Harold Jarche

I will be presenting two 1/2 day workshops on Thursday, 25 March in Miramichi, NB. The event is sponsored by Silicon East and attendance is (almost) free. There is a $10 fee to cover refreshments.

Please pass this on to people in the area who might need an introduction to social media, without any hype or sales pitch. I will be heading up on Wednesday late afternoon and can pick up a few people in the Moncton area who want to go up early. I will be staying at The Rodd, where the workshops will be held, and returning on Thursday late afternoon.

Workshop #1: Social media for training & education (9:00 AM to noon)

Focus: understanding web social media and how they can be used for training, education and personal learning
Topics:
What is Web 2.0?
Personal knowledge management – a sense-making process
Tools, techniques and resources for social learning on the web: e.g. social bookmarks, blogs, twitter

Workshop #2 Social media for small business (1:30 PM to 4:30 PM)

Focus: understanding web social media to connect with customers
Topics:
What is Web 2.0?
Examples of social media use for business: e.g. blogs, twitter, slidecasts, videos
Web tools, techniques and resources for small businesses

Pre-registration is not necessary but please let me know in the comments if you plan on attending and if you could provide transportation or need it.

Filed under: Communities, Informal Learning, Learning | No Comments »

Jane Hart has an excellent resource on Case Studies for Social Media & Learning in the Workplace that she keeps up to date. I’ve looked at it many times and thought that it might be easier to see the big picture as a matrix, which I’ve created as a Google Document.

Feel free to use and improve this spreadsheet. If you do re-post it, please let me know so I can add the link here. Much of the information comes from third-party reports so I cannot attest to its accuracy. Let me know of any errors or omissions and I will address them.

If you would like to edit the Google Doc, or get it as a spreadsheet, please contact me.

Filed under: Communities, Informal Learning, InternetTime | 3 Comments »

Some of the things I learned on Twitter this past week.

@oscarberg “Most enterprise social software platforms actually separate internal communication from external communication while email & phone doesn’t.”

via @timkastelle Good #km post – Informal Information Management and Knowledge Management Are Not the Same Thing by @johnt

My thinking is that just the sharing aspect of informal stuff is “know-what”, this is what KM has been about, but we need to go further to the “know-how” ie. to learn and to be able to have the skills to come up with your own “know-what”. We can do this via conversations. We can now converse with people who shared their informal information, and not only know “what” but also “how”…the ultimate example is apprenticeship and mentoring.

via @VenessaMiemis  A fairly good source on Social Capital

In general, there is no one model for social capital formation or the creation or strengthening of local groups. Albee & Boyd (1997) argue that there is no single answer or model to promoting participation … there are only frameworks and guiding principles. Pantoja (1999) argues that instead of one particular model of local organisation, a wide variety of community organisations should be promoted. There needs to be an individual, participatory approach to each intervention.

@downes Social OS and Collective Construction of Knowledge

The development of a technological literacy, though, is uneven. In the divide between a world where we control technology and a world where we are controlled by technology lies what Henry Jenkins calls the “participation gap.” It is the divide between those who can create and have created using digital technologies and those who have not. This is not simply a digital divide, not simply a division between those who can access technology and those who cannot, but rather, a divide between those who have been empowered by technology and those who have not. And it is a gap we see not only at the base level of simple web constructs such as web pages or Twitter profiles, but even more so at the higher reaches of social engagement, in professional discourse and communities of practice. To begin to learn is to begin to participate at the periphery of a community of practice; to become learned is to reduce the participation gap between oneself and fully engaged members of that community.

Filed under: Friday's Finds | 2 Comments »

If you take the cynefin approach for working in complex environments you first Probe then Sense and then Respond in order to develop emergent practices. Backward-looking good or best practices are inadequate for changing complex environments. Constant probes of the environment are necessary to see what works.

Enterprise performance should be looked at from the perspective of perpetual Beta. The values and culture can remain stable while the tools and practices keep evolving to take advantage of the situation. Perpetual Beta means an acceptance that we’ll never get to the final release and our learning will never stabilize. This is quite different from perpetual Alpha, or never getting to something concrete, as Jay Cross commented here several years ago:

What’s beta and what’s not is a state of mind. Many people try to go into release prematurely: they put defective product on the market. (By productizing people, I mean locking in on attitudes, structure, opinions, etc.: becoming rigid.)

Life as beta is uplifting. You have the opportunity to streamline things, to respond to feedback, to become a killer app.

Lots of alphas are claiming beta status now. They debut on life’s big stage long before they’re prepared to play the part.

