Learning And Knowledge ...

I came across a blog post by Luis about how the fields of Learning and Knowledge are essentially partners in the learning process. This is something i have been thinking about, and writing, for some time. Luis points out that with the emergence of social software, the two functions can walk hand in hand in the corporate environment.

I agree that the idea of the two functions is complementary to each other. And Luis has it spot on, because it is with the emergence of social software that the importance of networks (whether formal or informal) as a learning tool in the organization is becoming more apparent. However, the idea of the complementarity of the two functions is something which, to my mind, predates the idea of social software.

Lets look at it this way ... what is the goal of a Learning function. The idea is basically to get people to be more effective in doing their work, to enable them to be able to deliver work in more effective manner. Now, lets see what is the goal of Knowledge Management? Again, it is to enable people to be able to deliver their work in a more effective manner. Question ... how can this be achieved? By having a scenario where the people are able to learn from their work, learn from the work of others, and incorporate this learning into their work. Now, the question is, what is the difference between the two? While there are differences in the way the two functions approach this, the basic objective is the same. Hence, while the approaches may be different, the goals being the same, at a basic level, the two functions must complement each other.

Let me take an example ... and we will start this example from the Training aspect. Suppose someone comes out after attending a training. They have learnt some concepts (at least thats what Training managers are assuming). They are in a position to apply these concepts into their work. Which is nice. But, does learning stop the moment you come out of the classroom? Or, if you take e-learning, does learning stop the moment you complete the course? No it doesnt. And this is where KM must complement the Training aspect.

And this is where i agree with Luis that social software needs to play a role. In addition to the role of bringing out the value which can be delivered by networks, social software must be in a position to connect people with networks which can add value to the training they have attended, by enabling them to build upon the training. As such, this needs to be a process which must continue even after the training is over. Taking this one step further (or back, depending on where you are standing), social software is also emerging as a tool for training delivery itself. By enabling organizations to build communities of learners (and i am not just talking about people attending training, but in the larger sense of the term), social software can enlarge the scope of learning, as also deliver it in much more meaningful ways. As i had written in my earlier post, social software can be used to source content (this is not just about structured training material ... one learns a lot from blogs, too), as well as to connect people. One step further would be to use social software to identify the concepts or training that is required to solve a particular problem.

Learning And Work ...

Something i have been thinking about for some time now ... though, for some reason (dont know what that was), i was just not able to write it down ... couldnt quite get to articulating it. Which is why the post by Jay Cross which is looking into the future was something which i quite liked. For the simple reason that he has articulated what i was thinking quite well ...

In a knowledge society, learning is the work.

I quite agree. In a scenario where the nature of business, and hence work, was more or less the same over a period of time, this was not necessarily so. Of course, thats not entirely true, but somewhat so. But, in a scenario where the nature of business, the markets, customers, and hence the work that people do at office changes quite regularly, using static trainings to enable people to find solutions to ever-changing business problems is not exactly the ideal way of doing things. What this implies is that training, for whatever form it takes, must evolve as work content changes. Now, this is a tricky proposition, because noone knows in advance what direction change will take. So, the only possibility i can see is that of developing platforms which can enable people to find the appropriate sources of information (not necessarily training courses) for a particular scenario.

And this, to my mind, can be done through the people-to-people connections which technologies like social computing are bringing to the table. Rather than looking at developing training courses, which are obsolete by the time they are launched (given the lead time of development for some of these, this is not an exaggeration), a training function needs to look at creating a platform which is capable of finding bits and pieces of knowledge across the organization (usually to be found in a highly distriuted scenario), and collating these into some form of a dynamic training course (for want of a better term).

Its like saying ... someone is facing a particular problem ... lets say, client management. Now, there are standard training courses which are available for this. What i am saying, however, is that if the client is a utility company, then maybe a short nugget made up of a write-up about the utilities industry, the specific problem they are trying to solve, and similar experiences from others can be grouped together to make a small capsule. Its not as though this is too far out ... if you see carefully, in the blogosphere, most of this kind of content would usually be already available. Its a question of creating a dynamic book (again, for want of a better word) from specific blog posts (lets say) which is capable to solving the specific problem. Not something which is sort of a one-size-fits-all. There is, of course, still some components lacking from this picture, and i would ask you to fill in these pieces?

