For many of the organizations that I speak/work with regarding knowledge networks/communities of practice they have [or are planning on implementing] a collaboration software package with many slick bells and whistles but without a clear path and strategy for getting up and running – this often results in an empty knowledge landscape with little showing except for some bells and whistles strewn about.

Even in the CIO world it’s popular to say that collaboration and innovation isn’t about the software but what do you do in addition to buying software? 

The Iceberg in IT

The delimna I frequently witness is what I call the ‘Iceberg in IT’ conundrum.  Someone decided that people needed to collaborate more and told IT to implement a package that enables collaboration.  While a good software package is certainly a required step, I prefer to put it near last instead of first. 

Using the admittedly cliche and ubiquitous iceberg metaphor above, social software is simply the visible thing that enables collaboration to happen.  When IT is told to purchase it when there is no strategy to generate adoption, it will feel cold and barren [sorry - couldn't help it].  In order to truly affect how this can help people do their jobs there is a large amount of work that needs to done behind the scenes…hence the 7Cs of success:

• Capturing:  the notion of collaboration is foreign in many organizations so people often need to be shown what potential is there if they were to collaborate.  We always visit different geographic locations and capture [via video, audio, memory stick, etc.] what people are working on so that we can determine common topics and have some seed material to begin populating the software system.
• Connecting:  even software that’s designed to connect people will do little in that regard if left on its own.  People [especially when at the early phases] need some help connecting with one another – simple things like setting up bridge calls and facilitating conversations serve to build trust and awareness and provide nuggets of content that can be housed in the platform.
• Combining: in a dispersed organization you’re bound to find bits and pieces of similar work living in a great many places.  Helping the users combine that information using the wiki feature of a platform, for example, will show users the efficiency in working together while training them on what in the world a ‘wiki’ is.
• Contextualizing: the most effective collaboration initiatives will integrate members from an organization’s suppliers and customers and related academic institutions.  Translating that into compelling content that will make sense to your users will be critical in getting them to absorb and leverage it.
• Confirming:  similar to above, if you’re getting knowledge from various sources, care must be taken to ensure that what’s being provided is accurate information so that it can be acted upon.
• Circulating:  what good is the best information if no one knows about it?  The role of a community/network coordinator is essential in circulating news about what’s new, recent questions, etc.
• Communicating: having someone dedicated to getting the word out about the success stories in your knowledge network will go a long way in generating interest, excitement and ,of course, additional funds that will be necessary to continue operations.

Having an effective Web 2.0 collaboration platform at the center of this activity certainly will make it much easier to coordinate but the software alone [today's versions anyhow] will never replace the behind-the-scenes efforts required to start and sustain collaboration and innovation.

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.

It’s our combined thoughts that bring us great things.

What a great quote, eh?

This came straight from my wife after a couple years of explaining to her what I do for a living.  After all the talk of wikis, social networking, collective intelligence, blogs, knowledge management, Web 2.0, etc. it was her that boiled it down to that statement.

Being so mired in the world of next-generation learning and development I am accustomed to, and comfortable with, the buzzwords of the trade but it’s sometimes difficult to translate the purpose and benefit of all of these funny sounding things to someone that has little insight into this world.

And her statement summed up quite a bit of it.  So much so that when she said it I sat up straight and wrote it down on a bar napkin [a relic of pre-Web 2.0 for any Gen Nexters that may be reading].

The more I thought about it this really encompasses the theory driving this revolution in how people learn, collaborate, innovate, communicate, etc. and the buzzwords are really just the ‘how.’  Communities of practice, social network analysis, rapid elearning, knowledge management and many others are just methods to accomplish the purpose of my wife’s synopsis – harnessing the power of people connected.

As with many other examples, it takes an outsider’s lens to shed a light of clarity on a topic that can become quite complex when left to the experts.

I talked to her yesterday about ways to ease the collaboration amongst her team – a wiki being at the top of the list.  She told me they were using SharePoint but it was limited b/c only one person could work on the document at any given time.  SharePoint is a Microsoft product, though, so they have no choice but to use it and don’t have any wiki options.

While the next few weeks are still sure to be hellish for my wife and her team, the future is looking bright.  In this month’s edition of Fast Company, Robert Scoble writes about Microsoft’s Office Live Workspace – their entrance into the Web 2.0 world.  This is great news b/c it’s bringing these technologies to the mainstream and making them accessible to the vast majority of the corporate workforce.

Scoble is “betting Office Live will be a gateway drug for workgroups and companies to explore the full possibilities of office 2.0–and not just Microsoft’s products” and I’m sure he’ll win that bet.  I’m hoping so b/c I would like a greater population to have easy access to the features that will be provided with this.  Some of the roadblocks we’ve encountered in projects that require the use of these informal learning tools certainly include lengthy discussions with the IT department on the compatability of external vendors with their in-house products (usually Microsoft) – not having that as an issue will make the process smoother for all involved. 

 I highly recommend the read – it provides great stories, facts and insights on what media hindsight will surely declare a revolutionary technology.

Books (the good ones) usually provide a deep level of understanding on a given topic.  Beyond that they’re static.  Other than new editions every few years, the information stays exactly the same. 

Magazines are full of the newest ideas and discussions on any variety of topics.  It’s tough to think of a magazine article that has allowed me to gain a deep level of understanding on a complex topic, though.

In a loose comparison, books remind me of formal learning.  They don’t change very often but they’re good at providing a conceptual foundation on which you can build and refine your own opinions and applications of given topics.

