Ten years ago that great writer and business guru Charles Handy gave us “The Age of Paradox”. For Handy the book was triggered by the realisation that “so many things, just now, seem to create their own contradictions, so many good intentions have unintended consequences, and so many formulas for success carry a sting in the tail.” As I look around the world of Corporate Education, I reflect that much of what I see embarked upon in the name of innovation, or even “best practice”, often produces consequences that result in people like me spending their days engaged upon damage limitation rather than learning development.

About three years before I first read Charles Handys’ book I woke up one morning and found myself dead. This was particularly annoying as it turned out that brain death had occurred some 10 years earlier and nobody had had the good manners to tell me. Fortunately a cure was at hand; my brain was catapulted back into life by the simple, yet elegant, act of learning. I am pleased to report that I am now very much alive and learn something every single day. At the end of a day or week I reflect on the period that has just passed and I ask myself – not ‘what have I learned’ but rather ‘what new ways have I found to learn’. Learning is the difference between being a member of the walking dead and doing something worthwhile. In our organisations it is the difference between success and falling short of achieving goals.

Why is it then that so many of our organisations invest vast sums in activities designed to promote learning but end up producing no discernible change in performance, or worse still produce an environment that inhibits learning? This is the great paradox of corporate learning. We can better understand this paradox if we first spend a little time examining four contributory elements that individually or collectively have brought us to our current impasse.

Paradox 1 – Training can produce learning, but learning can produce surprises.

Make no mistake; training is not an acceptable synonym for learning. Learning is something that people do; training is something that is done to them, as a result of which learning may or may not take place. Learning is centred on the individual and requires he or she to be intimately involved. Through a process of reflection, new mental connections and models are created, new understandings are achieved.

Training, by contrast, is centred on the deliverer or mode of delivery. The first, and often only, measure of success is the entertainment value. Training produces conditioned response and can only ever anticipate a limited subset of possible situations, whereas learning produces discriminating behaviour, which can be adopted and adapted to suit changing circumstances. We are interested in learning in the workplace because this is the mechanism through which people attain new levels of performance. Paradoxically, understanding what we have learned is less important than understanding how we have learned it.

From this, we should conclude that our programmes should create and foster conditions that both create learning and encourage active reflection upon the process of learning. When did you last see a programme of any description that encouraged the participants to examine how they learned what they know?

We are comfortable with the idea of learning styles, indeed we are often happy to be classified by some external measure as a reflector or an activist; but how about encouraging participants to go beyond labels and explore how they really learn and how they can do it at will. Having gained an understanding they should be encouraged to build an individual learning plan, individual insofar as it pertains to them, but collective in that it may well include others in their process of learning. Once people understand how they learn and start to take responsibility for their own learning, we find that learning ceases to be an event planned by others and becomes a process triggered by self-need, a process that sits comfortably alongside working and becomes indistinguishable from it.

Paradox 2 – We direct our resources to formal learning but the greatest organisational benefit stems from serendipitous informal learning connections.

Numerous studies show that between 70% and 75% of all our workplace learning takes place as a result of informal networks, processes and haphazard activities. By contrast formal learning (that is the deliberate stuff that we invest in) is responsible for only about 25% of any uplift in productivity. By formal we mean activities that are constructed specifically with the aim of acquiring new knowledge, polishing skills and, occasionally, modifying behaviour.

Typical methods used are classroom, role-play, e-learning, video, seminars and workshops. Paradoxically it appears that the informal, spontaneous learning is the stuff that really makes a difference to performance. Could this be because it is situated and relevant, that it occurs naturally when it is needed and therefore is put immediately into practice? Interestingly, informal learning is just as likely to happen when providing advice as when asking for it. How odd then that despite these studies, over 90% of corporate investment in learning is directed at facilitating formal activities rather than supporting informal ones.

Given that informal learning appears to be so important, and will happen almost despite our efforts, it would appear to make sense to build learning programmes that reward and foster it. When I put blended learning programmes together I stress the importance of creating informal study groups and study pairs, enabling communities of practice and clubs, providing opportunities to share experience such as brown bag lunches (lunch and learn sessions). Even simple things like placing collections of internal white papers or short extracts from journals next to coffee machines can help stimulate discussion and sharing. Never underestimate the ability of people to seek out and learn from each other; you can help to facilitate this by providing a yellow pages of who knows what. Aim to facilitate the creation of networks not inhibit them.

Paradox 3 – We remember least when we listen, most when we teach others.

Studies that examine the impact of different information delivery mechanisms on retention provide interesting insights. On average we only remember 10% of what we read. This is quite alarming given that the dominant form of information transfer in our organisations is the written word and even in e-learning, reading is the primary activity. We remember around 30% of what we hear but combining seeing and hearing together can raise retention to levels close to 50%, this is why we emphasise the use of visual aids in classroom training; it also explains why audio is more than just a gimmick when added to an e-learning package. In order to achieve retention levels of over 70%, it is necessary to introduce collaboration and individual or collective practice. But as anyone who has ever coached anyone knows the highest levels of understanding and retention are achieved when you teach something to someone else.

The key message from this research is that if retention is important, as educators we must strive to connect people together, encourage collaboration, get them to discover information together, solve problems collectively and teach each other.

The great news is that increasingly technology is enabling this. Virtual classroom technology (Centra, WebEx, Placeware etc) is at its heart a medium for collaboration not merely a broadcasting tool. These systems allow us to instantaneously connect people in remote locations, to share applications and knowledge, to work simultaneously on problems or obtain instant context sensitive coaching. We have seen that coaching and teaching are not only good for the recipient but also promote retention in the coach. Use this in programmes to build networks of internal coaches; encourage each person to find a mentor and meet with them regularly. Consider the value in peer review where staff/employees routinely ask respected peers for their opinion of important elements of their work. Take every possible opportunity to connect people; collectively they will create new knowledge.

Paradox 4 – We cram facts into people’s heads, but increasingly professionals rely on external repositories of knowledge.

Studies carried out over an extended time period by researchers at Carnegie-Mellon University in the USA have shown a remarkable shift in the percentage of knowledge that we hold in our heads in order to do our work. Less than 20 years ago, it was estimated that as much as 75% of the knowledge needed for a professional to function was held in memory. Within ten years this had fallen to less than 20% and now in 2004 the figure is below 10%. It would appear that this change is both a function of the rapid increase in published information and knowledge but also a recognition that the value that a professional brings to a situation lies not in the ability to remember stuff but rather in the ability to synthesise and interpret information, make judgements and recommend appropriate action. Paradoxically we continue to build learning programmes that emphasise the cramming of facts and test the recall of knowledge. This is particularly true of much e-learning where the instructional model replicates the pedagogy of the Victorian classroom with its emphasis on tell and test.

So what can we draw from this research? When building learning programmes we need to place much greater emphasis upon discovery. Rather than learning information, we need to learn how to rapidly find relevant information. We need to be able to quickly discriminate between the superficial and the important; to use information from multiple sources to construct innovative solutions to unique problems. This points to a new set of skills to be learned. It also highlights the importance of creating structures to access both corporate and commercially available knowledge.

Within our organisations we need to understand the dynamics of organisational learning and the importance of corporate memory. We need to deploy ways of identifying, classifying, storing, retrieving and sharing information that is in the public domain. We need to provide access to electronic publications and journals or web-based full-text repositories of published works like those provided by Books 24×7 or Safari.

