrong 1) then everyone will be wrong (it sounds goofy, but there is something to consistency); 2) you know where to fix it (and it is in one place, hidden or in 15 different places); 3) anyone can fix it because the technology is the easy part.

“BUT,” you say, “if anyone can fix it, anyone can mess it up!” That is the great part of this! I can mess up whatever I touch but there are certain controls you can put on it so that when it is changed, anyone can be notified. This is a check and balance.

Again, as in previous objections, the information is already circulating, except you don’t have any visibility into what is said. Now you do.

I had a chat with someone last month who said this: “One additional thing that holds our group back (from adopting this) is that there were some very bad experiences a few years ago… it’s critical in our business to get the information CORRECT – if old info causes data loss it’s a very, very bad thing.”

On critical information you can control it. For example, we lock down HR documents, as I have previously explained. No none can change them except for those in HR. Locking down information should be used judiciously. Also, there are only certain documents and discussions that Management can see. Others don’t even know they are there.

So it is not that you are giving up total control, but that you are expanding the circle of trust.

(image attributed to http://blogs.sun.com/identity)

Objection #5 is one of the most heard objections. Very famous. “If you let everyone post how do you know it is accurate? What if it is not and the receiver acts on it and something bad happens? It is certainly not as accurate as the training department getting information from the SMEs and delivering it to the employees.”

Answer: Uhhhh, says who? First of all, if you let everyone post anything how do you know it is accurate? You don’t. Plain and simple – you don’t know that. So how can you trust it? How can you trust an email you sent to someone is returned with the correct information? How do you know if, when you ask a question of someone over the cube wall, that they are not wrong? You don’t. You have to trust it. Same here.

I guess that is taking the pessimistic view of it, but really, let’s think about it.

Story Time

I recently heard a story about a company who was looking at putting in these type of tools. There was one person who was, for the most part against it and had this concern. She didn’t think that the information on there would be accurate if they let everyone post instead of the SMEs (the experts). Leaving the meeting she walked by some cubes where she overheard one person describing an HR policy to the other person that was completely incorrect. And the second person took it as gospel.

She suddenly realized, 1) How many times does this happen and I don’t know about it? 2) If they asked this question using the tools we were talking about, more people would be able to respond and the right answer would surface; 3) The SMEs would have seen this and could have made sure that the information was correct. Instead of information going from SME -> Trainer -> employee, it goes right from SME -> Employee. No middle man.

That is for Black and White. What if the matter is more of opinion? Many people can chime in and give their opinions and decisions could be made more accurately because of the quality of information they received.

Alright. I know Wikipedia is not the greatest comparison to using a wiki in an organization, but here is one of many studies done on the validity of wikipedia. And the principle still applies in organizations as well.

What have you seen?

In the tradition of “Meet Charlie” I have created “Meet the Trainers.”

| View | Upload your own

The Learning Circuits Blog posted a question and asked readers to respond.  Basically, the question is, “Are there learning design differences for digital natives that we need to adjust to?”

My answer is yes.  And there are others that agree and do a good job of explaining it – in the original post, here and here.

But I think we are missing the point.  The question is not, “Do the old instructional design methodologies need to be updated” but instead the real question is, “How do we deliver the opportunity to Digital Natives to allow them to learn how and when and where they want?”

This last question doesn’t have anything to do with instructional design directly.  It may, but it doesn’t assume it.  There are so many different ways to learn that are out of our capacity to deliver.  Heck, most of the stuff I don’t know myself.  Should I find this information, create instructional design around it and deliver it?  Why am I in the way?  I need, instead, to step back and, in many (if not most) situations, let them teach each other.

There is NO WAY I can give them everything they want.  So, instead of being an instructional designer, I become an instructional facilitator (which may include being an instructional designer), allowing them direct access to one another.

I believe this is where the goldmine is.  Not in restructuring some of our instructional methodologies (although there is some value in this and does need to be done) but in exploring ways to speed up learning and lengthening retention by taking the middle man out.

Don’t get me wrong – these original questions are good questions to ask and should be asked and answered.  And I don’t want it to appear that I am belittling in any way.  But the questions can, and should, go further.  They assume that we are still delivering the message, skills, instruction.

In keeping with the new culture that is taking form, who creates the content?  Everyone.  Who consumes it?  Everyone.  How is that being done?  Through ‘facilitators’ – call them Wikipedia, call them blogs, call them RSS readers, call them phone calls, call them IM, call them hallway discussions, call them text messages, call them twits, call them whatever you want.  But in this new culture, we (the average people) are not waiting around for people to create content.  We are creating the content ourselves and then sharing it with others – refining ideas, skills and thoughts – where is the traditional instructional design in that?

This is, I believe, where the true goldmine is.   We need to take a step back from ‘instructional design’ and look at learning from a more broad perspective and THEN integrate the Digital Natives.  This way we can gain more of a holistic view of learning from their perspective.

Recently I interviewed a number of employees at my company to see how they use our Social Learning platform. There were a number of things that I was able to take from those discussions which I continue to write about. One of them is the ‘ownership of information.’

We live in a world of posession:

“If I create it, it is mine. I own it. If it is wrong or is destructive, I must correct it. If it is right or produces good results, I take the credit.”

“If you create it, it is yours. You own it. If it is wrong or is destructive, you must correct it. If it is right or produces good results, you get the credit.”

Times have changed. Information is now mass produced. Unlike land or a physical object, information is much more free flowing, and in most regards it is not exclusive to anyone. I can know the same thing you know. If I think of something, do I own that thought? What if you think of the same thing? Who owns that thought, that information at that time?

The information we create is ours:

“If I create it, it is ours. We own it. If it is wrong or is destructive, we must correct it. If it is right or produces good results, we take the credit.”

