Here’s a thought re complicated vs. complex:

Understanding requires a conscious “model” of the reality, and as complex is “never fully knowable” one could claim that it’s due to lack of a suitable, or use of the wrong “model”.

If we ever had accepted “never fully knowable” humanity would have stopped developing, thankfully new “models” (i.e. understanding) were developed.

Time to do that for the complex(?) and model-based (hierarchies, double entry book keeping, budgets, etc) world of organisations I’d say…

I’ve said this before in, “Training: A solution looking for a problem” http://www.jarche.com/?p=691

I’ve also listed some of the performance interventions that “trainers” usually don’t consider, in “Informal Learning and performance technology” http://www.jarche.com/?p=826

In my own consulting practice, I usually pass on a contract where training is the obvious solution, unless it’s a very complicated project. Lots of people know how to develop good training programs and there is much research and practice to back them up. I’ve developed training programs myself, and know that they work in clearly defined areas, such as flying helicopters.

I am more interested in improving organisational performance without resorting to expensive training programs. My experience, and the experience of other HPT practitioners, is that most (60%, 80%, 92% – who knows) organisational performance issues require something other than training. Supporting informal learning is one method that can help address constantly changing knowledge requirements.

You’re right; I do have to work on this argument and expand it. Thanks, Dave.

From what Jay reports and the document he provided the link for, the 8-10% represents factual knowledge, but doesn’t account for other forms of knowledge. While it can be argued that a process is knowledge, I think most would agree that knowledge of that process is knowledge. As is when to use the process or how to complete it.

But no matter what you, Jay, Mr. Kelley or I think, the data is not supported, that we are aware of, by what the respondents to Mr. Kelley’s question think knowledge is. What are they including in that 8-10%.

Another assumption that you seem to be making is that training is only about that 8-10%. In reality, we don’t know how to compare it to what training does, but you seem to be equating it with factual knowledge. Training can teach situational knowledge (think of call center training that teaches options based upon caller responses.) Training can teach strategies (roll playing in management training). Most leadership training does very little instruction of factual knowledge.

Finally, we can’t leave the argument simply at the other 92% needs something other than training. Or, informal learning is the 80% that’s not training as Jay likes to say. As a lot, we learning professionals have been very good at setting up strawmen that we identify as other than what we are. But we’ve spent very little time figuring out where that leaves us.