Seasoning the Blend

So much of what we think and do is based upon received and unquestioned assumptions about how the world works. I have used the concept of a paradox, as a means of highlighting just some of the areas where our assumptions may not just be wrong but maybe producing consequences totally at odds with our intentions.

I have argued that we need to place the emphasis squarely on learning and facilitating learning in all its guises. We need to stop thinking of learning as an event that is organised by one set of people and imposed upon another. Learning is a natural consequence of living and working; work has always involved problem-solving, judgement, conflict resolution, and choice – these are all learning events and learning opportunities. The trick is to raise individual consciousness of how, when and under what conditions learning takes place and what support structures are needed; in this way we can turn a naturally occurring process into an organisation transforming process.

In building and implementing blended learning programmes for large multi-nationals, I start from the premise: how do I remove the existing barriers that are inhibiting learning. The first and foremost task is always to understand how to connect people together and how to give them what they need in order for them to learn. Blended learning should not be about gluing together disparate elements of technology to communicate a message more efficiently. It should be about finding ways to connect people and, having connected them, give them the things they need when they need them in the format that best suits them. All you need to do then is sit back and watch learning happen.

Brian Sutton

Dr Brian Sutton is owner and managing director of Learning4Leaders. He divides his time between learning consulting assignments, writing books and acting as a visiting professor for the Institute for Work Based Learning at Middlesex University. Brian’s most recent book is 30 Key Questions that Unlock Management. He is currently working on the 2nd Edition of Teaching and Learning OnLine to be published by Routledge in early 2013.

Web – www.learning4leaders.com

In a previous paper, “The Sage of Paradox”, I argued that as learning professionals we need to stop thinking of learning as an event that is organised by one set of people and imposed upon another, regardless of whether that event takes place in a classroom or via the medium of e-learning. Learning is a natural consequence of living and working: work has always involved problem solving, judgement, conflict resolution and choice – these are all learning opportunities. We can experience them and move on regardless or we can reflect upon them within the context of our environment and our core principles and, as a result, produce new insights that move us forward.

In this article I intend to take a closer look at how we can increase the impact of learning by interleaving it more closely with the world of work.

To make a difference with our learning initiatives we should think less about content and more about environment.

Informal learning

There now appears to be an upsurge of interest in ‘Informal Learning’. Indeed it would appear that this is the fashionable thing to build into one’s learning programmes. But make no mistake: to really embrace informal learning we will need to abandon some very well embedded paradigms, and the nature of paradigms is that we are often blissfully unaware that we are locked inside one.

The nature of informal learning

Research shows that around 75% of what we know, the stuff that really makes a difference to how we perform, is learned through serendipitous interactions in the workplace rather than being a result of formal, designed efforts to train people.

Before we explore the consequences of this statistic we should focus in on just one word from the above: ‘know’. What is it that we know?

Back in the 1950s the respected philosopher Michael Polyani introduced the idea that knowledge comes in two forms: explicit and tacit. Explicit knowledge comes in the form of know what, where, who, when or that. By contrast tacit knowledge is about know how, what if, know why and care why. Put simply, explicit knowledge is stuff that we know that we know and can write down, where as tacit knowledge is stuff that we use but are not consciously aware that we are using it and probably couldn’t explain to someone else how we did what we did or why we leapt to the conclusion that we did. When we operate in the tacit domain we are exhibiting what might be termed ‘expert’ behaviour. Interestingly, research also shows that around 70% of all knowledge that is useful in our organisations is of the tacit variety – this is because in some way we are all ‘expert’ at something.

I want to explore two paradigms, and their associated paradoxical consequences, that we unwittingly accept and which govern the way we think about learning. The first is this:

Paradigm – “experts know best” Ergo, if we want to improve the performance of a group of people, we find an expert in that domain, analyse how they perform and then design training so that everyone else can emulate the performance.

Paradox – “most of the time experts don’t use the knowledge they think they know.” Because expert behaviour is rooted in tacit knowledge, the expert often can’t explicitly state why they do what they do. Worse still, we then put another expert in the way, the training designer. These people have one real skill: they are adept at constructing events entirely out of knowledge that the expert can articulate and, as we have seen, this often has little relevance to the way that the experts behave.

A short detour along the route from novice to expert

The journey from novice to expert was neatly described by Hubert Dreyfus and is captured in the diagram above. Most people can immediately identify with this journey in the context of the acquisition of a skill such as riding a bike or playing a musical instrument. To explain the importance of this insight, let’s walk through the model in the context of learning to drive a car.

The Novice driver may be taught to change gear with reference to the speedometer, hence the instruction – when you get to 10 miles per hour change into second gear. After a while, we master these simple activities and move to the stage of Advanced Beginner. At this stage we start to consider situational elements, so the speedometer may read 10 miles per hour but if the brake lights are showing on the car in front, this may not be a great time to change up. Once we have started to master these situational elements we move to the next phase, that of the Competent performer. We are now aware of the complexity of what we are doing and we start to deal with complexity by overlaying a personal plan. In driving terms, instead of going where the instructor tells us, we are involved in planning our route ahead of time – we no longer just drive around, but instead we drive with a purpose. As such, we are involved in the outcome of our activities but may still have a limited understanding of the bigger picture and be detached from decision making. In time we develop into a Proficient performer. By now we have substantial experience and start to recognise patterns of events and associate solutions that have worked before with certain patterns of events. The proficient driver will spontaneously adjust their planned route or driving style to suit emerging circumstance; we are fully involved in the bigger picture and take ownership of the outcome but still may be detached from decision making. Finally, we attain Expert behaviour. In this state the driver is no longer engaged in operating a machine but rather is fully engrossed in the driving experience. We are at one with the road; we often are unaware of what gear we are in or consciously thinking about our actions. The expert decides intuitively – we just know.

Interestingly, under conditions of extreme stress or crisis, the expert can fall back into novice or advanced beginner mode and start following rules. This is dangerous because they are neither used to or practiced at following rules. This partially explains why experts occasionally do incredibly dumb things, sometimes with catastrophic consequences.

This is the domain of informal learning.

Seasoning the Blend

The most important insight is that when we learn informally we are by and large not learning things that are or can be written down. So informal learning is not so much about content. This is crucial because we have a whole profession of training (learning) designers who are currently predominantly focused on content. Informal learning is about context, patterns and connections; these are the building blocks of judgement, intuition and wisdom. This leads us to our second paradigm and associated paradox.

Paradigm – “analysis is the only form of thinking”. Ergo the best way to understand complexity is by breaking it down into parts. So if we want to improve the performance of a group of people, we break down the activity, teach the component parts and, hey presto, when we put them back together, they will be better performers.

Paradox – “experts don’t see parts, they see wholes”.

Experts tend to think synthetically. Synthesis is the converse of analysis, so instead of taking things apart they put things together. They see wholes in the context of greater wholes. This sometimes exhibits itself in what has been termed ‘thin slicing’ – the ability to make instantaneous assessments of complex situations, assessments that can give better results than laborious analysis.

Informal learning is the process through which we store the near-infinite number of instances that will in future enable us to see patterns emerge before they do and to make connections under conditions when we only have partial data. In other words, informal learning is the process through which we acquire wisdom and judgement. It is deeply contextual, collective in nature and there are no short cuts – it takes time.