Training And KM

This is something i have been thinking about for some time now. This is also a topic i have written about earlier. And this is a topic which i think should probably receive more attention that it does.

The reason why i feel that this should probably receive more attention is because Training, and Knowledge Management are two disciplines which complement each other ... i like to see them as making up an umbrella discipline of Capability Management. OK, so i can almost visualize you wondering why i had to go and make up another term, to add to the already burgeoning lexicon of management jargon. But really, if you look at these two disciplines as contributing to the development of the skill pool available to the organization, this line of reasoning begins to make sense.

Having said this, there is also an inherent tension between the two, which, more often than not, remains unresolved. On the one hand is training ... which is a highly structured approach towards learning. At least the way its being done today. There is a Training Needs Analysis, Training Strategy, and a myriad other steps on the training pyramid or workflow. It all culminates in the curriculum, the course outline which is well-defined, structured course material, and delivery of training in a highly structured manner. Well, sometimes highly, and sometimes less so, but the point is that there is a certain amount of structure associated with it.

Knowledge flows in the organization, on the other hand, tend to be totally, or at least to large extent, unstructured. You cannot define the sources of knowledge in the organization, the consumers of knowledge, and hence, the channels of knowledge flow in the organization, the way you can attach structure to a training.

And this is one more reason that i believe that the two disciplines cannot replace each other, but rather, must complement each other in the organization. However, the issue i see in organizations i interact with, is not so much that they are tending too much on each other's turf, but rather, the other way round, i.e., there seems to be very less appreciation of this basic similarity in their goals, and hence, the requirements to align them, the structural differences notwithstanding.

Of Subsidiary And Focal

I had read about the concepts of subsidiary knowledge and focal knowledge, dimensions of tacit knowledge, as propounded by Polanyi. So? Well ... the other day, i actually experienced this.

Over the years, i have managed to build an understanding of the Bengali language. I can read the language, although with a considerable amount of effort (though writing is something i am still struggling with, given the differences in the spoken and written language, but thats another story altogether ...). The other day, i managed to lay my hands on a collection of stories of Feluda, written by Satyajit Ray (and yes, i do believe the character was primarily modelled around Soumitra Chatterjee, while  Santosh Dutta was just the right actor for Jatayu).

So what, you might ask. Exactly ... not much. I have really enjoyed reading these stories ... they are available in an English translation. However, this one is the original ... written in the Bengali language (Bangla). And, this is when i realized ... while i could read the book (although haltingly), i just wasnt enjoying the stories as much as i had enjoyed them in the English translation. This was because most of my attention was taken up trying to understand whats written in terms of deciphering the language, rather than focussing on the plot of the story. And this is where i realized the importance of "subsidiary" knowledge. When reading a text in a language we understand, we dont have to focus on trying to understand the language, but rather, we need only try to understand the concepts which are written there.

What this highlights is the fact that even when we talk about knowledge, knowledge is not a simple, single-layered entity. Rather, most knowledge is multi-layered, in that it consists of a number of layers of meanings, and we need to understand all of them in order to make sense of it. For example, one would not be able to understand the mathematics behind the theory of relativity without first understanding basic algebra. And this is where illustrations, examples ... concepts which serve to simplify some of the concepts come in handy. This is an important concept to understand, both for trying to understand the representation of knowledge, as well as for training professionals.

ROI And Training ... Again

A very interesting post by Jay Cross about ROI … it got me thinking. A question which has been coming up time and again in discussions I have been having with friends is about the extent to which we measure ROI has been responsible for the crisis the markets are facing. Or is it, at all? Hey … I am not a management guru, and hence, I don’t even claim to know whether it does or not.


There is, however, something which I have been thinking about, and this post actually brought this out quite well. Especially the part where he says …

Making strategic decisions is fundamentally different from making operating decisions. Senior leadership uses gut feel, informed judgment, and vision to set direction. Managers at lower levels decide what projects to fund by describing the logic of how they will help carry out the strategy; this is where running the numbers is useful. ROI hurdles help identify the projects with the greatest potential return. They don’t address the big picture.

