Knowledge + Learning = Performance http://www.blog.klpnow.com/ Robin Donnan's blog designed to aid organizations that want to improve their performance, and the professionals who help them make that happen en Copyright 2009 Fri, 23 May 2008 06:37:02 -0600 http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Adult Learning via Technology Range of Programs Gibson lists higher education, business and industry, military and government, health care, and adult and continuing education as the primary groups utilizing distance education. Within the business and industry sector, usage of technology-enabled learning continues to grow. Sugrue & Rivera (2005) reported that the percentage of learning hours provided via technology has increased from 8.8% in 2000 to a projected 32.5% in 2005 (p. 14). Similar industry reports show this trend continuing for the foreseeable future. In higher education, Allen & Seaman (2007) report that from 2002 until 2006 the percent of online enrollment versus total enrollment in degree-granting postsecondary institutions grew from 9.7% to 19.8% (p. 5). In 2006, 3.5 million students were taking at least one online course, up from only 1.6 million in 2002 (p. 5). Another interesting statistic is:
“…whether online degrees are as good as those granted by face-to-face programs. Overall, only about one-in-five institutions disagrees with the statement that “online degrees have the same level of respect as face-to-face degrees.” About one-half are neutral, and the remaining portion (27 percent) agree with the statement.” (Allen & Seaman, 2007, p. 15)
The question of reach and usage may be interesting to study, but the acceptance and credibility factor—to this author—would seem more critical to study. How Programs Are Designed The design of distance education has been evolving since the early days of interactive video, then computer aided instruction, then computer based training, then web based training, and now eLearning. Many early adopters tended to focus either on flashy multimedia “edutainment” programs, or on converting PowerPoint presentations or paper-based materials to an online format. Unfortunately, edutainment-type programs were beyond the economic reach of many, and the proliferation of “page turner” eLearning programs helped coin the phrase “bLearning” (as in boring learning). The design of programs, in terms of their engagement level, instructional integrity, and transference of skills and knowledge is something very worthy of continued study. Especially with the advent of many rapid-development tools becoming available on the market, many are tempted to sacrifice instructional integrity for quick results. Quantifying the impact of programs built on solid adult learning and instructional design principles versus those built with a more limited focus (perhaps on content only) could be very beneficial justification for the field of distance education. Who Is Served From my experience as a developer, student, and facilitator/professor of eLearning and distance education, I can anecdotally support Gibson’s (2000) claim that the majority of online learners are women. I have also observed that in higher education in particular, there often is greater racial diversity represented as well. This is a refreshing change versus many traditional universities. However, given Gibson’s alarming words regarding the risk of being perceived as “less well educated” if one selects distance education over traditional bricks-and-mortar institutions, I think it is imperative that this be studied over time. Again, as mentioned earlier in this paper, the acceptance and credibility factor of online learning would be important to study in order to help further validate it as a viable—and in some cases perhaps even preferable—method for education. Results Gibson (2000) raises a number of interesting questions in regards to what results may come from greater usage of distance education, particularly from the perspective of potential social impact and change and the democratization of learning access. This is an admirable, and perhaps idealistic, goal. The question, though, is this a matter for scholarly study or perhaps more of a political or policy question? In lieu of a definitive answer, perhaps we can all take whatever steps we can within our own spheres of influence toward Gibson’s ideal that all people are “ensured quality of access to and success in lifelong learning” (p. 436). References Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2007). Online nation: Five years of growth in online learning Retrieved May 15, 2008, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/online_nation.pdf Gibson, C. C. (2000). Distance education for life long learning. In A. Wilson & E. R. Hayes (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 423-437). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sugrue, B., & Rivera, R. (2005). State of the industry Retrieved May 15, 2008, from http://www.astd.org/NR/rdonlyres/563C2472-1F53-4BEE-8213-7CC19BC532C5/0/ASTD_StateoftheIndustry_2005.pdf - Robin Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved. http://www.perfassocinc.com ]]> http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/05/adult_learning_via_technology.html http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/05/adult_learning_via_technology.html 3 Learning 5 Technology Fri, 23 May 2008 06:37:02 -0600 Technology and Life-Long Learning 1. “Who should be responsible and have authority in the design and conduct of the adult learning experience [for technology-based learning programs]?” (p. 234) Kasworm & Londoner (2000) posit that authority for learning process and design can reside with many different parties: instructional designers, technical support groups and experts, learners, and instructors. They argue that the traditional ISD model of instructional design—when applied to technology-enabled learning—is too inflexible to “target specialized learner needs, create unique classroom dynamics, or introduce new and varied content” (p. 235). Furthermore, Kasworm & Londoner argue that technical experts run the risk of becoming too “enamored by the ‘bells and whistles’ possible in the technologically-mediated learning approach” (p. 235). In my experience as a designer and developer of eLearning since 1990, I have personally witnessed both of these issues. I have seen instructional designers struggle to adopt their behavioral, and often sequential, mindset to the more fluid and flexible approach that is preferred when developing engaging eLearning. For example, the tendency of instructional designers new to eLearning often is to create a “page-turner” program with a certain number of content screens followed by a multiple choice question. After 10 minutes of this for the learner, this is no longer engaging nor are the multiple choice questions likely to be measuring knowledge acquisition much beyond the knowledge or comprehension level. I have also seen programmers and media developers create beautiful interactive media, but with questionable instructional benefit. For example, what is the true educational value of a simulated 3D office environment with full-motion video inserts of talking heads? Other than requiring significant bandwidth and graphics processing power, how does having this type of “edutainment” help the learner truly learn the material any better or at a higher cognitive level? In fact, I often caution clients to beware of eLearning vendors who say their programs are highly interactive when what they really are is highly entertaining and media rich; true learning comes from the learner interacting with the program based on decisions they make—it does not mean passively watching the monitor as a video or animation plays. So who is responsible and should have authority in the design and conduct of the adult learning experience for technology-based learning programs? Simple. The learner should. It is up to the instructional designers and technology experts to come together to create programs that are engaging, educational, and provide for flexible pathing through the material, e.g., test-out options for more advanced learners and remedial review for those who need additional assistance. Therefore, the learner should be considered throughout the design and development process, and be an active member during Pilot testing by providing constructive feedback to help improve that and future programs. 2. “How can practitioners create learning processes and design for these interactions and connections [between learners, instructors, and content] to occur?” (p. 237) In a related vein, Kasworm & Londoner (2000) caution about “the repetitive nature of technology learning modules, the lack of instructional connections to the adult learner’s background and current communities of practice, and the lack of critical engagement in the content knowledge and skills” (p. 237). One potential solution is the use of blended learning—a mix of technology with instructor-led or other high-touch (rather than high-tech) techniques. Bielawski & Metcalf (2005) expand this definition of blended learning to include “different online learning delivery methods, such as asynchronous and synchronous course delivery [that] can be used to create effective training and development solutions that reflect a sophisticated blending of new e-learning technologies and alternative approaches to instructional design” (p. xvii). In fact, some of the different eLearning categories presented by Bielawski & Metcalf (2005) include facilitated synchronous learning (i.e., live online training), facilitated asynchronous learning (e.g., online learning such as that offered by Walden University), self-paced computer- or web-based training, and collaboration tools (e.g., online chat, web conferencing, and discussion boards). In my experience, I have used all of these instructional techniques either on their own or as part of a blended learning strategy. In selecting courses that make good candidates for delivery via strictly technology-delivered methods, I recommend selecting those courses that have (1) a large audience, (2) stable content, (3) interaction needs that translate well to the selected eLearning approach, and (4) a content area with natural “pull” (i.e., one that learners are motivated to complete). In addition, technical, procedural, and factual content are excellent candidates for eLearning delivery; “soft skills” and application can certainly be accomplished via eLearning, but preferably only if the budget allows for a more extensive development effort and if the team has access to instructional designers and technology experts experienced in building interactive simulations. Another viable option for this type of learning is to use a blended approach. For example, present the procedural/factual prerequisite knowledge via self-paced technology and then the application, analysis, and synthesis components via an instructor-facilitated method (whether face-to-face classroom or facilitated online learning). Collaboration tools (e.g., online chat, web conferencing, and discussion boards) can also be used very effectively (1) before learning to establish the learning community and ensure understanding of prerequisite knowledge; (2) after the learning event to reinforce the training and ensure transfer of the new skills and knowledge; and (3) by the team designing and developing the learning itself. 