To summarise the message so far, formal learning is where we give people the building blocks to get as far as advanced beginner in performance terms. At best, all it can do is to certify that people are safe to practice. Some teams never get out of this state, or they fall back into it due to lack of leadership. Informal learning is the process by which people cycle through the journey from competent to expert, which provides real and potentially lasting leaps in performance. The journey is facilitated by being surrounded by proficient or expert performers and exposure to the full richness of context within which value is created. Total immersion in such an environment allows people to absorb the ethos of experts, start to recognise for themselves the patterns that are so obvious to the experts and, where appropriate, model the experts’ behaviour.

So as learning professionals, what can we do?

The simple answer is that most of us will just carry on doing what we do, and this is right and proper because we will always need to support the journey from Novice to Advanced Beginner. This is where the greatest cognitive load is; it is where the analytic paradigm works best and it probably accounts for 80% of the cost and effort in what we can do to make people safe to perform.

Brian Sutton

Dr Brian Sutton is owner and managing director of Learning4Leaders. He divides his time between learning consulting assignments, writing books and acting as a visiting professor for the Institute for Work Based Learning at Middlesex University. Brian’s most recent book is 30 Key Questions that Unlock Management. He is currently working on the 2nd Edition of Teaching and Learning OnLine to be published by Routledge in early 2013.

Web – www.learning4leaders.com

Recently I wrote a post for the Spicy Learning Blog about banishing business speak from e-learning.

I began the piece with a quote: ‘If you are interested in stories with happy endings, you would be better off reading some other book.’ (Lemony Snicket) Don’t recognise it? If you’re not either of primary school age or the parent of someone who is, that’s hardly surprising. This particular line is the one that opens Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events and I think you’d be forgiven for questioning the wisdom of choosing these as the opening lines of your book. For those of you unfamiliar with Mr Snicket, he – along with the Baudelaire orphans and the ruthless, unscrupulous Count Olaf – has been the biggest thing to hit children’s bookshelves since Harry Potter.

Why is this? It might be the tales of murderous money-grabbers and absurd adventures that keep the kids entertained, but parents up and down the country have become just as devoted fans because of Lemony’s ability to tap into how people think. Someone tells you not to blink, you blink. Someone warns you not to press the flashing red button, you want to press it. Someone tells you not to read their book, it’s suddenly hard to put down…

I imagine there’s a big part of you asking why this is relevant to e-learning (although I bet there’s also a little part of you itching to Google ‘Lemony Snicket’). The reason is that I believe we can all learn a lot from this master of rhetoric. There’s a lot of talk these days about making a training course engaging and that tends to mean using the latest technology, blending it with some social networking site or another, doing something new and exciting with video or taking user interaction to the next level. That’s all well and good, but all this glitz and gadgetry can mean that we forget about the most basic building block of a training course – the word.

People are people, whatever they’re reading…

Think about an advert you’ve seen lately – in a magazine, on a billboard, on the side of a bus. The chances are there’s a memorable image, maybe a famous face. And almost certainly a catchphrase, slogan or pithy saying. The marketing and advertising industries never underestimate the power of language, so why do we in learning and training?

I’m not alone in thinking this. In his excellent book The Online Copywriter’s Handbook (which, although focused on website or online marketing copywriting, is well worth a read by anyone writing online training material), Robert W. Bly says much the same thing:

The old saying among direct marketers is “copy is king”. Words make the sale and get the order. Layout and graphics serve primarily to make the copy more readable and are not the key drivers. But in the online world, the attitude toward copy is completely different. Copy and copywriters rank – mistakenly so, in my opinion – low on the totem pole.
– Robert W. Bly. The Online Copywriter’s Handbook. McGraw-Hill 2002. P3.

Bly, who has a real way with words, goes on to say that ‘people are not fundamentally different beings when they go online; people remain people.’4 And indeed, people are not fundamentally different at work and outside work. If you met one of your people in the staffroom you wouldn’t bombard them with sentences of 30 words or more and you wouldn’t fire jargon at them. So why do it in a training course?

Too much e-learning is full of industry jargon and legalese; too many learners have to battle through screen after screen of text that is, at best, too formal and, at worst, too hard to understand or just plain dull; and all too often the overwhelming tone is one of businesses covering their backs. Most people don’t read instruction manuals or academic textbooks in their leisure time; they watch Friends or Coronation Street, they read novels and magazines, they share anecdotes and gossip over drinks with friends. What we as instructional designers need to do is recognise this and create a training course that appeals to its audience as people.

Injecting a little life into learning

Clive Shepherd is not only a prolific blogger on all things learning related, he’s also a great example of an engaging writer, as evidenced by this passage which sums up the problem and raises a smile at the same time:

They do say that selling training is like selling dog food – you sell it to the owner not the dog. The dog gets what their owner thinks will be good for them. Likewise, most training is sold to the management … not the learner. Management thinks they know best. They are sure learners prefer their training to have a serious, businesslike tone. They believe, mistakenly, that people can learn any number of abstract facts, rules and procedures just by seeing and hearing about them … They are wrong. Who’s supposed to put them right? The training department. Do they?
– Clive Shepherd. ‘Learners know best.’ P20.

The authors of e-Learning and the Science of Instruction suggest that ‘the rationale for putting words in formal style is that conversational style can detract from the seriousness of the message.’ It’s tempting to fall into the trap of believing that in order for what you say to hold any weight and authority, your tone has to be formal and intellectual. This is a myth.

Unless you’ve been living in a cave for the past decade, and regardless of whether or not you’re a fan of smoothies, you’ve probably heard of Innocent. And even if you’re not into the drinks, it’s hard not to like the brand. Perhaps its biggest selling point is its personality – there’s something a bit hippy, a bit playful, in everything it produces (just as Lemony Snicket taps into the naughty, rebellious streak in all of us, Innocent taps into the child in us). It’s not just the advertising: the ingredients list on the bottle, the contact address (Fruit Towers),  the annual report – nothing is too unimportant or too important for the Innocent treatment. So if Innocent, one of the real success stories of the past decade, can inject a little life into even the blandest or most official of documents and still get the important messages across, why can’t we all?

Striking the right tone

Clark and Mayer devote an entire chapter to the personalisation principle. Put simply, this principle is based on the fact that ‘people work harder to understand material when they feel they are in a conversation with a partner rather than simply receiving information.’

This is nothing new – these days the term ‘e-learning’ (as opposed to ‘e-telling’) implies a level of user involvement and the rise of blended learning has led to the development of highly interactive training programmes. Online coaches or ‘pedagogical agents’ are an accepted and commonly used feature of e-learning.

Clearly, then, certain personalisation techniques have been widely and warmly adopted by the learning and training community. But people still seem reluctant to let go of their long words, even longer sentences and technical or legal jargon.

Think back to your student days and you’ll probably appreciate Victor Stachura’s claim that ‘it’s difficult to pay attention to material written in a formal tone (like most textbooks) even though you may want to understand it.’ So when you’re the one writing the material, give the user a break and make what you’re saying easy to understand and remember.