This is an interesting thought, if we take this forward. When we talk about vision, we are not talking about this quarter, or the next. We are, instead, talking about a process of reaching from point A to point B, whatever these points may be. Question is, if, in this process, some of the measures take a hit for a quarter or two, sort of giving up on some short term gains for more long terms gains, do these trade-offs actually come into the radar, or the intelligence dashboards of business leaders?

Consider this … There are a number of construction projects going on in Delhi these days, in preparation for Commonwealth Games, 2010. Now, these project sites are not a pretty site as of now, but by the time these are completed, its going to be a different picture altogether. Should one give up on a not so pretty near-term picture in order to attain a nicer picture in the long term?

In this context, lets look at training. Lets remember … training is usually work in progress. When people come out of a training, they have learnt some things, and they are yet to learn some things more, which is where the experience of applying the concepts of what they have learnt on the job comes into the picture. The first question, hence, is what is the point at which we should measure the ROI of training? Traditional means are feedback forms which participants to trainings fill out at the end of the training, when they have no idea how relevant the training has been, and how well it has equipped them to deliver work on the job. So does this mean that effectiveness should be measured at a later point? Here, the question that comes up is, what is the extent that operating improvements can be attributed to training, and to what extent can they be attributed to experience, on the job learning, or collaboration?

Lets look at it this way … you could train someone to swim … or, they could learn to swim by themselves once pushed into the deep end of the pool (with the lifeguard around, of course …). The person who was trained to swim wouldn’t be able to appreciate the effectiveness of the training because he never experienced the effort required in learning to swim on your own, while the other person never really got trained, so again, he is not the right person.

Drawing Parallels ...

I, for one, like to draw parallels between the things we see in day to day life, and some of the concepts which we wax eloquent about at work, in blogs, management schools, etc. As you can see, how i used to teach min-max planning and the sawtooth curve during training sessions. I find such parallels clarify the thinking, and the most important thing they achieve is to build a relationship between the new concept you are learning, and the concepts which you are already carrying in your head.

Which is why i found this blog quite interesting ... my good friend and colleague, Subash, has drawn a parallel between ... hold your breath ... the ubiquitous Masala Dosa, and Knowledge Management ... and too, between driving a motorcycle ... something i have been doing whenever i am giving a talk about KM ... focussing on the tacit knowledge piece ... about how difficult it is to document the amount of salt you want to put in the curry!

Though, i would add ... i am not sure how many folks would actually be able to make the Masala Dosa, reading the manual straight away. Not many, probably ... which is where the learning part comes in ... the learning by doing!

Learning ...

Swami Rama tells a story in the wonderful book, Living With The Himalayan Masters ... This story is about a student of a Master who had never seen a cow, nortasted milk, but wanted to, because he had heard that milk is very nutritious. He went to the Master, and asked for his help. The master described the cow in great detail, and then described milk as being white, and being very good for the health. Now, the student went to search for a cow in the nearby village, where he couldnt come across a cow, but did see a statue of a cow. Now, nearby, people were whitewashing a house, and the bucket of whitewash was kept near the statue of the cow. Seeing this, and the white liquid in the bucket, the student thought this to be milk, and drank it. Needless to say, he was taken ill, and had to be admitted to hospital.

This story tells us of the value of direct experience. This is an invaluable asset to enable us to learn. We may learn a lot of concepts, but without direct experience, this learning is at best, partial. This is really the value of Internalization, as termed by Nonaka and Takeuchi, too. And this is something which we need to keep in mind when the question of training comes up ... Usually, the concept of direct experience is not factored into the curriculum itself within the training, and this takes a bit away from the value of the training itself.

Over the weekend, i was seeing my son doing numbers. Yes, he is actually taking time off from being part-time Batman, and part-time footballer, to learn calculations using the method of the Abacus. Interestingly, he uses exactly the phrases that his teacher uses in class, to try to calculate. "Look down, is it enough?", he asks himself. "No", comes the answer, from himself, and so, he looks up to carry on the calculation. This, from his scrapbook, is the exact language his teacher, uses, too.

