Extending Learning through Yammer

Take a look at the two machine parts in this picture.  They are Vacuum Deck Blower Motors.  When presented next to each other side by side, it is pretty easy to see that they are not the same.  The one on the left is slightly taller.  If you were to go inside the housing you would see that they have different constructions and different controllers.  That is because they are made for different machines and they are not interchangeable.  But if you didn’t have them standing right next to each other, you might easily mistake one for the other and place the wrong one in the wrong machine during maintenance or while making repairs.  Some of our service representatives have made that mistake.

Of course, when they go through training they are instructed on the differences in usage and labeling so they can recognize and install the right part into the right machine.   Fortunately our equipment is pretty reliable which means there might be a long interval between the time service reps receive this training and the time they might actually have to make this repair.   It is easy to see how they might forget what they’ve learned and install the wrong part.

That is one of the frustrations expressed by the Technical Training Instructor who leads the class in which this is covered.   He is an excellent instructor.  He covers everything the reps need to know, gives them a chance to practice doing it, and provides appropriate feedback before sending them out into the field.  He had been doing this for years and hoping for the best, until he discovered Yammer.   Now he extends the learning beyond the classroom by sharing tips and tricks that the service reps can easily access off of their laptops or mobile devices at the point of need.   The picture of the vacuum deck blowers is actually part of a job aid he attached to a post in the Yammer group he recently created.  In the short time since this group has been up and running, he has been able to share pictures, videos, and job aids -  and generally give the service reps the benefit of his expertise at the point of need.  At the same time, he is learning from them.  He is learning about the challenges and the most common problems they face in the field.  This information allows him to incrementally improve his classroom training approach and materials.

L&D Strategy: Report to HR or Operations?

Last week I came across this post: An operational attitude towards learning on Karyn's erratic learning journey blog.  In it, Karyn Romeis expresses the point of view that Learning & Development departments should be moved out of HR and report up through operations.  This got my attention because at my company we are currently doing the opposite.  Our Learning & Development functions are being consolidated and moved from the business units into a Shared Services model that will report up through HR.  While I agree with Karyn's point that,  "L&D's job is all about performance, and performance is an operational thing."   I don't think it is necessary to report up through operations to be an effective business partner to them.  Throughout my career I have moved back and forth from reporting to HR to reporting directly to the Line of Business leaders that I support.  Having these varied experiences has made me a better all around learning professional.  I understand my business leaders' concerns and priorities and I am able to leverage the development resources available through HR.

In characterizing HR, Karyn makes a point that I don't agree with when she states, "HR is responsible for looking after people: their payroll, their working conditions, their treatment under employment law, etc. and has no direct accountability in terms of the organisation's business objectives."   In my company, the most most important aspects of the HR function are Organization Design, Talent Development, and Workforce Planning.   These are critical to achieving our company's business success.

I do believe that learning should be embedded in the workstream.  I don't see any reason why my department can't accomplish this while we are plugged into HR rather than our business unit leaders.   We are becoming an HR shared service, but we will still be part of our business leaders' extended teams.   Our business is rapidly transforming.  With the amount of change we have going on right now, we are in need of some major talent upgrades, new ways of managing, and there are many new work tasks to be performed.  I think L&D will be better resourced and well-positioned to help address these needs on a global scale operating from within Human Resources where we can easily partner with our Strategic Talent Management and Organizational Development counterparts.  Plus, since all of the learning professionals are coming into this department from the business, we will retain the operational perspective and networks.   Also of note, there are no geographical changes planned.  We will be consolidating into one department under a federated model, but the field based team members will still be embedded in their current locations. 

Doing It Right: Instructional Design without Cutting Corners

What a pleasure it is when you are able to do a learning project the "right way."    This week, my team and I finished training for a group of managers in one of our business segments.   This was a project that we initiated in the fall.  It was carried out according to plan and within the next few weeks, we will have our final set of measures on its overall impact.

When I say we did this the "right way," what I mean is that we were able to follow our instructional design process without having to cut corners along the way.  You might be thinking, "Well, don't you always do that?"  But in truth, we are often forced to make compromises on our projects to meet business deadlines, work within budget constraints, or cater to the expectations of a particularly influential business leader.   But on this project, we were not constrained by any of those things.

The project was to provide training to approximately 35 managers who were mostly long-tenured and experienced, but who have recently had to deal with significant changes to their job.  Here is how it went:

Analysis - We originally approached the head of this business unit to get an understanding of the outcomes that were expected from the changes that were put in place, and to get his perspective on the impact he thought these changes would have on his managers.  Next, we had two rounds of discussions with four managers who were part of the target audience.  After the first meeting with them, we drafted an analysis report to feed back to them our understanding of the audience characteristics, the job, and the key tasks that were changing.  In our second meeting with the managers, we validated and fine-tuned the information gathered in the first meeting.  After that, we presented our analysis findings and a training design proposal, including a draft of the agenda and objectives, to the business unit leader and the Vice Presidents into whom the targeted training audience reported.   They provided some additional insights that we incorporated into our agenda and we were ready to begin designing the program.

