Blog

“What is essential is invisible.”

There’s a lot of talk going on these days about how businesses need to embrace their social nature and intangible elements in order to compete [see Enterprise 2.0, Social Business Design, etc.]. The reason being that very few businesses produce anything tangible and even those that do still rely on a complex web of relationships, ideas, insight, brand, collaboration and leadership in order to do it.

This evolving understanding of the business landscape reminds me of man’s understanding of a different scape >>> space.

Until recently it was believed that our Universe of visible stuff [planets, stars, comets, gas, etc.] would continue expanding for a bit and then begin to recede. But the data didn’t agree. The expansion of the universe was actually found to be accelerating at a rate that means it will continue to expand eternally.

What’s behind this mystery? Dark matter and dark energy. Their presence is required in order to explain the behavior of the objects in space that we can see. The same is true for the networks and intangibles in organizations.

Dark matter is described as being “undetectable by its emitted radiation, but whose presence can be inferred by gravitational effects on visible matter.” Sounds like office politics to me.

Seriously, though, dark matter and dark energy are true forces with which to be reckoned. Estimates are that they make up about 95% of the known universe as the chart here shows.

Scientists were recently able to visualize these forms of matter and energy through what I’m sure is some pretty basic math [not]. What they produced was both eye-opening and jaw-dropping. It shows what was previously invisible and is allowing them to better understand it and its effect on us.

The picture here shows a lonely Hubble [to the lower left] as it peers out into the distance and sees massive clusters of galaxies [the bright spots in the image] surrounded by enormous globs of dark matter.

The ability to see these formations as well as analyze the data that comprise them allows scientists to better understand how the Universe works and how our role in it can be affected.

Until recently most organizations focused just on visible things [products, materials, warehouses, property, etc.] in order to operate and compete. The problem was that only focusing on tangible things left out the major driving forces of business today [i.e. relationships, ideas, knowledge, brand, etc.].

And just as scientists needed to be able to *see* dark matter and dark energy in order to measure and understand it, we too need ways of visualizing the critical elements of organizational performance in order to affect it in the new business landscape. Enter Organizational Network Analysis and Value Network Analysis - two tools designed to see how organizations really operate today.

An Organizational (aka Social) Network Analysis reveals the social fabric of an organizations and, depending on the question asked, can show us who people go to for information, which geographic locations that may be out of the loop, where holes may develop as a result of succession planning, and countless other scenarios.

The image here is the actual output from one of our clients with global operations. Dots=people; lines=information flow. Just knowing that you can see that there is no information flowing from site to site – it all comes through corporate. Not being able to see this as well as analyze the data behind it wouldn’t allows us to create and execute on a strategy to save money, reduce rework, increase innovation, etc.

A Value Network Analysis shows us how work really gets done from more of a process perspective. The key differentiator is that a VNA includes both the tangible [i.e. reports, deliverables, communications] as well as intangible [i.e. credibility, confidence, brand, etc.] elements that are required for success in business today.

The image here is another real example from a global client. There were several departments at headquarters whose collective objective was to support the activities of various global sites but they had never been able to visualize how their activities were affecting the sites. The VNA revealed that despite their best intentions, the sites [the oval on far left; mid-way up vertically] were not receiving the intended support and allowed us to create a strategy that coordinated and focused these activities into a process that reduced workload and better supported stakeholders in the field.

The topics of Social Media, Social Networking, Enterprise 2.0, etc. are all the buzz these days. There’s even a raging debate on whether to include the word ’social’ [my opinion is that 'intangibles' is more inclusive/accurate than social but not nearly as sexy]. Scratch the surface, though, and much of these discussions revolve around technology. I’m the first to admit that there are some pretty slick tech offerings out there to help organizations operate in this new landscape but to implement them correctly there must be a comprehensive understanding of the whole environment.

So just as scientists have leveraged Hubble and some wicked math to learn about how our Universe is structured and therefore how we can play in it, businesses must have a deep understanding of their culture, ecosystem, processes, people, etc. before launching any of these social [intangible] initiatives. So…what does your organization really look like? Can you illustrate the invisible forces that are truly determining your path?

This has been a common conversation for me over the last 5 years or so…

Most People: What is it that you do again?

Me: I help companies operate and compete in a knowledge-based economy.

Most People: Huh?

Me: I work with companies on their learning,development, knowledge management, innovation, marketing, HR and other processes to help them do business now – which is much different than how businesses have ever operated in the past.

Most People: [blank stare]

Me: I’m a consultant.

Most People: Oh…I know what they do.