And this is the aspect about learning which we need to leverage with stories. Whenever i used to teach Min-Max Planning, i used to tell a story ... about Mom going to buy Rice ... buying a fixed quantity for the month, not on a daily basis, and replenishing while there is still some Rice at home. I have written about this here. This goes to illustrate the value of building a picture for learners which they can carry with them, instead of dry concepts, and which enables them to relate concepts to things in the real world.

Training Outsourcing

A number of training organizations are today operating in all conceivable training spaces, providing training on a diverse range of topics. A large part of their business, in fact, practically all of it, revolves around training delivery. So clients come to them having searched through training offerings, asking them to deliver trainings according to particular specifications.


This, however, is changing. There seems to be the emergence of a tend in crain parts of industry to outsource the entire training component. The idea here is that it makes sense for the organization to outsource the fuction to the experts. So, for example, the experts are indeed the best people to perform the training needs analysis and arrive at the training requirements in a particular area.

While this sounds logical, the issue with this line of reasoning is that any third party experts, while being the experts in their area of specialization, they a not the experts at determining the organizational context in which the training need arises. In other words, they would be unable to identify the business requirements which lead to the training needs arising in the first place. This is something which companies should look at retaining internally.

Training For The Future

Heres a thought ... we cant learn about the future by learning from the past. Interesting? Well ... this thought could turn a lot of fields of study upside down. But, its worth a thought, or a blog post, nevertheless ... One never knows whether it might strike a chord somewhere.

I have been thinking about this for quite some time now. Till now, we have had trainings which have focused on case studies, on analyzing the past, and synthesizing what worked in the past. And, the assumption is that this would work for the future. As much as it sounds cliched (and i dont even know who said it ...), but "the future aint what it used to be!". Quite clearly ... I remember the time when we grew up, television was to be seen only in a few households. Of course, we are a good three decades from that point, but the point i am trying to make here is that pace of change, especially with respect to technology, is getting to be so drastic, that its not enough to merely catch up with the trends, but to be truly effective, an organization needs to build the groundwork for predicting trends.

Rather than look at what has worked in the past, we must look at what would look in the future. Simply because the trends that defined the way things worked in the past are, in all probability, not the ones which are going to define the shape of things going forward.

Question ... what implication should it have on trainings? First of all, case studies are important ... please dont get me wrong. But, having said that, its important to remember that they give you only a picture of what worked in the past. We probably need to add components of future-seeing in trainings. There should be sessions about what participants see as the shape of the future, and how they see this as impacting them, both personally, as well as professionally. This might sound a little fanciful, but we need to bring in elements of this into training, especially when it comes to technology, if we want teams in the organization to develop a greater penchant for developing things which are going to be relevant by the time they are launched in the market.

Training Scenario ... Possibility?

Carrying on from the previous post, i am trying to build up a training scenario which leverages the emerging un-book concept, and social computing. First question ... why? This question gets more or less answered in the last post i have written. Instead of a static handout (even more of an issue if you are doing technology training), the training material could be something which could offer the following benefits:

1. The training material is up-to-date. As people contribute to blogs and wikis (which could be maintained by a training organization, though preferably not!), there is content which is getting generated every day. This means that the latest thought processes on the topic are incorporated into the content.

2. The training material reflects all opinions. Usually, training material is written by one or two people, and reflects the ideas, thoughts, and opinions of these people. This is one of the things which restricts learning to only the specific things which are covered in the training material. Whereas with the un-book concept, the blogs and wikis students could refer to, are actually representative of a large cross-section of viewpoints.

The scenario could work out something like this ...

When a student enrolls for a training program, the training team could email them a set of intro blogs. Links to these blogs, along with their ratings, and comments from previous students could be maintained as part of a wiki page, which could serve as an aggregator for contents on a particular topic, and could be maintained by the training team itself. The training team could also recommend the students to read the "Intro blogs" (these could be blogs which are classified based on user or training team tagging, as being introductory in nature). These recommendations could also come from the faculty who is conducting the training. This ensures that some amount of background resources are available to students before they come to the training.