How to put it into practice

LIt’s one thing to be convinced of the value of writing in a conversational tone – it’s quite another to do it well. There’s a lot of literature out there on how to do it (Stachura and Bly both offer useful tips), and there’s definitely an element of personal style, but I think there are a few key rules that are a good starting point:

• Write the way you talk. We’ve usually been so trained in academic or business writing which ranges from the stilted to the pretentious, with several levels in between, that it can be hard to snap out of. But that’s exactly what’s needed when you’re trying to engage a time pressured employee with a course about performance management, fraud prevention or health and safety. What’s the point in writing in a way that seems determined to turn the reader off ? Instead, you should be cultivating a tone that’s friendly, appealing, helpful and – above all – normal. In speech it’s not uncommon to start a sentence with ‘and’ or ‘but’ and natural conversations are peppered with contractions – so do the same in your writing.
• Keep it short and sweet. There’s been a lot of research done on the way in which we read online. Your typical learner won’t want screens crammed with text or sentences spanning several lines. So take care to modularise your content, breaking it up into short units, manageable screens and bite sized chunks of text. Give your sentences the ‘breath test’: if you can’t read a sentence aloud without running out of breath, it’s too long.
• Pitch to the right level and remember your objectives. If you’re writing an e-learning course, you’re probably getting input from anywhere between two and 20 people. Each time you send out a draft, more ‘must have’ information is thrown in. Be brutal and flex your editor’s elbow: if it’s not directly relevant and doesn’t help you meet your learning outcomes, cut it out. Then put your course through the ‘gist test’. Give it to someone who doesn’t have any prior knowledge of the topic. Can they get the gist of what’s going on or are they drowning in legalese and reaching for the dictionary?

Of course, as with everything in life, it’s all about balance. You want to give the learner something interesting, engaging and even – dare I say it? – fun. Equally you need to be wary of distracting them with excessive colloquialisms or undermining your material with your witticisms. Ultimately you’re writing for your reader, so put yourself in their shoes and keep them in mind.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re writing an induction course or a compliance course, whether it’s for newbies or senior management – take a leaf out of Lemony’s book and be a little daring. Start small (think ‘we’ instead of ‘the company’ and ‘what’s coming up’ instead of ‘course objectives’), break some bad habits and banish the business speak. You might not be winning any Pulitzer prizes or rivalling Lemony Snicket on the bestsellers list, but with any luck you’ll soon be a breath of fresh air to staff sitting down to take yet another training course.

Stephanie Dedhar

Stephanie discovered the world of online learning after graduating in 2007 and spent the first four years of her career on the supplier side. In fact it was as an instructional designer at Saffron Interactive that she learnt her trade – creating concepts, designing learning strategies and writing effective, engaging content about everything from financial management to data protection to sustainability.

Along the way, she developed a passion for online learning design, becoming the LPI’s first Instructional Designer of the Year at the IT Training Awards 2010. That same year, she also discovered the power of social media, joining the Twitterati (@stephaniededhar) and sharing her tips and ideas at www.stephaniededhar.wordpress.com. She’s also given a fair few seminars and webinars for such illustrious three-letter-acronym organisations as the eLN, the LPI and the LSG.

In 2011, Stephanie made the leap to her first in-house role, and now works as a learning and performance consultant within leadership development at BP. She enjoys the challenge of taking a ‘dry’ or ‘boring’ topic and turning it into something engaging and really useful. She also loves exceeding people’s expectations of what online learning is. The team at BP is doing some really inspiring and exciting things – so much more than what people often envisage when they hear ‘e-learning’ – and she loves being a part of that.

According to various psychometric and personality profile reports, Stephanie is a life-long learner. Since studying modern languages and literature at university, she’s taken a course in fashion journalism (admittedly a pipedream, unlikely now to ever be realised), got an MA in French literature, and become a Certified Online Learning Facilitator via the LPI. These days, Stephanie can usually be found with her nose in a book (she also blogs at www.stephanieisreading.wordpress.com) or learning Greek.

Back in 2006, I wrote an article for the Saffron Advance Programme called Workflow Learning: A new Ingredient for the Blend. It started by championing blended learning which I noted had been a hot topic at the Learning Technologies Conference that year. This is where different learning methodologies are blended together each using their own particular attribute so that the learning programme as a whole is more effective. But, I continued, even this fails to address the issue of the human characteristic of forgetting quickly anything we learn in a classroom before we can apply it in our work. So the prospect of a ‘golden solution’ in the name of workflow learning was discussed. If you have not heard of this you may be excused because after it first came to fame in about 2004 and was allegedly the next big trend, it is now seldom mentioned at all. But as is common when you compare something written six years ago with the present day it has not disappeared; it is present under a different name altogether.

Workflow learning is simply learning ‘just-in-time’ and as part of our work; something we are all now very familiar with. In the workplace today and according to the 70:20:10 rule, people learn informally 70 per cent of the time and in the main don’t even know that they have. Nowadays, with ‘always on’ tablet computers, smart phones and the plethora of collaborative tools, the prospect of spending days in a classroom training course seems “so 20th century”. If we need to know something, that is learn something, we now know where to find it or know how to find someone who does and we have the tools at hand whenever and wherever we are to do just that.

In the 2006 article I made the point that much time is wasted looking for information which is a cost to an organisation when it is all added together. Today, the cost of frequent visits to Facebook or Twitter during the working day is worrying some HR managers who try vainly to persuade people to abandon these activities. I also argued that a well-designed blended learning intervention is structured and therefore should have defined and measurable outcomes which cannot be said for any amount of informal learning. This is still the case today but saying so suggests the 20th century command and control policies of the training department and again that sounds rather dated. The question that arises is what have we learnt about all this since that article in 2006? In the scheme of things six years is not even a blink but in the technology based learning world it is a chasm.

Trying to write about what has changed is fraught with danger since it is so easy to generalise and say ‘that no longer happens’ when in actual fact it probably still does somewhere. Secondly, it is easy to pour scorn on the practices of the past when they were cutting edge in their day, even though they sound so dated now. Furthermore, very few people could care less about what was done before, even six years ago, because it is largely irrelevant now. The saying goes that the more things change the more things stay the same. For example, some professional industries particularly in financial services and law firms still use classroom based instructor led courses for much of their training and this is for the simple reason that for that subject material the collaborative and discursive process works. Technology can now add new dimensions to these courses by perhaps sending PDF documents to delegates’ mobile phones in the days after the session to assist in the learning process but the basic learning platform has changed little. In any case, if it is not broken why try to repair it? The problems may lie not with the ‘old’ ways of doing things but how we now apply the new ways.

As technology has developed it enables us to do things that only a few years before we would not have dreamt possible. Being able to carry in your hand a computer capable of doing far more than most people’s desktop PCs has fuelled the consumerisation of information technology. Nowadays, unlike six years ago, it is up to you what apps you use on your own smart phone and none of the business of the IT department. Gone are the days where you were told what computer programmes you should use and this liberalisation has driven another big nail in the coffin of command and control training in turn has created a revolution in the L&D world; the requirement for learning professionals to cease being the sage on the stage and instead merely a facilitator who makes things available and then walks away. After all, if people learn while they are working who needs a training department?

Nowhere is this more apposite than in the world of social media. There are probably only a few people left in the world who have not heard of Facebook or Twitter. They may not be users but they know that they exist. If they are not users it is probably because they do not want to use it for the simple reason that they do not see how it would benefit them in any way. Some would say that this attitude is misguided because they could be doing this, that or the other but it is their personal right not to do what others think is an intrinsic and immutable part of their life; no one can force them to use these tools. It is anachronistic therefore to create a social media strategy as part of an overall L&D strategy since it simply could not be implemented. Yet collaborative learning, knowledge exchange and sharing information is acknowledged to be beneficial especially but not exclusively in large organisations. All attempts to cajole people into using social media will fail since you only do these things if you can identify a personal benefit in doing so. Then add mobile technology and you suddenly see writ large what has really changed in the last six years.