Although the above is exaggerated I’m not naive enough to think that the label ‘Social Business Design’ will cause the conversation to be too much different than it is now – but I strongly applaud the team at Dachis Group for coining the term and providing a rallying cry for a whole industry [software suites, authors, consultants, etc.] of folks that will contribute to transforming organizations for a landscape that has no boundaries and relies on relationships, ideas, conversations, knowledge and all things intangible.

Social Business Design may become the next buzzword but I think it’s a simple yet eloquent and descriptive term for the results required to compete in a knowledge-based economy.  So much so that we’re incorporating it in our communication about Orbital RPM’s offerings.

And while I lend credit to Dachis Group and Altimeter Group for energizing this arena I also thank and credit the following fields for their work in what I feel provides the foundation for a transformation to operating socially [representative honorees shown in brackets - there are way too many to list]:

• Social Network Analysis [i.e. Rob Cross/Cross Networks Analytics, Valdis Krebs]
• Value Network Analysis [i.e. Verna Allee, Value Networks and team]
• Systems Thinking [i.e. Peter Senge/Pegasus Communications, iSee]
• Industrial/Organizational Psychology [i.e. Kurt Kraiger]
• Organizational Design [i.e. Peter Drucker]
• Scenario Planning [i.e. Art Kleiner]
• Organizational Learning/Knowledge Management [i.e. Etienne Wenger, John Seely Brown, Jay Cross]
• Leadership Development [i.e. Reg Revans, Steve Kerr, Michael Marquadt]
• Workspace Design [i.e. Frank Becker, Charlie Grantham, Jim Ware, Camille Venezia]
• Innovation [Peter Skarzynski, Rowan Gibson, Clayton Christensen]
• Social Marketing [i.e. Charlene Li, Peter Kim]
• Social Software developers/vendors

Combining insights from these [and other] fields brings a comprehensive solution to organizations wanting to become social businesses.  The timing is right to combine the best of what’s new [i.e. web 2.0 & social marketing] with age old approaches [i.e. communities & action learning] that will help with this transformation.

This is what we’ve been doing for the last 5 years.  Now we have a name for it.

“The ability to learn faster than your competitors may be the only sustainable competitive advantage.”

-  Arie De Geus, former head of planning for Shell Oil Company

Organizations, each year, spend billions of dollars on training and development (T&D) in order to enhance the knowledge, skills, and abilities of their employees and ultimately, to gain a competitive advantage. In 2007, for example, it was estimated by the American Society for Training and Development that U.S. organizations spent about 134 billion dollars on T&D alone.

Despite the tremendous amount of money that is pumped into organizational training efforts, there is a growing recognition of a “transfer problem.”  What I mean by the “transfer problem” is that trainees have difficulty effectively and continually applying the knowledge and skills they learned in one context (the training environment) to a different context (their job). In fact, researchers have found that only ten percent of learning that takes place in training actually transfers to the organizational context… ten percent, folks!

Note: You’ll notice that much of the content on this site is dedicated to informal or non-traditional forms of learning since this is shown to contribute the most to knowledge sharing and productivity.  Formal training isn’t going away anytime soon, though, and in whatever capacity it will play in learning strategies it still needs to be done correctly.

So why is it that trainees have so much difficulty transferring their learning to the job context? Dr. Raymond Noe has outlined some of the obstacles to effective transfer of training:

1. Work Conditions (e.g., time pressures, inadequate equipment available in the job context)
2. Lack of peer support (e.g., peers discourage the use of new skills or speak disparagingly about trainings)
3. Lack of management support (e.g., managers don’t understand the importance of training, do not provide opportunities for employees to practice their trained skills, and do not reinforce the use of skills)
4. Personal characteristics of the trainees (e.g., trainees don’t believe that they are capable of using their skills, trainees fail to monitor themselves to ensure that they are using their skills)

Quite obviously, organizations need to address these obstacles in order to boost training transfer. First of all though, it’s important to note, as many researchers do, that training transfer is a process. That is, interventions must be implemented before, during, and after training in order to create contextual conditions that strengthen transfer. Here are a couple of tips for enhancing training transfer compiled from various research-based articles:

1. Relate training to organizational objectives. Before training, trainees need to be given realistic information about the training program–how it relates to organizational objectives and how they can apply their new knowledge and skills on the job. This type of pre-training information session is likely to give trainees a sense that they have organizational support and to increase trainees’ motivation and readiness for learning.