Does perpetual Beta equate to doing lots of pilot projects? Ross Dawson is a strong proponent of pilot projects for implementing Enterprise 2.0 and lists five characteristics of great pilots: Enthusiasm; Roles & Functions; Skills; Personality & Network:

5. Network
The primary way in which pilots projects will become visible to other people the organization and adapted to new issues is through the personal networks of the pilot team members. Strong personal networks within organizations emerge through both personality, organizational role, and work history (e.g. having worked in multiple divisions or locations). In most organizations networks are fairly strongly correlated to longevity in the organization, meaning that recent recruits are unlikely to have strong personal networks.

On the other hand, Gartner’s Anthony Bradley says that piloting does not make sense for social media projects:

This practice is not prudent for social media where the software complexity should be minimal and the primary goal is to get people interacting. Community participants are fickle and unforgiving (especially external communities). You may only get one shot at catalyzing community formulation. Don’t pilot, test, prototype, or experiment on the community. Don’t artificially restrict participation. The law of numbers is a critical factor in building a thriving and productive community.

A key factor I see in these two articles is that it is important how you define a “pilot” project. If it is viewed as something done on the side and not part of the real business, then it may be doomed to failure. If being involved in pilot projects is a normal part of work, then it fosters a culture of life in perpetual Beta. You can still cancel projects or go in a different direction, but there is a cultural commitment to learning by doing. It’s the difference between our pilot and your pilot.

Filed under: Performance Improvement, Work | 3 Comments »

This list is a result of a series of tweets, initiated by Janet Clarey who referred to a Top 50 list of educational technology blogs. Shortly after that, Maria Anderson suggested that I create a list for workplace learning. I don’t like creating “Top 50″ lists so here are my current favourite sources of information and knowledge about learning, especially for the networked business environment. These are not all the blogs I read and I have another set of blogs that are more academic and purely learning related.

First of all, I follow my colleagues because that’s how I met most of them, by reading what they had to say [and I liked it].

Informal Learning by Jay Cross (US)

Learnlets by Clark Quinn (US)

Social Media in Learning by Jane Hart (UK)

Performance, Learning, Productivity by Charles Jennings (UK/AU)

Wirearchy by Jon Husband (CA)

Internet Time Blog another one by Jay Cross (US)

Blogs about Workplace Learning, in the broadest sense of the term

(in alphabetical order)

Anecdote AU: A blog focused on “putting stories to work”.

Bunchberry & Fern UK/JP: Simon Bostock’s blog on information engineering, learning, and organizational development.

Cognitive Edge UK: Dave Snowden focuses on rejuvenating management practices especially when addressing intractable problems.

Corporate eLearning Strategies & Development US: (the title says it all) by Brent Schlenker (includes a very long blog roll).

Dave’s Whiteboard US: Dave Ferguson (also a Canadian citizen) is an experienced workplace learning practitioner.

Donald Clark Plan B UK: Donald always gives us something to think about and question our assumptions.

ELSUA ES: Luis Suarez talks about knowledge management, community building, social computing and living in a world without e-mail [a very good thing].

e-Clippings: Learning as Art US: Mark Oehlert has particular expertise in gaming and learning.

eLearning Technology US: Tony Karrer has a deep and wide-ranging blog on all things learning and technology.

elearnspace CA: George Siemens is well-known in academic circles but also discusses business and workplace issues.

Green Chameleon SG: Blog of knowledge management consulting firm Straits Knowledge.

Growing Changing Learning Creating US: Tom Haskins’ insightful blog ranges from learning strategies to business models.

Janet Clarey US: Janet discusses emerging technologies in workplace learning with a strong research focus.

Karyn’s erratic learning journey UK: Karyn Romeis is an independent learning & development consultant who shares her passion for workplace learning.

Knowledge Jolt with Jack US: Jack Vinson blogs about knowledge management, personal effectiveness, theory of constraints, and more.

Mark Sylvester US: Mark writes about social networks, working together, learning together and being together.

Mathemagenic NL: Long-time blogger Lilia Efimova writes about personal productivity in knowledge-intensive environments,  PKM and more.

Networks, Complexity and Relatedness US: Patti Anklam specalizes in organizational network analysis and knowledge management.

The Obvious UK: Euan Semple is a deep thinker focused on helping people understand the web.

The Smart Work Company UK: Anne Marie McEwan writes about workplace trends and new ways of working, or working smarter.

Interdependent Thoughts NL: Ton Zylstra writes about knowledge work and management and the tools and strategies that help us navigate the networked world.

Trends in the Living Networks AU: Ross Dawson talks about opportunities for business and society in a hyper-connected world.

Will at Work Learning US: Will Thalheimer is focused on the research behind workplace learning practices.