So are we now in a brave new world where everyone continuously learns ‘just-in-time’, while they are working, collaborating with colleagues across the globe, accessing at will vast resources of data, information and knowledge enabling us all to function at a higher cognitive level than ever before? Well we all know the answer to that question, don’t we? With new technologies and capabilities come new dilemmas and problems. In the workplace we can do much more than we could six years ago but in being able to do more we find less time to do anything else. Back in 2006 I said in that article that workflow learning was not a ‘golden solution’, just another part of the blend. That is still true today only the options for blending a learning programme are now greater than ever before. Even with this new range of options we are no closer to perfect learning than we were in 2006. All we can do is to continue experimenting, trying new ways and admitting when we have made mistakes. If we have come this far in six years I will be the last person to predict what we will be doing in 2018.

Vaughan Waller

Vaughan Waller is eLearning Manager with Deloitte Digital.

“Would you tell me please, which way I ought to go from here?”
“That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,” said the Cat.
“I don’t much care where,” said Alice.
“Then it doesn’t matter which way you go” said the Cat.
“…so long as I get somewhere,” Alice added as explanation.
“Oh, you’re sure to do that,” said the Cat, “if you only walk long enough.”
Carroll, L, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, 1865.

We often speak of voyages of discovery, and indeed it is not hard to draw parallels between the traveller and the learner. Some people travel for business or necessity; others for escape, discovery or pleasure. Some delight in mystery tours, even though they run the risk of covering old ground; for others it is the very familiarity of old ground that holds the attraction. Some depend upon a travel agent to help guide their choice of destination and plan for the richest experience of sights and sounds upon the way; others make do with a map or guide and a phrase book to overcome cultural and language barriers at more exotic destinations.

Some check itineraries and tickets, making certain their passports are valid; others go ill-prepared, lose their way or check in too soon and suffer a long and frustrating delay; yet others arrive so late that they run the risk of missing their plane. Some carry too much baggage and so find it hard to maintain a brisk pace; others pack too little and soon feel the lack of some essential. Indeed, not all journeys are problem-free. Even the best-prepared traveller can suffer delays or discomfort caused by external and unpredictable factors – a late train, a fellow passenger suffering travel sickness, fears of flying or drowning, and so on.

Some people prefer to travel alone, others with companions. Some drive, others must be driven. Some travel quickly, others more leisurely. Some journeys are short and uneventful; others may be grand affairs incorporating a variety of transport modes. All these statements can be applied to learners as well as travellers, regardless of the method or medium. Let’s now let’s turn our thoughts to training itself and, in particular, e-learning. There are many good justifications for training and development, but there are poor justifications too. The argument put forward for e-learning often centres on its apparent flexibility, its Martini-like claim to be suitable “any time, any place, anywhere,” or its capacity to offer learners a choice of learning routes with different entry or exit points, a distinctive style and preference options. However, in the past, providers have not always been very good at matching e-learning courses to learners’ attributes, which may in turn explain why, in line with successive approximation (which advocates trial and error, achieving incremental improvements each time), the best training is often considered to be the most minimal in terms of time and content, or, in other words, little and often.

Likewise, many managers are tempted to throw training at all problems instead of dealing with the root causes and there are too many unrealistic hopes and expectations of training. BF Skinner noted a common trait among managers which he called ‘superstitious behaviour’ – a belief that because something worked once, it might just work again. (Skinner, BF, ‘Superstition’ in the Pigeon, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 1948, pp.168-172) Such superstitious behaviour may be the motivation behind managers sending people on training courses so easily, and behind the determination of e-learning advocates to squeeze all learning out of a screen. Although there are times when it would be improper to refuse training, sometimes refusing it is the right thing to do; only when you are realistic about what training can and cannot accomplish do you make the right decisions at the right time and ensure that your limited training budget is spent wisely.

So how can we ensure that e-learning delivers its potential and follows through on its promises? Let’s consider the leader who looks out of the window, surveys the entire situation, and says “We’re on the wrong train!” and his colleagues, the efficient producers and busy managers who respond with “Shut up! We’re making the principle that all things are created twice – first mentally and then physically. (Covey, Stephen R, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, 1989) The mental rehearsal is a key part of the process of planning for the success of the physical end creation, yet is frequently missing where training is concerned. This lack of planning and forethought results in the continued production of costly solutions, without sufficient attempt to make sure they’re the right solutions.

In a perfect world, organisations would be stable and predictable, and we would have no need to worry too much about training; we might choose to foster employee development but it would not be vital to the success of the organisation. But we don’t live in a perfect world! You probably need only look around your workplace to see evidence of that. Perhaps your company has experienced growth, ‘right-sizing’, re-structuring, new systems or working practices, increased workloads, flattening of management structure or other changes. The only thing we can be certain about for the future is the inevitability of change. Indeed, the rapid advance of technology, the rise of social networking and the adoption of new management techniques to support different organisational theories all mean that change is happening so fast that, to paraphrase the Red Queen in Alice Through the Looking Glass, we are having to run ever faster just to stay in the same place. (Carroll, L, Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There, 1871) As the world of work changes, we find ourselves confronted with a constant performance gap; we need to develop fresh skills, renewed determination and new knowledge and concepts to achieve our business and personal goals.

This requirement to be both multi-skilled and prepared to develop laterally applies to everybody in the workplace. Managers must drive flatter organisations, deliver total quality and support empowerment: today’s tasks necessitate skills which are radically different from those required of managers in the past. Similarly, an administrative assistant may have been employed for their ability to type, answer the type, answer the phone and file, but may now need to deal with customer problems, coach colleagues and analyse and improve their own working practices. Technology constantly drives change in the workplace, management styles are continuously evolving, and employees are increasingly called upon to pass on knowledge and share their expertise. Not many people possess ready-made skills and attitudes to meet these challenges.

So how can training tackle this and help people deal with the challenges of their ever-changing jobs? Of course, training cannot magically transform ineffective employees, supervisors or managers into effective ones, it is unlikely to resolve all the causes of poor performance, and it will not fix problems that stem from poor structuring of work, unclear responsibilities or other organisational dysfunction. But it can adjust people’s perceptions of the boundaries of their role and help them develop the new skills they require to meet expectations. It can also help to build a shared vision and understanding of the organisation’s mission; to show how management values employees; to demonstrate commitment and loyalty; and to develop people so they can assume greater responsibility and increase their contribution to the organisation’s success.

As we have already considered, training is a management tool and, just as you can’t drive home a screw with a hammer, it’s not always the only or right tool for the job. Similarly, a solid foundation is important: if you try to use a saw without a vice or a workbench, the chances are you might cause a serious injury; if managers expect measured improvement after training, they must provide the necessary support and take care of associated problems that can’t be tackled with training. This characteristic failure among many UK managers to play their part in the planning, preparation and follow-up means that training often does not deliver on its potential to add value to the business. Resources are frittered away, training fails to meet expectations and is seen as costly, meaning that training budgets are first to be cut in times of economic hardship.