Design & Development -  We chose a blended approach including two online assessments and an e-learning module as pre-work, a three-day classroom learning event, and follow-up learning opportunities made available through a SharePoint site set up specifically for this class.  The design process for the classroom event was relatively quick and easy.  Most of the training needs could be addressed with existing material that had been used for other programs.  There were a few key segments that would be new, but they were all on topics that were easy to research.  Finding appropriate content was not an issue.  Designing learning activities that would be effective at making the learning points was a little more challenging. But that is certainly a part of the job that my team enjoys doing.

Pilot & Revisions - Since our total audience was relatively small (at 35 managers) we did not really have the opportunity to conduct a full blown pilot.  We broke the audience into three delivery groups and viewed our first delivery in December as a quasi-pilot.   Overall it went well, but as with any new program for a new audience, there was room for improvement.  We huddled up afterwards, examined our level one feedback, talked to a few of the participants and observers, updated our design document, and made some adjustments for our second and third deliveries.

Implementation - By the time our second delivery rolled around, we were confident that we had the right program to meet their needs.   We were clear on which segments needed the most support and which would meet with resistance, and we prepared ourselves accordingly.  For all three classroom events, we had one of the Vice Presidents with us during delivery.  We carved out a small but important segment for them to specifically deliver, and for the rest of the time they were with us, they were able to provide clarification or join in the discussion as we covered the other items on the agenda.   Their presence and involvement was a key factor in the program's success.

Evaluation & Follow-up - For this program, we used level one (participant reaction) and level three (behavioral change) measurements.  The level one measurements were taken directly at the end of the classroom sessions.  For the level three measurements, we use the Friday5s goal management system over a ten-week period after training.  Each participant was asked to set two specific goals at the end of their classroom session.  These goals get input into the Friday5s online tool where the class participants can go to receive online coaching and track their progress.  Also, we continue the momentum created in the classroom by allowing participants to connect with each other after the event through a SharePoint site that was set up specifically for this program. 

On the whole this was a very satisfying project.  We got to help our managers and help our business by doing what we do best: creating a learning opportunity that met specific needs for a specific audience.   And, we got chance to do it right!

VILT = ILT Part 2: More Than Just the Medium

My last blog entry about the VILT survey conducted by Skillsoft PLC received a comment from Hank Riehl at Skillsoft - Thank you Hank. In his comment, Hank outlined some of the elements that have made the Skillsoft Live Learning courses successful. He also provided a link to a DOE study of online learning that reports on average, students in online learning conditions performed better than those receiving face-to-face instruction. This reinforces the Skillsoft survey result.

The researchers who published the DOE study performed a meta-analysis (combining the results of multiple experiments to obtain a composite estimate of the effect) of 51 learning studies in which they could find useful effects. The studies were conducted between 1996 and 2008, most of them being from 2004 or later. The studies were typically conducted in an academic environment, mostly with older learners in college or graduate school.

The report asserts the researchers consistently found advantages in online and blended learning programs over face-to-face instruction. This statement provides great support for anyone trying to make a case for converting a classroom program to the virtual world, but the researchers caution online and face-to-face conditions in the studies examined differed on multiple dimensions, including the amount of time that learners spent on task. So the advantages observed may be the product of those conditions rather than the delivery medium.

This is what I was getting at in my previous blog entry: VILT can be successful, but it takes more than simply switching the medium from ILT to the virtual classroom. It takes rigorous and thoughtful instructional design to create the right conditions for learning. The Skillsoft PLC survey and the DOE study provide support for the notion that it is worth it to put that effort into designing an online or blended learning program.

VILT = ILT...or Does It?

Last week, SkillSoft PLC (a leading elearning provider) published the results of a survey showing that learners feel virtual learning is just as effective as face-to-face instructor-led training. They randomly polled 1800 learners who previously attended a SkillSoft Live Learning course within the prior year. 70% of the respondents rated virtual instructor-led training (VILT) as either the same, better, or much better, than traditional classroom-based instructor-led training (ILT). Granted, this is just a survey, not a study, so it does not prove effectiveness, but the findings do not surprise me. We have had great success and acceptance with VILT as a component of our courses at my company . However, I caution anyone from just swapping ILT programs in favor VILT without doing anything else.

It was difficult to get people bought into a virtual classroom approach when it first became available. But after the tragedy of 9/11, and the anthrax scare that followed shortly afterwards, our workforce was reluctant to get on planes for training classes. They became much more open to the idea of virtual learning.

We capitalized on that acceptance and started conducting basic webinars, but we quickly evolved from there. Webinars created a very passive learning experience which we found to be insufficient for most of our needs. We shifted our thinking away from VILT being viewed as a replacement for ILT by itself. Instead we began to view it as only a single component of what is needed to replicate a successful ILT experience. This was around the time that “blended learning” became an industry buzzword. In any event, we began to develop integrated distance learning programs that incorporated elearning modules, readings, self-paced activities, and testing. The virtual classroom component was used to bring in the interactive discussion element, but it was not being relied on solely to create an equivalent learning experience to ILT.

Today, we run several successful programs this way, including our 3-month long onboarding program for sales new hires. In the 3-month period, they complete nine training modules during which they participate in a total of 17 VILT sessions. Test results and work performance indicators show that our program is equally successful (and in some areas superior) to its ILT predecessor. So again, while I’m not surprised at the Skillsoft survey results, I find it usually takes more than just a VILT session to create a successful learning experience.