Workplace Learning Today US/CA: Brandon Hall’s multi-author site that always has something of value.

This is not a complete list but all of these bloggers post regularly and I have followed each one for more than a year and some for many years.

Filed under: InternetTime, Learning, Work | 6 Comments »

Hyperlinks subvert hierarchy, or, in other words, digital networks enable multiple connections, so organizational communications are no longer just vertical. Somebody else, outside the hierarchy, is only one click away, and perhaps easier to deal with and a better source of information and knowledge. This is becoming obvious in the business world and frameworks such as Social CRM (customer relationship management) are one attempt to address it.

Too often we think of learning as school, training as something that is delivered, and complex problems as solvable with enough effort and resources. We are wrong on all three counts.

Social learning is about getting things done in networks. It is a constant flow of listening, observing, doing, and sharing. Effective working in networks requires cooperation, meaning there is no plan, structure or direct feedback. This can scare managers and organizational leaders because no one is in change of social learning and there is no end-state or final learning objective. But social learning in networks can help us deal with complexity by providing a platform to test out ideas and learn from and with each other.

Jane Hart has described five types of learning using social media, the lubricant of learning in digital networks. Then she looked at how they relate to formal/informal learning as well as the spectrum of dependent/independent/interdependent learning.

I have circled those activities at the bottom of this grid to show what personal knowledge management (PKM) enables. I have described PKM as our part of the social learning contract and the more I look at implementing social learning, social CRM or social business models, the more convinced I am that PKM is a foundational skill-set.

Keeping knowledge in our heads is not of much use in getting things done, though that is what most of our training and development efforts have focused on for the past century. Individual training, stemming from the military systems approach to training, addressed skills and knowledge acquisition, as directed by those in change. The organization wanted to drive stuff into our heads.

In networks, though, one of our main jobs now is getting stuff out of our heads and sharing with others.

PKM is focused on accidental, serendipitous, personal-directed, informal, independent learning.

PKM enables group-directed, intra-organizational, interdependent learning.

PKM enriches formal, structured learning and helps learners be less dependent.

PKM is taking control of our learning, as well as making much of it transparent. It makes us a valuable node in our various networks. We share our learning riches without diminishing them. If more people start seeking, sensing & sharing then we’re on the social learning path. Notice how I did not mention that you need some special “social learning” technology platform to do this?

Filed under: Informal Learning, InternetTime, Wirearchy | 1 Comment »

Some of the interesting things I learned on Twitter this week:

Learning is what most adults will do for a living in the 21st century via @crazyquote

Innovation via @timkastelle

Innovation = learning x diverse connections
I disagree with the argument that innovation is the child of desperation. I wish it was so, because if it was, we would be on a planet devoid of incredible amounts of preventable child deaths, failed economies, and the rest of what would otherwise be tragedies that could be prevented by innovations of all kinds. The pragmatic reality is that innovation happens at the intersection of learning and cultivating diverse connections. When you have diverse connections in a network, learning almost cannot not happen. Networks literally become learning disabled if the connections become too homophilous and without learning, no innovation is possible.

whistle – but don’t tweet – while you work 54% of companies prohibit access to social networking sites for any reason via @charlesjennings

The No. 1 benefit of Enterprise 2.0 is Personal Knowledge Management (PKM)

… most E2.0 vendors are doing it wrong. If the #1 benefit is personal knowledge management, why are all the big players selling to the CEO, CIO, and IT departments? Where are the tools targeting individual knowledge workers?

How to Decentralize Traditional Employee Structures via @WorldBlu

Touchstone uses a democratic “Bubble” structure, which means that any person at any level of the organization can lead a group of staff – not just managers or senior-level people. The leader of the team can ask for and receive whatever level of talent they need to achieve the mission of the project. One result is that senior staff sometimes ends up working under a less-senior staff person who is managing a given project. The reasoning is that the leader is in charge of the deliverable, and has the freedom to develop and implement the project as they fit with the team they need to get the job done well.

Filed under: Friday's Finds, Wirearchy | No Comments »

Paul makes an excellent comment to my article on social learning in the enterprise that Jon Husband kindly posted for me on the FASTForward Blog:

I see the critical aspect to social learning to be ‘diffusion’. Knowledge ‘flows’ at specific speeds, and complex, technical details have high viscosity. Some nodes are efficient at in-flow (fast learners), some at out (teachers). Excessive turnover removes nodes before their knowledge has spread to the rest of the group. Isolated groups fail to transmit their knowledge. Again, if I were debugging a company I’d want to measure this. How long before a new product feature is well understood by sales? by management? Does R&D know about current marketing efforts? How much does a idea change as it’s communicated through the company? Are there particular points where ideas get stuck, or particularly garbled?