3. “What should be the place and role of evaluation and critical reflection for instructors, designers, technical support personnel, and learners?” (p. 238) The last element Kasworm & Londoner’s to consider is evaluating learning via technology. Kasworm & Londoner (2000) lament that “traditional learning systems often use both formative and summative evaluation to improve a learning event…however, there is limited discussion of models and strategies for effective evaluation within technology-mediated instruction” (p. 238). Perhaps this was the case at the time of the writing of their article, but progress has been made to ensure evaluation is a critical component of distance learning programs. Allen (2003) recommends the use of rapid prototyping as a method for formative evaluation via successive cycles of design, creation, and evaluation (p. 137). Bielawski & Metcalf (2005) recommend establishing and tracking measurements of both business impact and training efficiency. For example, business impact metrics might include participation, progression, and satisfaction; and training efficiency metrics might include cost and time measures, level 1 evaluations, level 2 tests, and level 3 assessments (per Kirkpatrick’s model) (Bielawski & Metcalf, 2005, p. 145). In my experience, one can design distance learning that provides the learner with multiple opportunities to evaluate their own knowledge—and to give them control over their learning experience based on the results of that evaluation. For example, pre-tests can be used to give learners the ability to opt out of particular sections/modules; these results can also help direct the learner to those sections of the course that best meet their needs. Pre-test versus post-test results also can be compared to provide quantitative evidence of increased learning resulting from completion of the learning program. Additionally, if the organization links their training to a Learning Management System, these results can be rolled up to analyze trends at a module, course, curriculum, or even particular demographic or subgroup level—all very important data and feedback points to help shape current and future programs. And one last very important point—in evaluating eLearning programs, it is important to remember to give more credence to the feedback received from the learners—and not the sponsors/those paying for the program. I have seen too many programs fail because a key stakeholder said, “I know what the learners need and want” rather than finding out for sure from the learners themselves. Adopting the approach used by information technology professionals, the design and development of distance learning and eLearning programs should always be user-centered. References Allen, M. W. (2003). Michael Allen's guide to e-learning: Building interactive, fun, and effective programs for any company. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Bielawski, L. & Metcalf, D. (2005). Blended elearning: Integrating knowledge, performance support, and online learning (2nd ed.). Amherst, MA: HRD Press. Kasworm, C., & Londoner, C. A. (2000). Adult learning and technology. In A. L. Wilson & E. R. Hayes (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 224-241). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. - Robin Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved. http://www.perfassocinc.com ]]> http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/05/technology_and_lifelong_learni.html http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/05/technology_and_lifelong_learni.html 3 Learning 5 Technology Thu, 15 May 2008 19:02:47 -0600 Individual Employee Development Competency-Based Development Structure Beginning in the 1990s, many organizations learned that to compete in a global marketplace, it was critical to capitalize on the core competencies that differentiate the services and products they offer (Prahald & Hamel, 1990). Based my observations as a workplace learning and performance improvement professional, the predominant approach has been to define leadership competencies that are common for all positions in the organization and then to define functional competencies specific to particular job clusters. This approach helps to not only ensure consistency in the organizational culture, but also ensures that “individuals… efforts are not so narrowly focused that they cannot recognize the opportunities for blending their functional expertise with those of others in new and interesting ways” (Prahald & Hamel, 1990, p. 5). As such, the beginning of any employee development plan should begin with the definition of core leadership and functional competencies. These competencies can then be used as criteria for recruiting, whether external hires or internal transfers and promotions. Competencies can be used to help identify the learning and knowledge needs of both incumbents and new employees. Competencies should also be used as criteria for performance assessments and each employee’s development planning. Acculturation and Self-Awareness Once hired, new employees need to be acculturated to the organization. Klein & Weaver’s (2000) research “revealed that employees attending…orientation training were significantly more socialized on 3 of the 6 socialization content dimensions (goals/values, history, and people) than employees who did not attend the training. Employees attending the orientation training also had significantly higher levels of affective organizational commitment than nonattendees” (Abstract). Additionally, new employee orientation has been shown to have a positive impact on employee retention, with employees “69% more likely to remain with the company after three years if they completed a full orientation program” (as cited in Sims, 2002, p. 6). This is an important argument for conducting new employee orientation when considering the thousands spent on recruiting and hiring a new employee, as well as the cost to the organization of recruiting and training new employees if turnover is high. New hire orientation can be an important opportunity not only for acculturation, but also to lay the groundwork for future work and learning during employment with that organization. For example, learning and personality instruments such as the Strengths Finder and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001; Kroeger & Thuesen, 1992; Lawrence, 1979/1982) can be effective tools to enhance self-awareness and thus improve team and learning results (Lankard, 1996). Experience has shown how having the work force complete the same instrument creates a common language and understanding that employees can use when resolving conflicts, deciding how best to approach others with ideas, and ensuring balanced team composition so that multiple perspectives and abilities are represented. Formal Learning With core leadership and functional competencies defined and employees acculturated and self-aware, it is time for on-the-job work experience and workplace learning to play their role. Curriculums should be designed to support the organization’s competency model, and employees need to have different development opportunities available for them should they find themselves deficient in a particular competency area. Deficiencies may be identified through self-assessment or assessment of the employees’ work (Lankard, 1996). Formal learning programs need to be designed with respect to Knowles’ concepts of andragogy, in particular addressing learners’ need to know the rationale/why of what they are learning, supporting the self-concept of the learner, and providing opportunities for learners to share their prior experiences and relate new learning to current challenges (Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 1973/2005). To ensure workplace learning is transformational as well as informational, it is critical to incorporate action learning, hands-on experience, feedback, and reflection (Burton, 2006; Imel, 1998; Pedler, 1983/1987). Incorporating problem solving on actual work problems or using case studies that simulate common work problems will have the greatest impact and retention of new knowledge and skills (Lankard, 1996; Pedler, 1983/1987). Additionally, performance support such as job aids and access to online resources (e.g., Help systems and knowledge bases) can provide formal support and reinforcement after the learning program. Informal Learning Supporting formal learning, informal learning can have additional informational and transformational learning benefits. Informal learning can be defined as the individually driven lifelong learning that occurs outside training or a classroom. Lifelong learning, in turn, encompasses many of the meta-learning skills that can be applied to everything that one learns over a lifetime including an individual’s ability to “take responsibility for learning, learn through research, reflect and evaluate, [and] use information and communications technology” (Kerka, 2001). Progressive companies that strive to be knowledge-enabled learning organizations need to pay attention to these transformative elements of learning as well as the more common human capital and information learning elements. Some important methods supporting informal learning include communities of practice and the growing number of Web 2.0 collaboration and social software tools. As Rozwell (2008) shared in a presentation earlier this week, social networks are self-forming communities and groups that often form knowledge collectives. These communities and collectives can be an unlimited source of knowledge sharing and creation that make up an organization’s ‘learning ecosystem.’ Some of the most common tools for informal learning include mentoring, coaching, internships, offering access to experts, and providing virtual meeting and collaboration space for communities (e.g., via web conferencing and discussion boards). The benefits of investing in these informal as well as formal methods of learning are to create channels for collaboration, do more with existing resources, and improve communication, teamwork, problem solving, and learning (Rozwell, 2008). Mentoring in particular can have many positive benefits for employee development—for both the mentor and the one being mentored. As Hansman (2000) argues, mentoring is “integral to learning in the workplace, to receiving career help, and for developmental and psychosocial support” (p. 494). In addition to employee development, mentoring can also further support efforts to transfer knowledge, bridge gap between different work groups, and develop high potential employees (Hansman, 2000). To structure a mentoring program for employee development, it would be important to provide the opportunity for mentors and protégés to be able to select one another; in lieu of that, group mentoring may be an attractive option. Additionally, executive coaching using external professionals would be the most effective approach for ensuring that high-level employees in the organization are also receiving the feedback and guidance they need to improve their individual (and therefore the organization’s) performance. Conclusion To develop an effective employee development program, it is important to think holistically and act systematically. Aim for development of the whole employee—as not just a receptacle for important informational learning that will enable them to contribute to the organization, but also as a lifelong learner with important underlying core competencies and intelligences that can equally benefit the organization by improving how work gets done. In implementing the employee development program, act systematically so that there are clear links between hiring criteria, performance expectations, workplace learning opportunities, and job responsibilities. Making the growth of employees a priority and showing them a clear path with options customized to meet their needs can help organizations reap the benefit of having a workforce that is more innovative, engaged, and loyal. References Buckingham, M. & Clifton, D. (2001). Now discover your strengths. New York: The Free Press. Burton, J. (2006). Transformative learning: The hidden curriculum of adult life. Work Based Learning in Primary Care, 4(1), 1-5. Hansman, C. (2000). Formal mentoring programs. In A. Wilson & E. Hayes (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 493-507). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Imel, S. (1998). Transformative learning in adulthood (ERIC Digest No. 200). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult Career and Vocational Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED423426) Kerka, S. (2001). The balancing act of adult life. Retrieved March 7, 2008 from http://www.cete.org/acve/docgen.asp?tbl=digests&ID=114 Klein, H. J., & Weaver, N. A. (2000). The effectiveness of an organizational-level orientation training program in the socialization of new hires [Abstract]. Personnel Psychology, 53(1), 47-66. Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (1973/2005). The adult learner (6th ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Kroeger, O., & Thuesen, J. M. (1992). Type talk at work. New York: Delacorte Press. Lankard, B. (1996). Acquiring self knowledge for career development. In ERIC Digest No 175. Retrieved April 25, 2008 from http://www.cete.org/acve/docgen.asp?tbl=digests&ID=28 Lawrence, G. (1979/1982). People types and tiger stripes: A practical guide to learning styles (2nd ed.). Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type. Pedler, M. (1983/1987). Action learning in practice (3rd ed.). Brookfield, VT: Gower Publishing. Prahald, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation (HBR OnPoint Article No. 6528). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation, Harvard Business Review. Rozwell, C. (2008, May). Web 2.0 in the learning ecosystme: Challenges and benefits of adoption. Poster session presented at Saba and Gartner's Web 2.0 in the Learning Ecosystem, Webinar. Sims, D. (2002). Creative new employee orientation programs. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional. - Robin Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved. http://www.perfassocinc.com ]]> http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/05/individual_employee_developmen.html http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/05/individual_employee_developmen.html 3 Learning 4 Performance Wed, 07 May 2008 18:19:15 -0600 Personal Information Filtering - Robin Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved. http://www.perfassocinc.com ]]> http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/05/personal_information_filtering.html http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/05/personal_information_filtering.html 2 Knowledge 6 Management 7 PhD Musings Tue, 06 May 2008 14:38:53 -0600 KM Enablers - Robin Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved. http://www.perfassocinc.com ]]> http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/05/km_enablers.html http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/05/km_enablers.html 2 Knowledge Sat, 03 May 2008 11:26:48 -0600 Learning’s Role in Organizational Performance Improvement at Pal’s Sudden Service Pal’s Sudden Service Pal’s Sudden Service is a quick service restaurant serving “primarily drive-through customers at 17 locations, all within 60 miles of Kingsport, Tenn., where its first restaurant opened in 1956” (National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2002, p. 1). Pal’s employs “465 people, 95 percent of whom are in direct production and service roles” (p. 1). In 2001, they became the first restaurant to receive a Malcolm Baldridge Quality Award. Pal’s continues to be the only restaurant to have ever won the Baldridge award, and they also are the proud recipients of two Tennessee Excellence Awards in 2001 and 2007 (Pal's Sudden Service, n.d.). Organizational Performance Improvement The Role of HRD in Improving Organizational Performance In looking at learning’s role in organizational performance improvement, what have researchers found? The field of Human Resource Development (HRD) provides some insights. Swanson & Arnold (1996) define HRD as “a process of developing or unleashing human expertise through organization development and personnel training and development for the purpose of improving performance” (p. 16). They further argue, “when practiced in productive organizations, [HRD] should strive to contribute directly to the organization’s goals” (p. 16). Furthermore, Swanson & Arnold remind us that it is important to remember, “HRD is broader than training or adult education. There are HRD interventions that involve much more than training, and some (however rare) that might involve no training at all” (p. 16). What is needed is for HRD “to focus on systems and processes that ensure that individuals in the organization have the knowledge, expertise, and attitudes to produce quality” and deliver on the organization’s goals (p. 15). At the same time, performance improvement for the sake of meeting organization goals should not be the only focus for HRD. Bierema (2000) argues that there is “value in striking a balance between organizational and individual goals… [and that] human values must be the starting point when considering workplace learning” (p. 279). Bierema further cautions us not to lose the human in Human Resource Development for the sake of improved organizational performance (and profits). Baldridge Organizational Performance Excellence Goals The performance excellence goals and criteria for the Malcolm Baldridge Quality Award offer a formalized program that defines, measures, and rewards organizations who exemplify the principles of an organization that is actively taking steps—and reaping the results of—being a high-performing organization. Three Baldridge criteria areas are particularly relevant to the subject of learning’s contribution to organizational performance: workforce engagement, workforce environment, and workforce-focused outcomes. Workforce engagement and workforce environment fall under the category of workforce focus; this category “addresses key workforce practices—those directed toward creating and maintaining a high-performance workplace and toward engaging your workforce to enable it and your organization to adapt to change and succeed” (Baldridge National Quality Program, 2008, p. 41). Within the category of workforce engagement are the aspects of a positive/supportive work environment, compensation and recognition linked to organizational goals (i.e., reward for performance), workforce satisfaction measurement, plus training and learning opportunities and systems. Additionally, workforce environment includes different methods for supporting the workforce such as learning and training development opportunities that are not strictly focused on employees’ job responsibilities. As Bierema (2000) recommends, this is how the more humanistic goals of lifelong learning and providing opportunities for individual improvement that do not focus strictly on job-related skills can be addressed. The third Baldridge criterion relevant to the subject of learning’s contribution to organizational performance is the results category of workforce-focused outcomes. This set of criteria provides objective evaluation of the organization’s results and how those results support the achievement of the organization’s overall strategy. Per the Baldridge National Quality Program (2008), these criteria measure the effectiveness and outcomes of key indicators