Training is not a miracle cure, but a lever to move someone towards those real outcomes. It works best where there is a strong link between individual and organisational needs and where bars to learning and factors hindering performance have been eliminated. It is the involvement, endorsement, sponsorship and encouragement of managers, and the perspicacity of training providers in applying the right method and media, that make the difference between training that is just a brief excursion and training that really brings about significant results and gets the learner from A to B.

Phil Green

Phil Green has spent many years working within some of Europe’s major organisations such as AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Nestlé, Lloyds TSB, Avis, Unum and Marks & Spencer. As a consultant he has devised countless winning solutions to help highly successful organisations such as these to remain at the top of their performance. He is a tutor and course designer for The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, and manages online tutoring for many of the CIPD’s Advanced Certificate courses.

Managing Director of Chesterfield-based Optimum Learning Ltd, he is an expert analyst and instructional designer and is a recent Past Chairman of the E-Learning Network. Much published, Phil is a frequent presenter and track chair at major conferences and was named in 2007 as one of the world’s 100 best trainers by the American publisher Pfeiffer.

Negative Feedback

Positive Feedback

‘Negatively wired’

Ouch – That hurt! I’d better try harder so it can’t happen again

Phew – avoided failing, done enough, no need to try harder.

‘Positively wired’

What? There must be some mistake, so no change to present course!

I’m good, oh Yes! I can carry on carrying-on!

• When the individual has asked for it
• Shortly after the individual has gone through a 360° review process, assessment or development centre
• Soon after a critical event in which the individual has either performed particularly well or could have done better
• When the individual seems unaware of an issue which is impacting on their performance or limiting their chances of progression
• When the individual’s performance or behaviour is affecting others
• During coaching sessions or informal discussions of the individual’s performance

When not to offer feedback

• I When the individual is not ready to hear it (if they are very upset or angry, for example)
• When there are distractions or other people around (particularly if the feedback is of a critical nature)
• When you don’t have enough information to give meaningful feedback
• When an individual has been given sufficient feedback already, but is avoiding taking responsibility for doing something about it
• When the individual is showing signs of resistance to the wider development programme

Overcoming resistance and defence mechanisms

Suzanne Skiffington and Perry Zeus in their book Behavioural Coaching highlight the importance of understanding defence mechanisms when providing feedback. They cite the example of someone who claims to love receiving feedback, both positive and negative, but is actually just defending themselves against rejection or hurt. Most of us feel some discomfort when being given bad news and it is important for both the feedback provider and recipient to acknowledge this when discussing performance. The job of the feedback provider is to be sensitive and alert to the recipient’s feelings and reactions, and the recipient needs to be as open-minded as possible: everyone’s perceptions can be different and the differing viewpoints of others are valuable, even if they don’t always match with our own.

When in a situation in which you are required to give feedback, it is also worth reminding yourself that few people are wholly comfortable with doing so but, with practice, preparation and some guidelines to follow, the experience does not have to be an unpleasant one for either you or the recipient.

The role of technology

Technology has an important role to play in both managing the feedback provision process and in helping to identify ways in which people can act on their feedback. A set of development options carefully aligned with the requirements of the individual’s role can be a key pillar of support following a feedback cycle and these development options are often found within Learning Management Systems (LMSs) or within newly emerging career planning tools.

There is a very clear and direct association between using feedback and diagnostic tools and the ability of an organisation to provide much needed focus and clarity around how to spend scarce development resources. When used effectively across an organisation, feedback tools such as 180° appraisals and 360° reviews, together with career planning tools, can not only provide a rich source of feedback and a basis for constructive dialogue between a line manager and staff member, they can also provide valuable insights for the overall skills portfolio, training plan and succession planning process.

Larger organisations have had the benefits of fully integrated HR systems available to them for some time yet still often do not take full advantage of them. As the trend towards a more integrated approach to HR, training, recruitment, succession and so on (often called talent management) takes hold, the tools are more likely to be used to their full extent. However, for small and medium-sized organisations, the challenges have been greater. Many have dipped their toes in the LMS water as well as 180° and 360° feedback but these programmes are often based on laborious manual systems and, most disappointingly, not used effectively as feedback mechanisms for staff and the organisation as a whole.

Developing a forward vision

Performance improvement as a result of feedback programmes is invariably reliant on the skills of the manager and, sadly, the manager’s development is often overlooked in the rollout of such systems and processes. The manager and employee have access to and an understanding of the progression opportunities within the organisation. Internal job boards make some in-roads but fail to assist employees to set any direction for themselves (or to put their development into any context), other than that indicated by the current crop of vacancies. Career planning tools go way beyond the posting of current vacancies on the intranet by providing an open view of the skills and experience requirements for all roles in the organisation. Such transparency enables employees to evaluate their skills against potential new roles and, with the appropriate support and guidance from their line manager and the Learning and Development team, to plan a personal development pathway set within a framework of realistic expectations on all sides.

The contribution of Learning and Development

In the integrated talent management world, the role of training manager takes on a new meaning and an altogether more interesting perspective. The key to success is a sound understanding of where the business is going strategically and then interpreting the business strategy into skill requirements. From there, the training manager must utilise HR processes to ensure that the appropriate skills are recruited, trained and developed and that sufficient skills and experience are built up internally for the future and fed into the succession planning process.

Positioned correctly, this places Learning and Development as an added value function, a key part of HR and an essential contributor to the future competitiveness of the organisation.

Head Light Communications’ portfolio of Talent® software and services are ideal for:

• Professionalising public sector organisations
• Maturing high growth and medium-sized businesses
• Pioneering divisions of large organisations

Ian Lee-Emery

Ian’s career began in Information Technology. As a Computing Science graduate, he joined GE (USA) in research and development in 1989. A GE sponsored MBA programme, completed in 1996, guided the transition into European commercial roles. He became a Six Sigma ‘Green Belt’ leading improvements in European product performance. In 2004 and having spent 10 years working with HR professionals to help them improve how they assess and develop their people, he founded Head Light Communications.

He is a contributor to Human Capital Management magazine, the Best Practice Club and the Business Improvement Network. Ian is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Marketing and professionally recognised as a Chartered Marketer. In his spare time, Ian is a keen triathlete and musician.

Introduction

As a result of reduced budgets, greater competition in pitching for business and an ongoing requirement for continuing professional development (CPD) for in-house lawyers, clients increasingly began asking for training in the form of online content. Competitors were already delivering online content and Lovells, as a firm, had to keep up to date if we were to continue to compete in the market and enhance Lovells’ client service and range of offerings.

In the past, Lovells had worked with an external provider to develop an online compliance awareness course to be used as a Business Development tool. This product proved to be extremely popular and led to discussions with a number of clients about the creation of online training.

We had recently been commissioned to create three e-learning modules for a particular client and work had started on this which helped significantly in establishing feasibility of offering a range of services. However, a strategic decision needed to be made as to whether we were going to offer a client e-learning service as part of our official range of offerings.

First steps

The first step was to identify a senior sponsor within the business. Having such a senior figure helped significantly in lending weight to the project. Once the sponsor had been established, we set up a project team, which included a project manager and a number of directors within the business services departments.

This team started work on a study to identify the possible range of offerings and analyse feasibility, cost, resourcing and risks for each of the different options. In our analysis, we found the factor that increased the risk and cost most significantly was the amount of technical integration and support required by the client.