During the training, there could be a set of blogs, "Training Material" (which represent the thoughts of a number of folks on the topic being taught), though in the interest of brevity, the list of blogs could be pre-selected by the faculty, or identified by the training team. I would recommend this, otherwise, a plethora of resources being available would only tend to confuse students.

What is most important (and this is an issue which most training organizations face), is that these resources are available to students even once they are through with the training, and back to their day-to-day jobs. This would enable the training team to provide resources to students which would enable them to engage with the topic taught in the training, even post-training. And, maybe ... just maybe ... one or two of the students from each batch might start writing their own blog on the topic, and this would only add to the resources which are available to subsequent resources.

I have tried to create a rough model of how the training organization could leverage social computing to deliver training in the organizational context. This might not work too well outside the organizational context (havent thought this through, to be honest), but could be worth a thought, at least?

Training Scenario ...

Like i had mentioned earlier ... i had made a presentation to folks from the education/training industry. In this, i had tried to bring out my thoughts on the training scenario, at least what i have seen in India. I am not sure how different this is from other parts of the world, though i wouldnt think it would be much different.

The presentation can be found here (tried to work out how to embed the ppt here, but not much success ... maybe i am just too sleepy!).

Looking forward to how many folks out there agree or disagree with my views! Cheers ...

Social Learning ...

We have heard this before ... that learning is a social activity. And, our experience right through school and experience bears this out. Ask any of my pals from college, and they would vouch that getting past those exams was a very social process! There is an interesting post i came across ... Bridging the Gap between web 2.0 and higher education ... quite interesting, because this is something i have been thinking about, and writing about. Something which, to my mind, brings out the basic relationship between two apparently independant worlds of KM and Training. And, coming from a training background, into Knowledge Management, i think this is an area which i think i am interested in a lot.

This post represents some rather interesting thoughts ...

Firstly, this brings out the point, that unlike in a few e-learning implementations (few, not all ...), learning is something which is controlled by the student (or their boss ...), or, in other words, is more of a pull activity than a push from a centralized LMS.

Secondly, and this is where this is departing from the traditional e-learning (its already begun being used along with traditional ... the timescales sure are changing, arent they!), is in the interactivity this model visualizes among students. Whether it be in terms of discovery of trainings that the user would be interested in, or whether it be interactions in terms of "collaborating to learn", or whether it is in terms of generating content either as stand-alone content, or to supplement content generated by institutions.

In terms of discovery, i am looking at something like the facebook model ... something i have written about ... it could be as simple as finding out from fellow students what book to read for a particular topic, or, the courses which would be useful, because they have been taken by folks who are interested in something similar to what you are interested in, too. Basically, discovering trainings, courses, curricula, books, papers, and other resources based on what your network is doing, or simply based on search.

Collaboration to learn is essentially about sharing of thoughts, and ideas among students, and the teacher essentially transforming into a facilitator ... something i have written about before ... i have found, as a trainer, that students tend to learn far more from experimenting with each other than from the instructor. And this is something which ought to be part of our learning structures sooner rather than later.

Coming to the part of content ... and this is where the interesting part of the convergence of web 2.0 and learning comes ... Which is where i agree with something Michael Feldstein ...

You may want the structure and motivation a course offers, which could come from a recognised institution, or could be a user generated ‘course’ that is taken just for fun and run by an enthusiast. The key point is this – most LMSs are based on a centralisation philosophy, and as soon as you disaggregate the technology, you also decentralise control.

Interesting observation ... with the disaggregation of technology, e are looking at more and more content being created by learners themselves (now, this is nothing new ... we used to get a lot of notes from seniors, apart from photocopying notes from classmates who were the most sincere, and with the smallest handwriting ... the handwriting was a cost consideration), read blogs! And, this is where the structure of formal learning, and "discussional learning" could get merged going forward. They are already beginning to complement each other.

Corporate Training

I came across an interesting post by Jenna Sweeney about Financial Squeeze on Training Departments. Interesting read ... Especially the part where she goes on to mention that ...