of workforce engagement and satisfaction (e.g., increased retention or promotions) and can also “include generic or organization-specific factors…you assess for determining your workforce engagement and climate,” e.g., turnover, satisfaction, and training opportunities (including retraining and cross training) (p. 46-47). Learning’s Contributions to Organizational Performance Improvement at Pal’s Pal’s aim is that to learning be pervasive throughout the organization, whereby training and development has been designed to “support improvement in operational and business performance” (National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2002, p. 2). “Employees at Pal’s are challenged to produce excellence in [their] operations…; to exhibit positive energy, well-being, and self-control; to make the right decision at the right time; and to be dedicated to continuous learning, development and growth” (Pal's Sudden Service, 2001, p. 20). Moreover, “organizational learning, employee development, and continually improving results are basic characteristics of the Pal’s culture” (p. 5). Pal’s Approach to Training and Development In staffing their human resource (HR) functions, Pal’s does not have professional HR staff. Instead, they rely upon clearly stated policies that operations staff and management use for all hiring, compensation, training, etc. decisions. This operations-drive approach also extends to who delivers their training. Pal’s does not rely on training instructors, but rather uses only operations personnel to lead their classroom training sessions. Senior leaders are involved in teaching classes and attending training sessions, which are considered by the organization to be an opportunity to “personally drive the Business Excellence Process” (Pal's Sudden Service, 2001, p. 8). Additionally, “owner/operators and assistant managers have primary responsibility for staff training” (National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2002, p. 3). In the design and development of training, the leadership team annually assesses the organization’s training needs. This has resulted in the creation of a variety of training modules designed to meet Pal’s business needs. Following “a four-step model [of] show, do it, evaluate, and perform again,” Pal’s uses a combination of self-teach and classroom training modules (National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2002, p. 3). In stores, they utilize on-the-job training, “computer-based training, flash cards, and one-on-one coaching” (p. 3). In addition, much like other leading quick-service restaurants:
Visual standardization is a critical element of Pal's training and development program. We thoroughly train/coach our employees on our precise work procedures and process standards. This training focuses on developing a visual reference to verify product quality and usability. Operational procedures, service standards, and in-process control measures for all core processes, each product, and support services are carefully designed and documented in the Pal’s Operations Manual. (Pal's Sudden Service, 2001, p. 26)
Workforce Engagement When looking at the criteria of workforce engagement, the Baldridge criteria (2008) asks the question, “How do you engage your workforce to achieve organizational and personal success?” (p. 42). Pal’s utilizes a number of techniques and programs to ensure a positive and supportive work environment, compensation and recognition linked to organizational goals, measurement of workforce satisfaction, plus ample training and learning opportunities. For example, “individual training and personal development plans are established for all employees at all levels to ensure that knowledge and skills required for defined responsibilities at each position are acquired” (Pal's Sudden Service, 2001, p. 22). Considered an important part of their Communication/Feedback process, organizational learning is a key tool for “quick deployment/sharing of the information/learning throughout Pal’s operations in all stores” (p. 8). This Communication/Feedback process is designed to take the output of the process’s inputs, analysis, and rapid prototyping, and share them across the stores. This process is also credited with encouraging “organizational agility and organizational and employee learning” (p. 8). In fact, Pal’s Communication/Feedback process “often produces rapid learning and decision-making that is shared company wide within the same day (or same hour)” (p. 20). Feedback, coaching, and mentoring also play an important role in Pal’s workforce engagement. “Through training and coaching, [they] instill in [their] staff a positive, helpful, can-do focus on [their] customers, which also contributes to building good customer relationships” (Pal's Sudden Service, 2001, p. 14). “Feedback and coaching are provided by store owner/operators and assistant managers as appropriate to build customer service skills” (p. 14), thereby making “feedback, coaching, and reinforcement of applied knowledge and skills…natural parts of [Pal’s] work execution” (p. 22). Mentoring from owner/operators working directly with employees in the operations areas, “coupled with the developmental aspects of peer reviews and [Pal’s] training processes, effectively supports employees in developing and utilizing their full potential” (p. 21). An intriguing reward and recognition program used by Pal’s is their “Caught Doing Good” (CDG) program. CDG has been designed to “provide an abundance of immediate, public, non-monetary recognition for staff contributions in support of employee development, customer satisfaction, continual improvement, and organizational learning” (Pal's Sudden Service, 2001, p. 21). To ensure the link between individual performance and organizational goals, “a special effort is made in CDG to identify behaviors that are consistent with [their] training programs and that are clearly linked to desired performance results” (p. 23). Workforce Environment When looking at the criteria of workforce environment, the Baldridge criteria (2008) asks the question, “How do you build an effective and supportive workforce environment?” (p. 43). In response, Pal’s utilizes a number of techniques and programs to support the workforce including learning and training development opportunities that are not strictly focused on job responsibilities. For example, Pal’s learning opportunities cover not only the skills needed to support operations, but also listening, health and safety, and organizational culture. For safety training, they have “adopted the National Restaurant Association’s ServSafe training and certification, an industry best practice for food safety education” (Pal's Sudden Service, 2001, p. 9). Additionally:
Pal’s frontline staff training program includes intense instruction on effective listening skills. These skills are not only critical for high performance on the food preparation line…but are also beneficial for gathering valuable customer information about needs, expectations, and satisfaction.” (p. 13)
Pal’s also strives to prepare their employees not only for their job at Pal’s, but beyond. They acknowledge, “Most of our employees’ ultimate careers are with other companies. Therefore, we strive to provide skills, knowledge, a principle-based mindset, and work habits required for producing excellence and practicing life-long learning” (Pal's Sudden Service, 2001, p. 21). Pal’s also extends its contributions to their communities believing that “a major responsibility to our local communities is the shaping of our employees into positive citizens. By helping our people grow, develop, and become better citizens, Pal’s helps make our business more successful while also making our communities a better place to live and work” (p. 10). This echoes Bierema’s recommendation that HRD needs to expand beyond just “performativity” and help contribute to social and political change. Workforce-Focused Outcomes As Swanson & Arnold (1996) argue, “performance takes place and can be measured at the organizational, process, and individual levels” (p. 15). When looking at the criteria of workforce environment, the Baldridge criteria (2008) asks the question, “What are your workforce-focused performance results?” (p. 46). To answer this question, Baldridge recommends measuring the effectiveness and outcomes of common indicators of workforce engagement and satisfaction (e.g., increased retention, promotions, turnover, satisfaction, and training opportunities (including retraining and cross training)). Pal’s requires cross training “of all store-level staff to ensure their complete understanding of all production and service procedures as well as quality standards” (National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2002, p. 3). Specifically, cross-training is used so that “staff members have a complete understanding of all production and service procedures and quality standards to allow smooth transition from work station to work station and cooperative, flexible responses to volume cycles and unplanned reassignments” (Pal's Sudden Service, 2001, p. 20). Pal’s measures their organizational performance with their SysDine management information system, which is also used to analyze operations for a company-wide balanced scorecard. Some important workforce indicators of Pal’s success include the following: 1. “Pal’s leads the industry in low staff turnover. The industry annual average in our market is over 300 percent while Pal’s turnover rate for 2000 was 127 percent” (Pal's Sudden Service, 2001, p. 24). 2. Pal’s “group of store operators and senior leaders has lost only three individuals in the last twenty years, which gives [them] a major advantage in leadership continuity over [their] competitors” (p. 31). 3. Employee satisfaction surveys reveal steady improvement in the period from 1995-2001 with all categories (communication, training, motivation, excitement, harmony, and management’s ability) rated a 4.12 or higher on a 5-point scale (p. 31). Operationally, Pal’s has also seen the following performance improvements resulting from their learning programs: 1. Staff productivity and sales per labor hour have been on an “improving productivity trend [reflecting] the effectiveness of [their] selection, hiring, training, and work designs” (p. 31). 