In the same loose comparison magazines remind me of informal learning.  They are the perfect complement to a concept that I’ve cemented in my head.  I love to read quick-hit articles that I can layer on top of the foundations I’ve built through other reading.  I can skim through a magazine looking only for the topics that are relevant to my interests at the time.  The topics are new every month so I know I’m getting the most up-to-date insight on that idea (except for blogs of course). 

Books are good for in-depth learning of the fundamentals but they’re static – magazines provide more surface level information that is constantly updated. 

Having a good mix of both is what it takes.  Just like learning in organizations – there is plenty of static information in organizations that is best disseminated in a formal medium.  Offering informal opportunities for participants to deepen their understanding of the concepts is what successful learning organizations are implementing.

Review the knowledge that your workforce needs.  What fits in the category of ‘books’ and what is more suitable for a ‘magazine’?  Once you’ve determined that, think of the best way to deliver it.  Is it through a formal avenue that costs more to design and is not cost-effective to change often (formal learning) or would it be better through a model that is made to change and morph constantly (informal learning)?

Some mediums to consider for each:

• Formal (book) learning: seminars, workshops, elearning modules, simulations
• Informal (magazine) learning: podcasts, nano-learning, rapid elearning, wikis, communities of practice

There is no right answer and no panacea.  Some material lends itself to one model while other material is more appropriate for the other.  Think of the information at hand and wonder – would this be better as a book or as a magazine article?

It was a quick trip in D.C. so we were rushed to see the major sites. We started at the National Archives building where they have on display the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence along with access to countless other historical documents.

While up close and personal with these very elaborate and elegant documents, I wondered what the process would have been had our country been formed when the Founding Fathers had access to some of today’s Web 2.0 tools that we’re now using for learning and collaboration.

Imagine Benjamin Franklin and John Adams developing their ideas for the Constitution on a wiki, Thomas Paine keeping citizens informed about the American Revolution via his blog rather than the pamphlet ‘Common Sense’ or all of the Founding Fathers forming a community of practice that keeps in touch about their progress via an online portal.

What they would have gained in efficiencies back then is perhaps what we would have lost in enjoyment today. It’s tough to imagine throngs of people gathered around and craning their necks to sneak a peek of the final wiki page of the Constitution. Would John Hancock’s digital signature have the same impact as the pen and ink version does?  Probably not.

Don’t mistake my tone, though.  I’m all for these Web 2.0 tools and enjoy the efficiency they bring to offices and homes each day.  It just seems that the more efficient we get, the less that opportunity for nostalgia exists. 

On the other hand, perhaps these advacements will serve to make the historic documents all the more rare as times go by so that in several decades our societies will just appreciate the fact that they’re on paper – let alone written by hand.  If this serves to create more awareness and interest in our history, I say that’s one more benefit of the progress we’re making.

This is the basic underpinning to the concept of Net Present Value (NPV) in finance.  Given the option, businesses are going to want their money in their own hands until the last possible second.  The more time a company can hold on to their money, the more of a return the money can generate for the company. 

This is the reason for some magazines offering subcriptions that steadily reduce as the years go on if you pay for them today.  They want that money now!  Even if it’s less than the full subscription you would have paid in three years, they would rather have it today to improve cashflow, invest, etc.

We discussed NPV in the Level 6: Beyond ROI class while I was at the CLO Institute in January.  Ever since then I’ve been playing with the idea of NPV and how it relates to methods of learning that don’t fall under the category of ‘traditional.’ 

I decided to write after reading the July edition of Education Signals.  One section of the report was about the ’Top 20 Companies in the Training Outsourcing Industry’ that is compiled by TrainingOutsourcing.com.  In it, the authors share the following data points:

“The largest percentage of revenue from the leading players came from content development (35%) and training delivery (30%) services.”

Content design/development obviously comes at or near the beginning of a training outsourcing initiative.  That means that over 1/3 of the money of contracts is in the hands of the training supplier soon after the project begins.    

If I were in a position to be hiring a training outsourcing firm, I would look for a deal where the fees weren’t so front-loaded.  I would want to keep my money as long as I could and let it make more money for me. 

Enter informal learning (i.e. communities of practice, blogs, wikis, podcasts, etc.).  As illustrated in this post from Jay Cross, and as others have been preaching, much of learning doesn’t come from ‘content.’  It comes through the informal and unscheduled channels of an organization.

Informal learning may have an additional advantage.  Since there isn’t near the level of design/development required for informal methods as there is for more formal events such as workshops and e-learning modules, a company that was buying these services from an outsourcing company would pay less up front.  This allows them to keep their money longer and let it make more money for them.

Although I’ve only cited one report that I’m basing this post on, I came from the instructional design world.  We charged crazy fees (usually way more than 35% of the total contract) for design/development at my old firm and that was the first thing the client paid for.  I also realize that there is a need for some structured content in a company’s learning and development plans – I just think it should be provided in minimal chunks.

I’m suggesting services that would be a double win for companies purchasing training outsourcing.  With more informal elements in the mix to create a more diverse learning portfolio the client would not only receive more effective learning and development, they would pay less up front and get to make money from the money that they would have spent on instructional design and development fees.

Note:  I’m consciously not addressing the area where training outsourcing firms make the second most amount of money – the 30% from delivery of training services.  Informal learning, by nature, requires less delivery than its traditional counterpart.  For this post, though, I wanted to emphasize the benefits of not paying design/development fees up front.