2. Give trainees a voice. Rather than assigning employees to specific training programs, organizations may also consider allowing employees to have a say in terms of the type of training they receive and the design of the training. When employees are given the authority to make decisions about what and how they learn, they are more likely to be engaged during the training and ultimately, to transfer their skills.

3. Set training goals. Supervisors should consider sitting down with their employees and setting specific, time-bound goals related to their employees’ participation and acquisition of skills during training. For example, they might pinpoint specific projects that the employee would complete within a certain time period using skills and knowledge acquired in training.

4. Use self-management strategies. Employees need to be prepared to practice their skills even if the work climate is not particularly conducive to it (i.e., when the environment contains a lot of obstacles to transfer). First of all, trainees need to become aware that there is a tendency for trainees to forget knowledge gained in training and to lapse back into previously learned skills and behaviors. Once they realize that lapses occur frequently, employees can then work with their supervisors to create a transfer plan that tackles all identified environmental and personal obstacles to transfer. For example, in response to expected time pressures that would inhibit transfer following training, an employee may decide to have a conversation with his boss and ask him to lighten his workload immediately after training so that he can begin to adjust his skills to a new context. If he lacks self-monitoring skills, he might also identify different individuals within the organization that could coach and encourage him through the transfer process – a great way to interlace your training within a social networking or expertise location initiative.

These tips can help build a strong transfer climate and a strong transfer climate is an essential component of a learning organization, with a greater capacity to learn, grow, and adapt. Particularly in a rapidly changing business climate, this capacity is absolutely crucial.

A few months ago I blogged about Apple’s inclusion of their customers into their learning strategy because they assess their entire value-chain and how learning can enhance it…

I recently received an email with the above image/message embedded in it – to me this is further fodder re: Apple’s investment in the learning of its Mac users. A powerful strategy in a market where most are trying to compete on low-cost with what’s becoming a commodity (computers).

Instead Apple has decided to keep it’s prices at a premium and customers expect it. In return they get things such as one-to-one training which has the dual-benefit of teaching Apple’s customers how to use their underdog product and making them loyal Apple buyers. I’ll bet the majority of questions asked of Apple’s customer trainers are somewhat, dare I say, basic, based on what the average user is trying to accomplish. Computers have advanced to the point that everyday users should be able to accomplish what they want without a technical background – if Apple can make these tasks easier for the low-tech folks out there then they have a winning strategy.

Offering a classes to their customers for a very low price certainly isn’t a profit center for Apple – teaching them to use their products will certainly help sustain sales in the future, though, and that’s what Apple’s betting on with their strategy to invest in the learning of their customers.

Apple’s just taken one more step in the direction of putting learning into the hands of customers eager to learn how to use devices in the information age – self-directed learning at its finest.

How would it affect your organization if your customers were better able to utilize your product or service?

CLO Magazine just reported on a survey that was done on emerging markets using Web 2.0 tools.  It’s worth taking a look at their write-up as they have some interesting findings in the data.

The most compelling message to me, though, was that people will be constantly “wired” and accustomed to working with these 2.0 tools that many today may feel are foreign.  This will be a critical understanding for the next crop of Chief Learning Officers – if their workforce of the future is comfortable collaborating in communities and with people all over the world in their personal and professional lives you can bet they’ll be looking for jobs that allow them to continue that trend.  To take someone of this mindset and stick them in traditional training classes and prevent them from peer-to-peer learning will be doing a large disservice to the workforce, the organization and customers.  

What opportunities are there in your organization to begin incorporating the Web 2.0 tools slowly before the entire workforce demands it?  Here’s a hint…think less about the tools/technology and look for opportunities to help.  If multiple people on a sales team are passing around many drafts of a proposal consider putting it on a wiki until it’s in final form; if disparate teams are working on common projects/problems/innovations but don’t know each other a social networking app may be helpful.  Web 2.0 is really just an enabler to get us back to the natural way we want to learn and interact but often can’t…

Ever feel like this in training?  I’ve been noodling on this analogy for months – I need some data to really verify the point but the premise is there…

At a basic level, the purpose of a sprinkler and a fire hose is essentially the same: distribute water.  The manner in which each accomplishes this task, though, is vastly different.  Because of their respective designs it may take a sprinkler a month to distribute the same amount of water that a fire hose can unleash in an hour (this is where I need some data).

Training is often designed to function like a fire hose – expelling the maximum amount of information in a constrained amount of time.  The challenge with this design is that fire hoses are meant to douse…they are not intended for things that will absorb the water they distribute.