2. “Over the past several years both the timeliness and satisfaction of complaint handling have been improved through training and by empowering the staff to instantly resolve complaints” (p. 15). 3. “On-the-job injury/accident claims [at Pal’s] have declined seventy-five percent since 1992” (p. 23). Looking to the future and continuing to ensure sustained results, Pal’s also utilizes benchmarking to “determine best-of-class practices and performance and to set stretch goals to reach and exceed best-of-class performance levels” (Pal's Sudden Service, 2001, p. 17). “After [they] have analyzed and learned as much as possible from [their] benchmarking partner’s processes and performance data, [Pal’s uses their] Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) piloting and continual improvement approach to incorporate any learning [they] gain into [their] own processes to produce equal or better results” (p. 17). Conclusion Through a focus on workforce engagement and environment, Pal’s has experienced significant positive and measurable workforce-focused performance results. The quick-service channel in particular faces many challenges—a dwindling labor pool, increased cost of raw products, pressures from customers to provide variety and keep prices low, and an increasingly health-conscious public. Despite this, Pal’s has been able to create a workplace that has the lowest turnover in the industry (for both their front-line and management employees) and some of the best results on key operational measures such as sales per labor hour, order accuracy, and time spent in drive-through. References Baldridge National Quality Program. (2008). Criteria for Performance Excellence Retrieved April 11, 2008, from http://www.quality.nist.gov/PDF_files/ 2008_Business_Nonprofit_Criteria.pdf Bierema, L. (2000). Moving beyond performance paradigms in human resource development. In A. L. Wilson & E. R. Hayes (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 278-293). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2002). Pal's Sudden Service. In Baldridge Award Recipient Profile. Retrieved April 11, 2008 from http://www.nist.gov/ public_affairs/pals.htm Pal's Sudden Service. (2001). 2001 Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award Application Summary Retrieved April 11, 2008, from http://www.quality.nist.gov/PDF_files/ Pals_Application_Summary.pdf Pal's Sudden Service. (n.d.). Pal's News. Retrieved April 16, 2008 from http://www.palsweb.com/news.htm Swanson, R. A., & Arnold, D. E. (1996). The purpose of human resource development is to improve organizational performance. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education,(72), 13-19. - Robin Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved. http://www.perfassocinc.com ]]> http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/04/learnings_role_in_organization.html http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/04/learnings_role_in_organization.html 3 Learning 4 Performance Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:24:35 -0600 Games and Simulations in Knowledge Management - Robin Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved. http://www.perfassocinc.com ]]> http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/04/games_and_simulations_in_knowl.html http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/04/games_and_simulations_in_knowl.html 2 Knowledge Tue, 22 Apr 2008 06:26:32 -0600 Human Resource Development Themes - Robin Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved. http://www.perfassocinc.com ]]> http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/04/human_resource_development_the.html http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/04/human_resource_development_the.html 3 Learning Sun, 20 Apr 2008 07:59:16 -0600 MetaKnowledge and MetaData - Robin Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved. http://www.perfassocinc.com ]]> http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/04/metaknowledge_and_metadata.html http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/04/metaknowledge_and_metadata.html 2 Knowledge 5 Technology Fri, 18 Apr 2008 04:30:33 -0600 Wikis - Robin Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved. http://www.perfassocinc.com ]]> http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/04/wikis.html http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/04/wikis.html 5 Technology Thu, 17 Apr 2008 03:10:43 -0600 Continuing Professional Education (CPE) and Assessing Professionals’ Learning Needs Continuing Professional Education Queeney (2000) defines continuing professional education (CPE) as “the education of professional practitioners…[that] extends their learning…throughout their careers” (p. 375). Given the increased demand for accountability in today’s workplace, the goal of CPE is to help ensure an established level of professional competence. It also encourages the transfer of learning back to the job. With its focus on practitioners, CPE is very similar to the concept of worklong learning via a human capital paradigm—thus aiding professionals to build their storehouse of skills and knowledge in preparation for contributions to generating tangible goods and traditional forms of capital. To meet the challenges of providing continuing professional education, Queeney introduces a number of strategies that professional educators need to apply. These include: “Building Effective Partnerships, Assessing Professionals’ Educational Needs, Designing and Delivering Practice-Oriented CPE, Performance-Based Program Evaluation, Inter-Professional CPE, …[and utilizing] Distance Education” (Queeney, 2000, p. 380-388). Since a definition of learner needs is an important underlying component of effective continuing professional education, let us examine the subject of needs assessment both in theory and practice. Needs Assessment Theory Needs assessment for professional education most typically includes components of performance analysis, task analysis, goal analysis, and audience analysis. With audience analysis in particular you can identify what motivates the learners and thus devise ways to tap into their internal and external motivators per the primary assumptions of Knowles’ andragogical model (Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 2005). In practice, needs analysis can range from full curriculum needs assessments to course needs assessments. Rossett (1987) defines training needs assessment as “the systematic study of a problem or innovation, incorporating data and opinions from varied sources, in order to make effective decisions or recommendations about what should happen next” (p. 3). Techniques for needs analysis include review of existing materials, questionnaires, interviews, and focus groups. Additionally, one of the most critical things to remember about analyzing learning needs is to not blindly accept someone’s proclamation of a performance problem. As Queeney cautions, “all too often programming decisions are made not on the basis of needs assessment” (p. 381). Mager & Pipe (1970) also warn, “What people identify as ‘the problem’ often isn’t the problem at all. It is merely a symptom of the problem” (p. 2). Additionally, do not jump to the conclusion that training is the correct solution. The performance problem may not be a skill deficiency that can be solved via training, but rather something in the environment that either is an obstacle to performance or even rewards non-performance (Mager & Pipe, 1970). Needs Assessment in Practice As both Rossett and Queeney describe, needs assessment can take many forms from the simple to more complex. Based on my experience as a workplace learning and performance professional, I have seen and conducted needs assessment at all points along this continuum. When conducting needs analysis for an individual program, simpler forms of needs assessment typically are adequate. For example, focus groups and discussions with content experts, the target audience, and their supervisors can help to define where the performance gaps lie and thus help inform the most appropriate design for the learning solution. More extensive needs assessments are appropriate for large-scale learning initiatives where entire curriculums are being evaluated. For example, when a company institutes a new competency model, the curriculum needs to be realigned to the competencies and gaps analyzed to identify learning needs. Additionally, if the learning function within an organization is seeking to realign itself as a corporate university or to aid the shift in the organization becoming a learning organization, that is often another situation for which a more extensive needs assessment would be appropriate. In these cases, the needs assessment will often involve a combination of techniques including surveys (with multiple versions for each audience and their immediate supervisors), interviews, and focus groups. Queeney’s (2000) argument on “the increasingly entrepreneurial demands of [the professional educators’] organizations and institutions [that force] them to adopt cost-effective strategies for designing, developing, and delivering CPE” (p. 380) is very true. With all needs assessments, the challenge often involves getting buy-in for the time and expense of conducting the assessment. Thus, the professional educator needs to be well-adept at justifying the effort—including being able to articulate the potential risks and costs of not completing the assessment. Additionally, they need to be creative in determining a low cost approach that still results in valid information upon which to base their design and development decisions. Resistance can also be dealt with by not referring to the up-front analysis tasks as a “needs assessment,” but rather to incorporate the needs assessment analysis tasks into the content gathering and design work that accompanies the beginning of learning initiatives. For course-level analysis, that is often the best and most creative work-around to ensure the needs assessment is completed. References Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The adult learner (6th ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. (Original work published 1973) Mager, R. & Pipe, P. (1970). Analyzing performance problems. Belmont, CA: Fearon Pitman Publishers. Queeney, D. S. (2000). Continuing professional education. In Wilson, A. L., & Hayes, E. R. (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 375-391). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rossett, A. (1987). Training needs assessment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. - Robin Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved. http://www.perfassocinc.com ]]> http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/04/continuing_professional_educat.html http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/04/continuing_professional_educat.html 3 Learning Tue, 15 Apr 2008 06:42:05 -0600 Part 5: Knowledge Creation through Informal Learning and Communities of Practice Discussion Informal Learning and Communities of Practice Despite many organizations’ tendency to focus on formalized training, informal learning should not be overlooked for it represents a significant opportunity to create new knowledge. With the knowledge creation and sharing activities that can occur through informal learning channels, this results in significant untapped potential for taking knowledge from an individual level to a work group and even organizational level. By applying the discipline of knowledge management to informal learning, new learnings can be captured, shared, and applied. Thus through Nonaka and Takeuchi’s concept of socialization, informal learning can become a viable gateway to accessing tacit knowledge—and converting it into something that can benefit entire work groups and organizations. At the same time, CoPs have long been considered an effective application method for sharing and creating individual and organizational knowledge. Recently, researchers are seeing the synergies between informal learning and CoPs. Marsick (2006) argues that “the emerging field of knowledge creation and management provides a framework for understanding how informal learning might be enhanced without divorcing the phenomenon of learning from the work itself” (p. 57)—and CoPs can be an effective tool for making that happen. Marsick et al. (2006) further argue that “three areas that seem particularly important for understanding informal and incidental learning in today’s workplace are tacit/implicit knowing, whole person learning, and communities of practice” (p. 796). De Laat (2006) also links informal learning, knowledge conversion, and CoPs as follows:
Communities not only provide an open learning space where they develop their knowledge domain and practice. It is also a place where community knowledge is kept alive and learning is situated in the activities, context, and culture of the community. (p. 8)
Maki-Komsi, Poyry, & Ropo (2005) argue that participation in CoPs provides the “fabric of learning” for dispersed communities of workers (p. 38). Further, they caution that in order to create knowledge it is critical for communities to “collaboratively pose questions, and intentionally seek for alternative solutions in order to create new knowledge and expand the community’s capabilities” (Maki-Komsi et al., 2005, p. 38). Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management In the past decade, more and more researchers and practitioners have begun to acknowledge the potential synergies and interrelationships between knowledge and learning. This is particularly evident in the convergence of the concepts of the learning organization (LO) and knowledge management (KM). Senge (1990/2006) first introduced the concept of the learning organization as a set of core learning capabilities that enable an organization to innovate (i.e., to create new knowledge) and create sustainable advantage. In 1999, Senge shared that he saw KM addressing “the same critical issues [that the Society of Organizational Learning] members have been struggling with—the sustainable creation, transfer, and dissipation of organizational knowledge” (Karlenzig as cited in McElroy, 2003). In studying the areas of organizational forgetting, organizational memory, and how knowledge transfer is a key to creating organizational learning, Argote (1999/2005) posits that “patterns of knowledge creation, retention, and transfer contribute to differences in the rates at which organizations learn” (p. 203). Loermans (2002) defines the relationship between KM and LO by stating that the LO focuses on the learning process and generating new knowledge while KM “takes the output from the LO, manages it and ensures that an appropriate environment to perpetuate the generation and management of knowledge capital is being properly maintained” (p. 292). Loermans (2002) also cites the research of Brown and Woodland, Wikstrom and Norman, and Allee, observing that organizational learning claims “that learning is the process of acquiring knowledge” while KM claims “that each aspect of knowledge has a corresponding learning activity that supports it” (p. 290). McElroy (2003) argues that “second-generation KM [is] a management discipline that focuses on enhancing organizational learning…[and that] KM is an implementation strategy for organizational learning” (p. 19). Mason (2005) also argues that “learning and knowledge have a symbiotic relationship; they depend upon each other” (p. 321). Implications for Practitioners So what are the implications of this convergence of the theoretical concepts of informal learning, CoPs, organization learning, and knowledge management for practitioners? Loermans (2002) recommends that “a corporate architecture [be created] to facilitate learning at the organization level and to create knowledge sharing and dissemination mechanisms across the organization” (p. 290). Maki-Komsi et al. (2005) recommend the use of CoPs for geographically dispersed workforces:
Communities of practice, even virtual ones, support the individual professionals in their work by providing not only information and knowledge but also support and a feeling of community with remote peers. Informal learning and information exchange occurs within these communities, and they form a structure supporting everyday work. (p. 52)
Mason (2005) recommends considering the use of e-learning as important “knowledge scaffolding” and that “much of the infrastructure development that supports e-learning [is] convergent with systems developed to support knowledge management” (p. 321) —for example, enterprise knowledge portals and Learning Content Management Systems (LCMS). Furthermore, while “content may have been king at the peak of the dot-com boom, [we now know] that context will always shape its usage” (Mason, 2005, p. 322)—and learning is where context and meaning are formed. In addition, any knowledge and learning initiative must be “designed with...[an] understanding of [how to] sustain online culture...[and an] appreciation that “e” [in e-learning] also stands for engagement” (Mason, 2005, p. 322). Thus people, cultural, and infrastructure considerations must always come first for the success of any knowledge and learning initiative. Additionally, practitioners should consider this final piece of advice from Loermans (2002):
If the discipline of KM operates in such a way as to improve an organization’s learning capability, it therefore improves the capacity for the organization to generate new knowledge and thus systematically expand the knowledge base of the organization. For this cycle to operate effectively, organizational learning and knowledge generation need to be fully integrated into every mission critical business process that the organization is involved in. This is more a cultural than a technological challenge. (p. 292) [Therefore], organizations should focus on the total inter-organization learning process (i.e., the creation of new corporate knowledge from the total environment within which the organization operates) and the nurturing of the cultural environment that supports it and ensures its continuing development. (p. 293)
References: http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/03/references_knowledge_creation.html - Robin Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved. http://www.perfassocinc.com ]]> http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/03/part_5_knowledge_creation_thro.html http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/03/part_5_knowledge_creation_thro.html 2 Knowledge 3 Learning Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:59:17 -0600 Part 4: Knowledge Creation through Informal Learning and Communities of Practice Critical Analysis Turning to a critical analysis of the theoretical works and applied research, there have been varied contributions to the body of knowledge. Informal Learning Literature Marsick and her colleagues have been prolific contributors on the subjects of informal learning, workplace learning, and learning organizations. Their contributions have been well-informed and grounded in the research that came before them, and they have encouraged further research by other scholars (e.g., Wallace & Colbert). Their communication style is clear and complete, displaying scholarly rigor as well as helpful implication considerations for practitioners. For Marsick and colleagues’ research to be even more compelling, it would be helpful to incorporate quantitative research methods in addition to the qualitative research studies they have been performed. Many organizations look to quantitative studies to prove results; this is a challenge that confronts not only Marsick and colleagues, but all those who study learning and knowledge. Marsick, Watkins, Callahan, & Volpe (2006) themselves acknowledge this limitation in the current research and recommend cross-company and industry studies, “research aimed at learning what works to enhance this type of learning,” as well as research to examine “the impact of new distributed working arrangements (including telecommuting, outsourcing, and use of contingency workers) on informal and incidental learning in workplaces” (p. 799). Communities of Practice Literature Turning to a critical analysis of the theoretical works and applied research on CoPs, let us focus on Wenger’s contributions from the theoretical perspective and Zboralski et al.’s contributions from an applied research perspective. Wenger. Some strong points of Wenger’s work include his solid work to conceptualize CoPs and emphasize the need for them to be very flexible, organic, and