That a lot of time and resources (MONEY) is being spent on things that don't teach anybody anything!

Interesting, this ... in a scenario where the training folks have to do more with less, where the requirement for delivering on diverse trainings is much higher, given the diverse nature of the work that is done by different folks, and the kind of specialization that is required in today's working life.

I had raised something similar in a presentation i had made some time back to a gathering of training practitioners ... what i like to call the "long tail of training"! OK OK ... so, i have already written a post about the "long tail" of KM, and now this ... sort of fancy the term you could say ... makes me seem smarter than i actually am! :-)

One of the thoughts was about the increasing diversity of technology that people need to be trained on, more and more of a geographically dispersed workforce (not so much of an issue today, considering the advance of virtual worlds ... something i have written about) which needs to be trained, and an almost total lack of post-training engagement. This last one is about making sure folks attending a training are engaged with the topic over a period of time, so as to make sure they dont lose all of the things they learnt in class (which is something most folks lose within a fortnight of attending a training, unless they keep in touch!). One way to address this is to bring in some of the ideas which can be harnessed from the web 2.0 domain (hey ... is this actually a separate domain? i dont think so, but read this somewhere, so ...) to bring about greater engagement with students, post-training ...

I will share this presentation once i upload this on slideshare (tried in vain to find out how to upload a ppt here on blogger!).

Training in the Corporate World

I came across a very interesting blog post ... Its discussing whether Training is Useless ... No, its not making that declaration, though i would have agreed with it if that were so ... In large measure, if not completely. The post goes on to make some very convincing arguments about why this could be so. In a nutshell ... this is because nobody really knows why training is required.

More often than not ... someone comes up and says my team needs to communicate better ... The training folks end up doing a keyword search in a catalogue for communication, get some search results, and "throw" the training at the problem ... without even knowing whether this is the right problem in the first place. More often than not, the real requirement for the training remains hidden behind layers of management jargon, which is why training methodologies never go one step beyond the Training Needs Analysis ... to where the root cause of the requirement lies.

The interesting thing this post is making is how the author went to attend a PowerBuilder training, only to come back and work on a VisualBasic project. Quite a few of us have been there, which is an indication that the scenario i am describing does exist in different forms in different organizations. Even if some folks were lucky, and went to the right trainings, the piece which is left missing is the post-training engagement. It is assumed that anyone who walks out after completing a training is a completely changed human being and is an expert on the subject the trainings was about. For example, if you went to an Oracle DBA training, your boss would expect you to be the champ at this when you walked out of the training room. Which is precisely why the T3 concept usually comes about. This tends to negate the value of experience in the specific subject. And this is one of the primary reasons people tend to not derive the kind of value from trainings, that they otherwise could.

If we are to look at how training fits in with the organization's goals, we would find that at some level, Knowledge Management as a discipline also aligns in a similar manner to those goals. This is not to say that these two functions are necessarily overlapping ... But it does mean that training needs to synergize with the larger knowledge management direction within the organization.

Storytelling ...

The ToI ran an interview with Yasuno Yuushi ... A quick search on google turns up photo results. The topic is Kamishibai ... the Japanese art of story-telling. And, how the advent of television led to the decline of the art ...

Kamishibai is the art of story-telling ... story-tellers would typically roam from one town to another on bicycles, and tell stories anchored by pictures ... These stories run in episodes ... Today, you hav e an episode which follows from the previous one ... much like the television serials. Similar art forms are to be found n India as well ... Whether it be the Ram Lila that is performed in Delhi ... in the walled city of Delhi ... where the Ramlila is performed in the form of episodes. You can find a sample program here. Or, whether it be the Nautanki.

The point I am trying to make here ... there are usually important lessons that comefrom these stories ... the way these stories are performed (not told, but rather, performed, which gets the audience to connect at multiple levels with the story being told, the most valuable being the emotional connection), lends to them an aura of reality, which enables people to connect with them.

Should this be something the art of story-telling in the organization adopt? We know there are story-telling gurus, and there are concerted efforts at knowledge-sharing using story-telling. What I am trying to understand here is how we can incorporate the human touch to stories. This, at times, seems to be missing ... and, folk art forms may contain some answers.

