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: intentional design
If one’s hair is on fire, the only solution should NOT involve logging into the LMS and completing a “Fire Safety” course. Yeah, I know…ridiculous example, but it paints an accurate picture that points to the need for “just enough – just-in-time – just-for-me” assets/opportunities intentionally designed for application at the Moment of Need.
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 […]
I am deeply buried in HR right now and steeped in the HR discipline, but I am, however…a Performance Ninja. I know who pays the rent. I know I am part of a cost center…an expense…and I know if I’m not contributing to solutions that generate revenue for the organization I have no room to bitch when the next down-sizing happens and I am once again hurled through the window of opportunity.
There is no shortage of new innovation we seek to implement in our L&D discipline, and Micro-Learning is one of the most recent. Depending upon how one chooses to integrate “Micro-Anything”, the results can range from truly innovative solutions to merely applying more lipstick on the training pig.
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.
Is there a difference between your onboarding process and the process of waterboarding? One uses water…and the other holds the new hire down and administers enough information at a continuous pace so they get the overwhelming sensation of drowning. Which one do you put your new hires through?
Why build training content as a priority if there is an asset you could build that closes an existing performance gap? I’m not saying “forget training”; rather, I’m suggesting that closing the performance gap should be FIRST PRIORITY. Designing and building an asset to support performance at the Point-of-Work is actually one of the first […]
Critical demands for ensuring workforce agility and resilience manifest beyond the current scope of the best training programs; the best training design, best development and delivery practices that many L&D organizations rely upon as standard methodology. For a workforce to consistently function at optimal agility and resiliency, we must evolve beyond the current linear paradigm that is only scoped to transfer knowledge and skills through training no matter how compelling and engaging we try to make it.