evolving in nature. In addition, his writing is approachable and appealing to readers, with many statements possessing good face validity, e.g., “intuitively, everybody knows what knowledge is. When you have it, you are likely to understand situations and do the right thing; when you don’t, you are in trouble” (Wenger, 2004, p. 1). However, his published work (including the materials cited in this paper) focuses more on the practitioner than the scholar; thus Wenger’s materials are sometimes lacking in scholarly rigor. For example, much of his published work is targeted to practitioners and most of his articles and materials were not published in peer-reviewed journals. Despite this, Wenger’s material has become the seminal work on CoPs. Wenger’s 2004 article was particularly disappointing. While the “doughnut” analogy for his model may make it feel more accessible to practitioners, he may be doing a disservice to the discipline of knowledge management—made all the worse by the fact that he begins the article stating that the field has had to deal with numerous skeptics and detractors. But then he goes on to state, “I will argue that when it comes to knowledge, management is a doughnut…and noting that the center of the doughnut is empty, I will argue that knowledge management is primarily the business of those who actually make the dough—the practitioners” (Wenger, 2004, p. 1). Again, perhaps this is an approachable analogy, but the light-heartedness of its description may make the reader question if knowledge management is a respectable discipline. Then in looking more closely at the writing of this article, the model is not directly linked to the structure of the paper. Ensuring the article’s structure directly followed the model (e.g., with consistent terminology and labeling of sub-sections) and illustrating all the concepts on the model would have greatly improved the quality and coherence of Wenger’s article and model. Zboralski et al. In contrast, Zboralski et al.’s (2006) article was particularly impressive for not only its contribution to quantitatively proving a relationship between CoPs and organizational performance, but also in its thorough scholarly approach. The article begins with a thorough literature review, establishing a strong relation between Zboralski et al.’s research and the existing body of knowledge. However, like most research projects in the social sciences, there were some weaker areas. For example, Zboralski et al.’s sampling is somewhat problematic. Within the selected multinational company, there were 220 CoPs that met the researchers’ criteria; yet over a four month timeframe they were only able to get questionnaire responses representing 36 of those CoPs. The researchers claimed that their coverage of “about 31% of all active community members…can be considered a valid representation of the overall population” (Zboralski et al., 2006, p. 542). However, it is not entirely clear by what objective criteria this claim can be made. The questionnaire for their measurement model was pre-tested, resulting in revisions prior to releasing the questionnaire to the sample population. However, the authors did acknowledge that a common method bias could not be ruled out. In addition, the study is somewhat limited in that it was based on one German multinational company with an extensive number of CoPs, and the measures were based on the CoP members’ perception of the CoPs’ effects on organizational performance. Overall, Zboralski et al.’s conclusions were justified by the results; however, they could be strengthened further by replicating the research with other companies plus comparing the results to the perceptions of non-members of CoPs or to objective performance measures that could not be influenced by the participants’ perception. Next: We'll discuss the implications of the research on informal learning, communitiies of practice, organizational learning, and knowledge management and how it can be applied. References: http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/03/references_knowledge_creation.html - Robin Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved. http://www.perfassocinc.com ]]> http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/03/part_4_knowledge_creation_thro.html http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/03/part_4_knowledge_creation_thro.html 2 Knowledge 3 Learning Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:55:29 -0600 Part 3: Knowledge Creation through Informal Learning and Communities of Practice Applied Research Where theoretical works help to define concepts and models, applied research aids in identifying what problems the theory can solve. Informal Learning and Knowledge Management Marsick & Watkins. Beginning with their earliest work, Marsick & Watkins (1990) saw informal learning as a way to access tacit knowledge of which Nonaka & Takeuchi discuss in their knowledge creation model. Marsick & Watkins continued to make this connection in subsequent research, showing how informal learning can help a learning organization tap into its knowledge potential through the use of CoPs, knowledge repositories, goal-based scenarios, and groupware (Marsick & Watkins, 1999; Marsick, 2006). Eraut. Eraut strengthened the link between informal learning and tacit knowledge, and identified “several different types of situation[s] in which tacit knowledge may be either acquired or used or simultaneously both acquired and used” (2000, p. 28). Like Marsick (2006), Eraut cited Nonaka & Takeuchi’s (1995) knowledge creation spiral model. In particular, Eraut argued that socialization—the first phase of Nonaka & Takeuchi’s model—is an integral part of the knowledge creation that occurs via informal learning (Eraut, 2000; Eraut et al., 2002). Eraut also defined four practical reasons why an organization would want to make tacit knowledge explicit: - to improve the quality of a person’s or a team’s performance - to help to communicate knowledge to another person - to keep your actions under critical control by linking aspects of performance with more and less desirable outcomes - to construct artifacts that can assist decision making or reasoning (2000, p. 28) Eraut (2004) defined work activities that lead to learning via informal learning environments, and emphasized the importance of relationships, social context, and management support and facilitation for successful informal learning in the workplace. In his 2004 research article, Eraut also addressed the role and limitations of tacit knowledge in informal learning. He argues that “tacit knowledge does not arise only from the implicit acquisition of knowledge but also from the implicit processing of knowledge” (Eraut, 2004, p. 253). He also cautions that “tacit knowledge is personal knowledge that may be used uncritically because people either believe it works well for them or lack the time and/or disposition to search for anything better” (Eraut, 2004, p. 253). Communities of Practice and Knowledge Management Snyder (1997) referred to the role of early CoP case studies completed by Brown & Gray, Cook & Yanow, Orr, Snyder, and Wenger in demonstrating “that learning occurs most effectively within communities that have developed trust, shared understanding of problems, and a language to communicate new and old solutions” (p. 9). Ever since, CoPs have been identified as an effective knowledge management application in numerous case studies, providing useful examples and best practices for how to design and foster CoPs in organizations. For example, DaimlerChrysler found CoPs “to be an efficient means to achieve business process improvement and manage complexity” by improving the flow and sharing of knowledge throughout the organization (Kannan, Aulbur, & Haas, 2005, p. 138). And New Zealand has used predominantly virtual CoPs as an effective means of encouraging “inter-organizational knowledge networking on a national scale” (Rao, 2005, p. 206; Spence, 2005). In additional applied research, Choi (2006) examined the potential of CoPs as an alternative learning model for knowledge creation and performance training in corporations; Choi also acknowledged CoPs as a key engine for creating and sharing both tacit and explicit knowledge. Choi (2006) also identified factors that facilitate or encourage CoP activity including “learning motivation and desire for learning, creation of work-related knowledge and sharing of expertise in CoP participation, …trust among members, and the leadership trait of the team leader” (p. 144-145). Later in 2006, Zboralski et al. developed a measurement model to evaluate the CoP constructs of information exchange, networking, network position, knowledge effect, business performance effect, and socialization. Importantly, Zboralski et al. (2006) demonstrated “that CoPs have a close connection and positive direct impact on business performance” (p. 547) by quantitatively proving CoP members with a strong network position due to their involvement in a CoP have a positive effect on the knowledge base, the business performance, and the socialization between staff. Next: We'll complete a critical analysis of the literature on informal learning and communities of practice. References: http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/03/references_knowledge_creation.html - Robin Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved. http://www.perfassocinc.com]]> http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/03/knowledge_creation_through_inf_2.html http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/03/knowledge_creation_through_inf_2.html 2 Knowledge 3 Learning Wed, 26 Mar 2008 08:02:30 -0600 Part 2: Knowledge Creation through Informal Learning and Communities of Practice Literature Review Informal Learning To further understand informal learning, Marsick & Watkins (1990, p. 12) contrasted informal learning versus formal learning as follows:
Formal learning is typically institutionally sponsored, classroom-based, and highly structured. Informal learning…may occur in institutions, but it is not typically classroom-based or highly structured, and control of learning rests primarily in the hands of the learner…[Furthermore, it] can be deliberately encouraged by an organization or it can take place despite an environment not highly conducive to learning.