At another level, the art of story-telling can have huge implications for training as well ... in a lot of scenarios, training is conducted using ppt (pictures?), but the fun of the story is missing. And, this is the one major disconnect between the way stories are told, and the way the connect is missing in trainings.

e-learning Adoption

There was a question in linkedin ... about the reason which holds back e-learning. Why is it that adoption of a tool like e-learning is not high. And, even in companies where e-learning has been deployed, it is only in skeletal way, more like an item on a check-list. For a tool, the value proposition of e-learning is immense ... People can learn at a place and time they choose ... So, learning doesnt have to interfere with their day to day work, and they can have learning complement profession. That its not necessary that learning happens at the expense of work. This should be music to the HR folks, but somehow, its not.

While e-learning should play a much larger role than it does, i dont think it would really achieve what has been promised as its potential ... this is for one simple reason ... and that is, we are still human beings, and learning, in large part, is a social activity, much more than it is an intellectual activity.

Which means that the primary challenge to bring the social part into learning. The solutions which are found today address the intellectual part well, but ... I guess this is why you would find that e-learning works ok when you have experienced people upgrading their skills, but if you have to learn something new, e-learning doesnt really replace face-to-face learning. Some of this can be addressed by the rich context of virtual worlds, and the way they enable creation of a social environment, which enables us to learn with co-learners, while at the same time, maintaining some of the benefits of e-learning.

The Training and KM Conundrum

I am reading a book ... Beyond Training and Development, by William J. Rothwell. The book is dedicated to the subject of Human Performance Enhancement. To be honest, I had never heard of the subject before I picked up the book. Or, rather, was gifted the book, and decided to read it. I just began reading, so I am yet to figure out how the book is, and what I think about the subject.

But, I get the feeling I am going to thoroughly relate to this. Let me explain. A lot of this doesnt seem like its all Greek to me. Two reasons ... One, I come from a training background, and have spent a large part of my working life in the training industry (a la Oracle University). So the entire lifecycle of training is not new to me. But, and this is interesting ... I read a Case Study in the book ... which is introducing the way the training department should evolve to more than simply training, the old fashioned way (something on those lines. Bear with me, I will surely write more). And, as I read this Case Study, i was thinking how this Case Study could be one which could be used to explain and illustrate the requirement and the applicability of concepts like Communities of Practice to students who may be completely new to the subject. True, the author comes up with a solution which is training oriented, but the fact is, I could see a solution to the problem more in the realm of KM rather than Training.

Which brings me to the question ... Where does Training end, and KM begin? The way I see it, the line can be quite imaginary at times. If the point of both is skills enhancement, then they are essentially two parts of the same machine. But, if the point of Training is to run as per a calendar, rather than developing skills (which, by definition, has to be in accordance with the larger organizational context), then the two cannot be part of a single sub-system. Or, one could develop a working distinction ... Acquisition of new skills ... Training, dissemination of existing skills ... KM. But, this definition doesnt quite hold true, either. Remember T3?

I have written about this conundrum before. Though, I am no closer to finding the answer to the question I raised than I was then. But, the fact is, that unless the two work in synchronization, you might end up having a scenario where you have a train, with two locomotives at the two ends, pulling the train in two different directions. Bottomline, make sure Training supplements the KM need, or you could look at it the other way round, depending on whether you work in KM, or Training.

Web 2.0 and Learning

Something I havent really looked at. I came across a neat post by Ismael Pena-Lopez. Some of the things he talks about, and I didnt even know existed, for example the MIT Lecture Browser. This seems to be an amazing tool. You can browse lectures, and though I couldnt open them for some reason, I am told you could edit content if you think a sentence is written wrong. This could be taken a step further? I am talking about an integration between the e-learning concept, and the concept of a wiki. Though, I doubt whether a true wiki would be useful in this context. Not so much in terms of content, I am sure, but more in terms of accessibility (how many of us tend to pay as much importance to what a fellow-student says, compared to what a Professor says! The Professor, after all, is the Professor, and hes the guy who gives out the grades, remember?).