I feel that learning/development design needs to better align with the analogy of a sprinkler.  Choosing instead to distribute the same amount of information but over a longer period and in smaller chunks so that participants can truly absorb it.

This philosophy can be used to extend new-hire integration programs beyond one (or a few days), incorporate communities of practice in learning strategies or leveraging action learning for leadership development efforts.

I urge readers to take an unbiased looked at their learning portfolio and ask themselves if they more resemble a sprinkler or a fire hose…

CLO Magazine just published an article in today’s newsletter about new-hire orientation or on-boarding.

This is more fodder that the process constructed for new-hires is another opportunity for competitive advantage as we move further into our knowledge economy.  Organizations that understand this transition and embrace it are developing employee on-boarding programs that target two critical areas: informational and relational.

The informational element addresses the ’stuff’ that new hires need to know.  In the information age this cannot be a data dump though – this information needs to be assessed in terms of when someone needs it (i.e. week one, month two, etc.) and how it can be best delivered (i.e. e-learning, podcast, face-to-face, etc) and accessed in the future.

The relational element acknowledges that no matter how good the information is that is provided, people will eventually come to get most of their questions answered through their network of relationships.  Therefore on-boarding programs that incorporate activities and assignments that help new hires meet other people in the organization and form relationships with them have been proven to allow new hires to be productive faster and also to retain them longer.

‘Knowledge Worker’ is certainly a popular buzzword these days but there is merit there.  How these new additions to the workforce acquire, retain and access the information they need is fundamentally different than is was a few decades ago and most orientation programs haven’t yet adapted to that shift.

Organizations that continue to use the precious few first days of someone’s new role to have them fill out paperwork and watch corporate videos are missing a crucial opportunity to prepare their newest team members to help them succeed in their mission…whatever it may be.

Chief Learning Officer [CLO] Media recently printed an online feature titled “Transform Corporate Learning with a User Network.”  In it the authors begin by talking about how different learning styles affect the absorption rate of different learners and then move into some suggestions on how to address these different styles given the constraints of working in any given organization.

Essentially where they land is telling organizations to put the power of learning into the hands of the users and then they will ensure that any learning created will be customized to the learning style of that person.  I agree with them in principle – in practice I would not like to be the one to roll-out this program.

I feel this way because I’ve tried similar approaches with clients and while people agree that they want to learn more just-in-time and informally from their peers they struggle to find the time to add another task item to their already busy day.  To many people, simply saying the word ‘wiki’ will make them cringe.  The thought of having to learn the new technologies of wikis, blogs, rapid elearning, etc. can put the brakes on the momentum of the best intentions.

As we forge forward into our knowledge-based economy it’s my belief that additional resources will need to be deployed [or current ones redeployed] to work alongside people and capture the knowledge artifacts that are produced throughout a routine day.  It is then this person’s job to take these knowledge artifacts and edit/assemble them into a format that is meaningful to the originator as well as any seeker that may come along in the future.

The collective intelligence of an organizational network is a powerful force and thus it is time to start dedicating resources to this force rather than requesting that the people contributing to the knowledge are also the ones that need to manage it.  By dedicating resources to knowledge workers an organization can begin to harness the collaboration and innovation that is occurring in pockets around the organization – making this part of a learning strategy frees up the knowledge workers to work at their day jobs while still addressing their learning needs as the authors rightly suggest.

Communities of practice [CoPs] certainly are a great step in this direction – and they often have a ‘cybrarian’ to manage the knowledge artifacts that are uncovered.  Having the cybrarian, or an equivalent position, be responsible for turning these artifacts into learning modules is a natural extension of this role and one that is well received by the members that don’t have to interupt their normal workflow to do it.

I was having a conversation with someone yesterday afternoon about how the number of software vendors offering wikis, blogs, discussions boards, rapid elearning, etc. was enormous and that there would certainly come a time when things would begin to consolidate and major players would begin to emerge.  This will prevent organizations from having to cobble together these elements and the pain and inefficiencies associated with cobbling.

An ‘ERP of Learning’ is sure to be on the horizon was the synopsis of our talk – then I saw a press release from OutStart today [note - this is not my prediction that this is the 'Learning ERP'...just an indication that it's a comin'] detailing the merger of OutStart and Eedo.

As Chief Learning Officers become more prevalent and powerful and as the trends in learning continue to incorporate elements of informal learning (i.e. communities of practice) and others suitable for knowledge workers it will be an exciting time to watch as the various software offerings in the learning space make moves to secure their future or their fate – there are certainly demands in the market for this functionality and a sole source vendor to provide it doesn’t exist yet.