Characteristics of informal learning include a learning process that (a) is integrated with daily routines, (b) is prompted by an unexpected internal or external event, (c) is mostly unconscious, random, and influenced by chance, (d) includes opportunities for reflection and action, and (e) links to the learning of others (Marsick & Volpe as cited in Marsick & Watkins, 2001, p. 28). Marsick & Watkins’ informal learning model. Marsick & Watkins (1990) developed a model for enhancing informal learning, which they further modified in later work (Cseh, Watkins, & Marsick, as cited in Marsick & Watkins, 2001). View image In their model, the center circle of Work and outer circle of Context represent Marsick & Watkins’ “belief that learning grows out of everyday encounters while working and living in a given context” (2001, p. 29). Informal learning begins with Triggers, the perception of which are influenced or framed by our previous experiences. The learner then progresses through the remaining phases not necessarily in sequential order, but rather as Marsick & Watkins characterize as “an ebb and flow as people begin to make sense of a situation” (2001, p. 29). The new situation is experienced and the learner applies different strategies to examine the situation and devise potential solutions. Once this portion of the cycle is complete, the learner implements the selected solution. Ideally, the learner continues the cycle by reflecting on the selected course of action to evaluate its consequences and identify lessons learned. The first phases of the informal learning model are where the learner is applying his/her meta-learning skills to the new situation. Reflection and evaluation are key components of the middle portion. Then, in the final portion of Marsick & Watkins’ informal learning model, the process concludes with the identification of lessons learned—and therein lies the greatest potential for capturing newly created knowledge so that it can then be shared with and applied by others. Additional theorists’ contributions. Building upon Marsick & Watkins’ work, additional theorists have made noteworthy contributions to the study of informal learning. Eraut (2004) has developed and revised a typology of informal learning modes further breaking down informal learning into implicit learning, reactive learning, and deliberative learning—all of which can occur in the past, present, or future. With Marsick acting as their dissertation sponsor, Wallace & Colbert (2001) focused on implementing the theory of informal learning by identifying the factors most important to learning in daily work situations versus in problem solving situations; these factors included talking, perspective sharing, reflection, and trust. They also developed a set of recommendations for how “to structure an organization to support a community of work-learners and…ways to build collaborative work and learning skills” (2001, p. Abstract). Eraut, Alderton, Cole, & Senker (2002) defined and provided examples of informal learning methods, or what the authors termed ‘organized learning support’ that include mentoring and coaching; rotations, visits, and shadowing; and designated experts. They also provided examples of how work group collaboration and learning from outside one’s workgroup can support informal and lifelong learning. Skule (2004) identified seven learning conditions that affect informal learning at work, creating measurable factors that can be used to quantitatively assess workplace informal learning; these factors included exposure to change and high demands, the extent of one’s professional network, feedback, management support for learning, and rewarding proficiency. Clarke (2005) provided empirical evidence of the effect that different aspects of the learning environment have on informal learning in the workplace such as opportunities for independent on-the-job learning, empowerment, and support for reflection and job challenges. Communities of Practice The study of CoPs began with predominantly ethnographic studies, progressed through to qualitative studies, and then more recently has expanded into quantitative studies that are attempting to display a link between CoPs and improvements in organizational performance. Wenger is considered by many to be the seminal theorist on CoPs and has published much on the subject. Through an impressive ethnographic study in his dissertation, Wenger (1990) began his investigation into the characteristics of communities and the people and practices that make up those communities. In 1991, Wenger first published on the subject of CoPs. His article introduced the idea of “learning as a social phenomenon… [where] information only takes meaning in the context of the social practices of the communities that give it cultural life… [Furthermore,] through our membership in their communities…we come to know—and be empowered by what we know” (Wenger, 1991, p. 83). This concept was further reinforced in Wenger’s work that year with Lave where they first identified the CoP concept in their “research toward a ‘social theory of learning’” (Zboralski, Salomo, & Gemuendon, 2006, p. 535). In 1997, Snyder built on Wenger’s and others’ early work by identifying CoPs as a tool for enhancing organizational learning, building organizational competencies, and improving organizational performance. To support this claim, Snyder (1997) argued that “competencies in the current environment are rarely static, so high-performance [CoPs] engage in continuous learning activities to ensure that competencies are built, shared, and applied effectively” (p. 8-9). Furthermore, CoPs:
“…are aligned with competencies…they both enact competencies…and develop and renew competencies through a variety of learning activities. [They] “also constitute influential organization conditions…that influence communication and coordination… [and] are aligned, therefore, with several of the factors associated with a performance-based model of organizational learning.” (Snyder, 1997, p. 9)
Snyder’s most important contribution in his 1997 article was the introduction of a “set of [33] testable hypotheses about how CoPs influence performance, how they learn competence, and what conditions facilitate competence development” (p. 14). These 33 hypotheses can be used to test the interrelation between CoPs and organizational learning, organizational competence, and organizational performance. In fact, this set of hypotheses for testing the interrelation between CoPs and organizational learning, organizational competence, and organizational performance went on to encourage many research efforts including those by Lesser & Prusak; Dove; Lorenz; Smith & McKeen; Webb, Wunram, Lettice & Klein; Lucas; and more. In 2002, Snyder and Wenger collaborated (along with McDermott) on the writing of the seminal book Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. In it, they introduced seven design principles for CoPs: 1. Design for evolution 2. Open a dialogue between inside and outside perspectives 3. Invite different levels of participation 4. Develop both public and private community spaces 5. Focus on value 6. Combine familiarity and excitement 7. Create a rhythm for the community (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002, p. 51) This work also led to the creation of Wenger’s quick start-up guide that succinctly presented the major concepts related to CoPs (Wenger, 2002). View image In 2004, Wenger reinforced his earlier proposition of the social nature of knowledge by arguing that “communities of practice [are] the social fabric of knowledge” (p. 1). He further described the three elements of a community of practice (domain, community, and practice) and defined the role of management sponsorship to “enable communities to thrive and have an impact on the performance of the organization” (Wenger, 2004, p. 7). Knowledge Creation Model Providing an application for both informal learning and knowledge management, CoPs can be a very effective mechanism for knowledge creation and conversion. As defined by Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995), knowledge is created through processes by which an individual’s tacit or explicit knowledge is converted through socialization, externalization, combination, or internalization. View image Socialization is the conversion of tacit to tacit knowledge, often involving face-to-face interactions; this is a common method of knowledge conversion seen in informal learning and CoPs. Externalization is the conversion of tacit to explicit knowledge, often involving interviews or other methods to capture another’s expertise; this is a common method of knowledge conversion most often seen in formal learning (particularly in the process of instructional designers working with subject matter experts in the creation of learning programs). Combination is the conversion of explicit to explicit knowledge, often involving the synthesis of existing data, information, or knowledge in a new way; this is another common method of knowledge conversion seen in formal learning programs. Internalization is the conversion of explicit to tacit knowledge, often involving ‘learning by doing’ so that the knowledge or skill becomes deeply internalized and rote; this is a common method of knowledge conversion seen in both informal and formal learning through mentoring and apprenticeships. In CoPs, socialization is the primary knowledge conversion mechanism employed, while the others can play supporting roles. For example, if CoPs are taking steps to capture their knowledge, externalization will be an additional source of knowledge conversion. Next: We'll explore the applied research that has been conducted on informal learning and knowledge management, as well as communities of practice and knowledge management. References: http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/03/references_knowledge_creation.html - Robin Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved. http://www.perfassocinc.com ]]> http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/03/knowledge_creation_through_inf_1.html http://www.blog.klpnow.com/2008/03/knowledge_creation_through_inf_1.html 2 Knowledge 3 Learning Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:11:23 -0600