I’m convinced it all comes down to the intentions behind the design decisions we make…and if those intentions are not in lock-step with accelerating and sustaining workforce productivity first and foremost, we are left short…delivering potential at the hands of training solutions versus measurable performance outcomes at Point-of-Work.
Tag: 70:20:10
We cannot begin the effort by looking through a “training solution lens”. I can always build training IF NECESSARY. BUT…if emphasis is not first laser-focused on what solution output closes the performance gap(s) at Point-of-Work, the traditional default training solution may well be the wrong output.
My recent post “70:20:10 – Myth or Legend?” roused a few readers to offer up some really solid comments, and there were a few that left me feeling like I was at a NASCAR race and just shouted “Ford Rules!” Now if you’ve never been to a NASCAR race, let me tell you this about […]
The call-to-action for L&D is to have staff capable of operating comfortably and effectively in the domain of the Point-of-Work exclusive of being a SMEOEDT…SME of Every Damn Thing. This mission… should you choose to accept it…is to seek out individuals possessing the expertise of a performance consultant. Find one or develop one. Methinks having one in the mix is no longer an option if the L&D function has a prayer of breaking free of the limiting blinders of the traditional Training Paradigm.
You “train” a bear to ride a bike…and with enough bear treats and a Taser you can train a bear to ride just about anything. If that bear is “learning” anything at all, it’s how NOT to get shocked…and keep scoring bear treats.
What the article I’m referencing and comments I read made clear illustrate the gyrations we are heading into now with this “new” micro-learning approach. It will be easy to become distracted, so don’t get all raked up in a pile over what we call it…or how long it should be. It’s about what it can facilitate at the moment of need to get the DO done.
Maybe it’s just me, but I’m seeing the use of 70:20:10 being used as a design framework that promotes that we pack the “70” and the “20” into the “10”. Now before anyone blows a gasket, I will admit that this practice greatly enhances the “10”, no question about it. But here’s the thing…it’s still freaking Training.
I have never met ANYONE on the operational side of the business who is satisfied with “potential”. No one on the operational side of the business gets compensated for “potential”. They don’t want a training graduate who knows that they need to use a shovel to dig a hole…they want somebody coming out of training who can dig a freaking hole…and more perfect the hole, the better.
They say that even a blind squirrel will find a nut eventually, and I am living proof of that concept. So there I was at DevLearn 2014 locked in to speak at a couple of breakout sessions and facilitate a tabletop discussion at the crack of dawn on day one. I’m on a Performance Support mission of “seek and learn” and purely by accident I stumbled over a pre-conference session Tuesday afternoon before the conference ever started called the xAPI Hyperdrive. Yup…maybe not the squirrel metaphor but I found a nut I was not even looking for…and it changed my entire conference agenda.
…but why launch into an 8-to-16 week design and development cycle for an hour of e-learning when the discovery evidence is staring you in the face screaming for a performance support [PS] job aid needed at the point of work? Disruptive? Yup! Agile? You’d better believe it.