“If you create it, it is ours. We own it. If it is wrong or destructive, we must correct it. If it is right or produces good results, we take the credit.”

Why is this? Let’s ask the question, “Why do we have working meetings within organizations?” (as opposed to informational meetings.) Because it gives us the opportunity to get together and talk and share. Suddenly, my thoughts and information and experience, and your thoughts and information and experience, and another’s thoughts and information and experience, when combined together become more powerful, more effective than if they were taken alone. Instead of adding them together, when we combine them we multiply them and the answer is much more powerful. Suddenly, the information becomes ours – not mine or your’s or the other person’s. But we all own it. We all are responsible for it.

Social Learning creates a repository of information and learning. Who owns the repository? The company or organization or the group. Who owns the information in there? Every member involved. Even as I write this, it ceases to become ‘mine’ the instant you take it in to your mind and apply it to yourself. You probably have some thoughts about this concept. Maybe you can add to it. If you can, I recommend you share your thoughts with us using the comments.

This is how Social Learning works. If you can add to it, correct it, clarify it, please do. We learn from each other this way. The information becomes more correct, more relevant the more we all add our insights into it.

So if you see some information that is incorrect in a wiki, feel empowered to go in and change it and correct it. If you have a question about it, use the comments and the owner will be notified. Hold the discussion in the comments. That way, when someone else has the same thought you did (and someone will) they will see the logic of why you and the other person decided to present the information in the way you did.

This is the Democratization of Learning.

Some people have mentioned that they feel badly if they change the information because it may make the creator look badly. If we really feel that way, are we saying that everyone should look infallible? Are you? If this was about them, or if it was about you and the egos in play we might have a different discussion. But this has nothing to do with you or me or how this makes us look. It has to do with learning – how we make it more relevant, accurate, applicable. When that is the goal, egos no longer matter, only the learning itself and what we can do with it.

Suggestions:

• When you see a document that is not well formatted, take a quick minute to format it for better, quicker reading by others.
• If you see information that is wrong, correct it.
• If you see that you can add to the information, do it.
• When you find information that is old, update it.
• Correct mispellings.
• Verify information with those who have created the information.
• Add your voice in the information.

We all own it. We all are responsible for it.

For a recording of Webinar #2, go here.

This one focused on how to use Social Learning with Knowledge Management and what it will take to make it all work. It was presented by Cindy Rockwell, CEO of CustomerVision.

There were a number of key points that Cindy brings up, including the need to make it easy and a part of the workflow. There are also a number of key features that help create a Social Learning environment. There is a lot of great information. Check it out!

I am in Tony Karrer’s session here at TK08 today entitled, eLearning 2.0 – Applications and Implications. It is a very large room and was intended to be more of a discussion, but oh well! This is going to be a 201 session – a follow up from this morning’s session (which I did not attend).

From the outset, it looks like his presentation will be similar to mine tomorrow morning, more along the lines of implementation.

He starts out by asking who is implementing this now. Only about six people raised their hands in about 250 people. I raised my hand and explained my situation very briefly.

Interestingly, he did a survey and the top way people want to use these technologies is “Alongside Formal Learning.” Yet EVERONE that mentioned that they are using it are NOT doing it alongside formal learning. This shows me that those who are using it doing think of it as an extension of training. It further proves to me that as people dive into this they divorce it from training. It is totally separate. Not that it cannot compliment or help, but it is not in the ‘learning plan.”

Things that get in the way?

· Firewalls

· IP

· Privacy

· Security

· Control of information by management

· Strict control over policies – Accuracy

· Liability / Discoverability / Compliance

· Change Management – Ready for it / Culture

· Management take it seriously – away from work

· Is it real work or not?

· Education of management

· Lack of resources – Mobile devices

· Pushback from workforce – adoption

What about the quality of the content? That is ALMOST a non-issue. Think about it – the information is getting out now, but it is over the phone, IM, email. But now it is recorded and easily accessible. But it is not really an issue once implemented.

Usually, at first, the moderation is more strict than a few months later. It relaxes. It just happens. Corporations like to limit authoring as well. WHY? There are some reasons and I can see, but for the reasons that I have heard it is a paranoia that goes away once they get comfortable. And limiting visibility? Again, there are reasons to do it, but at first more is locked down and then t opens up because people realize that it is OK for anyone to see it.

Tony cites the 90-9-1 rule where 90% of the community members are lurkers, 9% contribute a small amount and the 1% contribute the majority of the content.

(Honestly, this is almost frustrating being in the audience because I want to jump up and answer so many of these questions and help people realize that all the ‘issues’ they are bringing up seem like big issues, but they are, for a lot of them, non-issues. Oh well – I continue to listen and soak it all up. He is doing a great job of answering the questions. It is obvious he has good experience in it.)

Next, Tony talks about ways to get wiki adoptions, based off of www.wikipatterns.com. I have written before, but the writer of the Wiki Patterns book is doing some vodcasts. If you have questions about this, you should check these short videos out.

How do you measure the impact? He says the same way you do now, but with one caveat: You can’t correlate individual behaviors with individual results like you would an LMS. But you can in a more general way.

Convincing Management. He said that it is very difficult. It comes down to almost an ethnographic view – sharing stories of how it works integrated with cold hard numbers. Management is used to seeing numbers only. But one way to do it is to just do it yourself. Then get others to do it with you on projects or meetings or… (make sure it is all kosher within the org and that you are not going to get fired or prosecuted for doing it). Then others use it, start demanding it and then management sees that it is in use and see the benefit. But then their question is “OK, we see the need, how do we control it?” Kind of funny.

Great session. A lot of questions answered.