However, something on the lines of a class wiki? One of the things this could work towards, is to work as a check of understanding. And to interact with fellow students, discuss, develop models, and create a greater understanding of the subject among the entire class community. Of course, a lot of our grading mechanisms wouldnt encourage that, what with the scores of the other guy impacting my grades, and so on ... They wont even let you ask the guy sitting next to you the answer to that tricky question in the exam! :-O Jokes apart, this has the potential of bringing collaborative learning to a level of generating far greater understanding and knowledge about things which are taught in class (net?).

Add to this a very nice presentation Juan Freire about Universities and Web 2.0: Institutional Challenges. Quite an amazing presentation, I must say. Especially the part about the teacher evolving from the leader to the facilitator. In fact, the model of broadcast, where the assumption is that children are blank slates, and the teacher can write upon them the way she wants to is, and has not been true. And, as access to resources proliferates (even if we take the digital divide into consideration), this is becoming more so. As an aside, theres some really simple to understand definitions of what web 2.0 is (minus the jargon).

Coming back to the point, though ... till now, corporate training has also operated on the same assumption as teaching has. That the students are blank slates ... Which is all the less true when it comes to adults. Because they bring with them a lifetime of experiences. I have had scenarios of having taught people much elder to me, with much more experience than me, and it can be an experience by itself, with the instructor learning more from the class than the student did, i think. But, corporate training has not been able to institutionalize this. Whether in class, or online. Instructors have been taught to "manage" the disruptive students, not listen to them. Most course material today is based on this logic, even including ice-breakers, or role-plays. Typical games that instructors get students to play in class, while being participative, are not really the types which encourage participation when it comes to deriving lessons from the game.

What this means is that the training industry has to change. Change in a way which changes it into a learning industry, rather than training. With much more interactions, and participation from students.

Theres more in the ppt there, but more on that later ...

KM and Training

This is a question that is being asked in a lot of places ... Where does KM fit into the Training Strategy of the organization? Or, maybe, the question need be where Training fits into the KM strategy? Semantics ... Either way, we need to find a way of integrating these.

I was just talking with a friend of mine, where he was mentioning that they do trainings based on work they have done with clients. Interesting thought ... A lot of organizations look at this as KM ... Harvesting learnings from customer facing work, and communicating to the larger community. And here we have a school of thought which looks at this as training.

The problem is, to my mind, that training is seen purely as an in-class, or an e-learning event. Where people listen to someone who is discussing her thoughts about a particular experience she has had. However, if we look at this in the larger context, there is the thought that end of the day, this is all about sharing thoughts and experiences. Dont instructors do the very thing in class? Some people ask where the dividing line between training and KM is. To my mind, there is no such line, and even if there is, it should be ignored to make both the training, and the KM initiatives effective.

Story-Telling and the Case Method

I found out only the other day (ok, ok, so now you know I wasnt the Quiz champ ... nowhere even close!) that Harvard pioneered the Case Method of teaching. Needless to mention, today, the Case Method is more the norm in Management teaching.

What is it that makes the Case Method so socessful, as a teaching tool? Harvard believes its very effective. And, I am not going to argue with that, for obvious reasons. Besides, with B-Schools around the world having adopted the method, there must be something there. Also, if you have been through one of the Case Sessions, you would find them very rewarding too, because you get to learn a lot more from the Case Method than you would in a cut and dried theory class.

One of the reasons for this is that the case typically enables you to apply concepts to a real-life situation. While this is the scenario at times, at others, cases are used to introduce a point. So, is application the only reason the Case Method is so successful? I think not.

The way I look at it, the Case Method is all about storytelling. A case is basically a story. Like any story, the case has a protagonist (at least one), a context (typically half the case study would be devoted to describing the context), and a situation which you have to understand, and unravel. I wouldnt say solve, because its not just about the solution, but more about being able to understand the idea. And, one of the reasons for the success is this ... It presents the concept in the form of a story.

Why do I keep harping about the story? Maybe you could read The Goal and tell me how much you gained in terms of concepts from the book.