Another issue that became clear was that when we started “selling” e-learning to our clients, we were viewed by them as a professional e-learning vendor. They expected a level of service comparable with traditional and experienced e-learning vendors, including a technical team responsible for dealing with questions and technical queries.

By the end of our study, we had identified five main levels of service ranging from simple storyboarding in Word or PowerPoint up to the possibility of hosting and tracking on our own internal systems.

We then pursued the solution of setting up an agreement with an external provider to supply these services.

Factors affecting the pricing of this external service were established as follows:

• Number of courses that we would want to host and their size.
• Number of users that we would expect the site to support.
• Number of new courses we would develop in a month.
• Number of downloads per day, per week or per month.
• Design of front end to the web site that clients would access.
• Level of security to be provided.
• Level of technical support to be provided to clients.

The advantage of this solution is that the client would deal directly with the external provider and it would be the provider’s responsibility (not Lovells) to resolve any technical issues. The only downside is cost. Hosting and tracking would be charged separately.

Considerations when working with clients

When starting to talk to clients about possible content in Articulate, we felt an important first step was to ensure the client’s own system met the minimum technical specification to be able to run Articulate presentations. Any specific accessibility issues should also be raised. This was an issue for one of our clients where although technically the Articulate e-learning would function on their systems, it was not deemed to be compatible from an accessibility point of view (visual impairment was the issue).

We created a demo Articulate module to check compatibility, before committing to or spending time creating customised content in Articulate. We also created a technical checklist to establish the client’s technical and LMS set-up, Articulate expertise and resource in-house and preferred delivery formats, prior to commencing. We asked for a technical contact within the firm who would be our point of contact for any technical questions or issues.

We do not have expertise in-house to assess and support compatibility issues. If Articulate modules are not supported by the client, we would resort to storyboarding only or creation of a standalone version. In the same way, we do not have in-house expertise in LMS programming or resources to be able to work with clients to ensure the LMS version is 100% compatible with the client’s own LMS. We proposed that it should be the client’s responsibility to work with their LMS provider to ensure the Articulate modules can be integrated into their LMS. We can do no more than supply the content in an LMS compliant format.

However, although we can propose the client works with their LMS provider, in reality, clients may not be expert at integrating and tweaking modules and may look to us to help them. We could not leave the client with an online course that does not fit into their system. There are reputational risks and the client would be unlikely to come back for more e-learning courses if we were not able to provide a module that they could use.

Other considerations which became clear to us when providing e-learning to clients were:

• the importance of scoping the project with particular focus on how subsequent updates would be dealt with;
• the need to establish feedback processes and mechanisms (how would feedback be managed? phone, meetings, etc);
• the need to identify who would be communicating with the client (partner or author);
• the need for clarity about roles and responsibilities;
• copyright clearance for photos or illustrations and confirmation of who would meet the cost of such items.

One of the biggest issues is who clients must ring if they experience problems. Our global support desks are not geared up to deal with client queries. The business would have to decide what resources would be made available to provide support if this option was chosen and what level of support, for example, service hours, would be provided. A process would need to be designed and implemented for reporting faults and issues from users.

Depending on client demand and take-up, we would make a decision after a defined period, for example, nine-12 months, as to whether we would want to move in the direction of offering tracking of content in-house.

Although we have not yet offered tracking via an external company, this would be our preferred solution so we can minimise risk and learn more about hosting and tracking online content before offering this service in-house.

There are two options for tracking externally. The first option is a simple tracking service offered by Articulate, with costs starting at around $1.00 per person per month. The second, higher cost option, is to sign up to a more sophisticated LMS tracking service hosted on an external provider’s servers.

The principal learning points we have established to present are:

Scope creep: always seems to happen

Cost: fixed price does not work. Hourly rates provide the only protection against scope creep. In addition, these are premium products and need to be priced as such.

Practice interface: the involvement of a partner or senior associate, preferably with a more junior associate on the legal content, is crucial. Clients treat these projects as transactional and expect 24/7 service which we are not resourced to provide. We need the practice to act as a buffer, managing client expectations.

Technical interface: if the client is paying, they will always expect us to make the online module work on their system even if this is outside scope.

Updating: clients will expect this. It needs to be priced at hourly rates which are reasonably prohibitive.

Considerations for each project

Define project team: a defined project team with clear roles and responsibilities would need to be set up. This would include an overall project manager, a customer relationship manager (CRM), a defined point of contact within the client; a sponsor and champion and technical contacts within Lovells and the client organisation and an Articulate author/editor.

Training for the Articulate author:

• Does the potential author need training on Articulate or guidance on e-learning instructional design and/or storyboarding?
• Does in-house technical or “how do I?” support currently exist for Articulate?

Delivery formats: we will need to identify how many different formats are required for delivery of the course.

Testing: a testing process will need to be defined and time allowed for testing in the client’s technical environment.

Technical support: how will support queries be dealt with? Who will have responsibility for providing support to clients or to potential authors?

Look and feel of the finished product: at the start of the project, it will be critical to define the specific instructional treatments required. Sample treatments will be needed at the start of the project and updated prototypes will be needed until the final version of the course is created. Branding will also need to be discussed. It may be that the client wants a specific colour scheme or inclusion of their logo.

Quality control: technical set-up, online layout and instructional design best practice. What roles will team members play in quality assurance and approval of published content?

Charging structure

How will the different options be charged?

Level of customisation: none (off-the-shelf standard modules); minimal (tweaking of content or look and feel) or fully customised content developed from scratch.

Contract: will include ownership of content, deliverables, delivery format for the deliverables, maintaining and updating content; supporting users (technical and content).

Ownership: who will own the content? Are clients to be charged more if they take ownership of the content? Is there a risk that the client will re-sell the content to their own clients?

Editing the content: who is responsible for updating and maintaining the content and at what stage should additional charges be made?

In-house staffing levels: how many resources and how much time do they have available to be able to create and update content for clients? Do you need to evaluate whether additional resources need to be recruited.

For one of our clients, the time spent on storyboarding, creating content and amending content ran into hundreds of hours for three one-hour modules.

Future steps

So far, clients have been happy for the content to be produced in Articulate but, moving forward, we will need to offer a wider selection of tools and treatment of content. E-learning authoring is not Lovells key business and we have no graphic design or technical support capability in-house. We are therefore looking to build content with a third party provider, which goes beyond the standard interactions provided by Articulate, and which contains an innovative treatment in terms of graphic design. We have no plans to purchase additional e-learning authoring tools to meet client demand – we would look to an external organisation to develop content using any other tools or technology.

We are looking to build a long-term relationship with an e-learning provider for the future. We are aware that the most effective e-learning courses are likely to be those which are tailored to the specific business sector of the client. Lovells would consider using an external provider for the following services relating to providing e-learning for clients:

1. Additional resource to create content in Articulate

   We have limited resource in terms of Articulate authors in-house and if there is a large demand in the future we would need to consider using an additional authoring resource.

2. Creation of content in a selection of authoring tools or formats

   Lovells has selected Articulate as our e-learning authoring tool of choice and has no intention of acquiring additional e-learning authoring tools. If a client specifically requests content to be created in another authoring tool, we would look to our external provider to produce content in that particular tool, such as Atlantic Link, or format, such as Flash.

3. Graphic treatment/graphic design

   Lovells has no graphic design expertise in creating e-learning and we would look to an external provider to produce this capability and expertise.