There is a lot to unpack from this paragraph and it highlights many of issues around learning in the enterprise. It’s not just about having access to knowledge or people but getting ideas flowing throughout the organization. Redundancy comes to mind as a principal for supporting social learning diffusion. There has to be more than one way to communicate or find something.

Just because something was blogged, tweeted or posted does not mean it will be understood and eventually internalized as actionable knowledge. The more complex or novel the idea, the more time it will take to be understood. Often I have revisited articles and only understood them when I have read related views or had a chance to find examples of some new concept. Understanding networks, for instance, is easier when you live and work with them and can see examples of network effects.

—

Diffusion – Viscosity – Flows – Redundancy

Filed under: Communities, Informal Learning | 8 Comments »

The value of social networks for learning is that they help create trust paths to share ideas, advice and feelings between people who care. Jane Hart has developed five categories for social learning:

IOL – Intra-Organizational Learning – keeping the organization up to date and up to speed on strategic and other internal initiatives and activities

GDL – Group Directed Learning – groups of individuals working in teams, projects, study groups, etc Even two people working together in a coaching and mentoring capacity

PDL – Personal Directed Learning – individuals organizing and managing their own personal or professional learning

ASL – Accidental & Serendipitous Learning – individuals learning without consciously realizing it (aka incidental or random learning)

FSL – Formal Structured Learning – formal education and training like classes, courses, workshops, etc (both synchronous and asynchronous)

I previously looked at these categories as being either Undirected, Self-Directed or Directed (from the outside):

My colleagues at ITA have been discussing the use of words like informal; formal; social; directed; and autonomous and how much they add to enabling better learning in organizations. My moment in the shower this morning sparked this idea as a way to describe and categorize activities related to learning for work:

Dependent Learning (FSL) – direction is required in terms of objectives, curriculum, expertise and facilitation. The learner is dependent on others.

Independent Learning (ASL & PDL) - self-motivated people can get what they need in the manner they want

Interdependent Learning (GDL & IOL) – learning that requires connecting to others and cannot be done alone.

For workplace learning, especially in complex environments, I would want to support interdependent learning as much as possible, as this would create a more resilient learning community, not dependent on any individual nor any formal training program. I would also encourage independent learners to share what they know so that the best learners could set an example. I would minimize dependent learning because it is obviously a cost centre and too much dependent learning may adversely influence mastery of independent and interdependent learning.

Now we can ask the CEO – do you want us to focus our energies on encouraging dependent, independent or interdependent workers?

Filed under: Informal Learning, InternetTime, Learning | 4 Comments »

Knowledge management (KM) was a most promising field until it was hijacked by software vendors who were selling IT systems for six figures. A lot of money went into information technology systems and there was little left to help the individual make sense of it. Dave Pollard noted this several years ago:

So my conclusion this time around was that the centralized stuff we spent so much time and money maintaining was simply not very useful to most practitioners. The practitioners I talked to about PPI [Personal Productivity Improvement] said they would love to participate in PPI coaching, provided it was focused on the content on their own desktops and hard drives, and not the stuff in the central repositories.

Personal Knowledge Management is one counter movement to centralized document repositories. As Mary Abraham wrote, during a recent discussion on PKM: “Perhaps PKM is growing in importance because so few organizational KM methods work for individuals.” As soon as the software vendors and marketers get hold of a good idea, they pretty well destroy it. Maybe that’s why there’s a constant flow of new business books: the authors are trying to keep ahead of the snake oil salesmen.

I saw this happen with e-learning. In the late 1990’s e-learning was an all encompassing term for learning online. However, the IT systems vendors and the course providers (AKA: shovelware) turned e-learning into online courses. Building simplistic document management systems coupled with generic information presentation was an easy way to keep profits high. Now if you say you’re in the e-learning business, everyone thinks you do online courses. That’s why I coined the term, ABC Learning [Anything But Courses]. Yes, I know there are some good e-learning programs, but these are more than information presentation. The better ones resemble simulations.

Is the same thing happening with social learning? Jane Hart recently changed her title to Social Learning Consultant so people will not think she creates online courses. Now social learning is being picked up by software vendors and marketers as the next solution-in-a-box, when it’s more of an approach and a cultural mind-set. In A framework for social learning the enterprise, there is no suggestion whatsoever that an organization can implement some software system and suddenly social learning will just happen. Perhaps PT Barnum was right and there is an innate desire to buy some magic potion to solve all our problems. Why are businesses buying their productivity tools from traveling circuses?

Filed under: Learning, Work | 19 Comments »