4. Hosting

   Lovells has no platform or infrastructure on which to host e-learning for clients and has no immediate strategy to provide this service in-house. We would look to an external provider to provide a fully supported hosting service both for Lovells own developed content and for content provided by a third party.

5. Tracking

   Lovells has no technology or infrastructure to be able to track or report on e-learning usage. We would look to an external provider to provide a competitively priced tracking solution with a range of options for both Lovells and third party produced content.

6. E-learning technical support for Lovells’ clients

   Our support desks are not resourced nor trained to provide technical support for client e-learning. Our only option is to engage the services of an external provider.

In summary, although there are risks associated with providing e-learning for clients, these risks can be minimised as long as clients’ expectations can be managed and there is awareness and clarity about what services are feasible to provide. We welcome the opportunity of working with external providers in the future to provide clients with an enhanced range of offerings in the field of e-learning.

Claire Line

Claire joined Lovells in 2003 as global IT Training Manager. She then took over the management of the legal training team and for the last two years has taken on the role of Learning Technologies Manager, responsible for implementing technology across all areas of learning. Claire specialises in harnessing technology to optimise accessibility to learning. She introduced virtual classroom technology and online learning to Lovells over five years ago.

Prior to joining Lovells, Claire was with Goldman Sachs for 12 years, where she travelled the globe delivering IT training. In her final role, she was Executive Director, in charge of global IT training for Investment Banking.

Claire has been a member of the eLearning Network Committee for the last four years, holding the position of Vice-Chair for the last two. She has organised a number of events and has been involved in judging the national eLearning awards. She has presented at a number of learning technology conferences in the UK and in Europe.

About Lovells

Lovells is one of the largest international business legal practices, with over 3,000 people operating from 26 offices in Europe, Asia and the United States.

The firm advises many of the world’s largest corporations, financial institutions and government organisations. We regularly act on complex, multi-jurisdictional transactions and commercial disputes, and offer a wide range of legal advisory expertise to our clients.

Why do I want to learn this? What’s in it for me? What am I expected to do?

These are the questions that learners want to know the answer to, before they’ll even consider beginning to engage with a course. If I don’t know what’s in it for me, I won’t be switched on. If I’m not switched on, I’m not going to be motivated to do. If I’m not motivated to do, then nothing will change. You can forget about delivering any kind of measurable success if learners aren’t engaged in the first place.

We need to look to develop the “me” aspect of our learning. Learners are more time-poor and easily disengaged than ever.  They don’t just want learning to be a conversation that’s worth having – they need it to be. Self-actualisation – or “me-learning” – should be our new paradigm. Here’s three steps to making it happen.

1. Discovering a better “me”

First of all, we do this by allowing learners to discover what’s in it for them, how they can develop a better “me”. To instigate this process, we’ve been working with a variety of self-diagnostic activities given at the head of the learning process.  A “self-diagnostic” is any exercise that asks learners to honestly evaluate how they’re currently performing.

Superficially, this may appear to look like extra testing; learners are quizzed before they begin a course, quizzed throughout it, quizzed at the end. The same approach applies to everyone: death by quiz. But it’s the exact opposite, and I’ll explain why.

Imagine the captain of my five-a-side team has told me I need to score more goals. I’ve decided that I’m going to access an elearning course that has the objective of making me more like my hero Gareth Bale.

At the outset of the learning, I want to emulate Gareth Bale’s performance as closely as possible. That’s the desired improvement. But do I already know how I compare? I might I have a good idea, but have I actually thought about it in depth? Have I considered all the facets of my game that need to be perfected in order to reach that “Gareth Bale” level, the desired end state?

A well designed self-diagnostic activity should map directly on to the desired end outcome for the learning. In this instance, a self-assessment that asked me to honestly rate myself against the “Bale scale” would allow me to benchmark where I was right now, and what I would need to improve, develop or discover in order to reach the desired end outcome.

Alternatively, it could be that I’m a HR manager and I’m taking a course on developing my understanding of talent management techniques and processes, and the self-diagnostic shows me that whilst my understanding of the process is very good, I find it harder to actually recognise and rate talent. This isn’t designed to catch learners out, but to encourage an initial process of self-actualisation. It’s three considerations; “here’s where I am”; “here’s where I could be”; “this is what I need to do to get there”.

2. Personalise my learning

From this point, I as a learner have a good idea what I need to improve. So now I’m entering into the actual learning, what do I expect to see?

I want to see content that’s relevant to me and techniques that I can personally apply. If the “Bale scale” shows me that I’m good at scoring but my passing isn’t the best, what good is it if the learning I’m presented with is then weighted to how I can score more rather than how I can improve my passing?

Not much. What I want is to access interactions that allow me to have a go at improving my passing, feedback as to how I did so I understand why I’m going wrong, and guidance as to how I could do it better if I did poorly the first time around.

So the content delivered needs to really reflect the results of my self-diagnostic, but I also want that content itself to be designed to be relevant to me. If I want to be like Gareth Bale and I play in the Spanish League, I want to test myself and see scenarios that are relevant to my background.  That means it might be interesting to see how I’d fare against players in the German or the Italian leagues, but what I learn won’t generate the improvement I’m looking for if the examples aren’t relevant to my working life, or why I’m going wrong at present.

3. Give me something to do

This is at the core of what we’re calling “me” learning – showing learners a pathway to a “better me”, designing content to support that improvement and encouraging them to discover their own approach. But how do we really make the improvement happen?

We need to personalise the output of learning, giving people practical advice that they can take away from the course and apply continuously in order to support growth and development in the areas where they’ve recognised they have a need to improve. That’s how you turn 40 minutes of learning into 40 weeks of action.

So I’ve identified that my passing is not at the level of Gareth Bale (yet). I’ve identified where I’m going wrong, practised getting it right and learnt how I can get there. But how does that translate into more goals for me and my team?

Here’s how. At the end of the course, I’ve been able to build my own tailored personal action plan using tips that have been suggested, allowing me to take what I’ve been doing onscreen and start applying it off-screen. I’ve got downloadable guides showing me the key output of what I’ve learnt so I can access it when I’m in the changing room before the match, and calendar reminders throughout the week that suggest times when I should be practising my passing.

The captain of my five-a-side team would be able to evaluate the success of my training on a continuous basis by taking a look at how many goals I was scoring, or how many I was creating for teammates, and we could look at ways that this could be further supported in future once we’ve had a chance to measure the improvement.

It’s not about defining the learning design on a learner-by-learner basis, but allowing the flexibility and mechanisms for the learner to personalise content to suit them and their own requirements. This generates an improvement that benefits them as an individual, strengthens their skillset in accordance with the business need, and ultimately delivers measurable ROI as a result of this improvement.

You may never quite measure up to the Bale scale. But make your elearning a little more like “me-learning” and you’ll certainly score more goals this year!

Nick Baum

Now a senior project manager in the wider world, Nick was an acclaimed instructional designer and project manager who worked on a variety of topics for a wide range of Saffron’s clients, including AAT, BNP Paribas, BT, Deutsche Bank, PwC and Telefónica, working closely with subject matter experts in order to deliver effective and engaging content that, above all, effects the desired behavioral change.

Nicholas has extensive experience working with clients on systems and process based training. He has an in-depth knowledge of instructional design and learning strategies and is known for building strong client relationships and developing multi-lingual courses.