You may recall back then I wrote:

I have been an Apple iPhone 3G owner and user since the model was released here in Ireland in mid-2008. Since I acquired the device, I’ve come to rely on it to manage my e-mail accounts, utilize my time, play music, video, take notes (text and audio), and generally be more productive. I’ve Twittered, Quittered, Facebooked, YouTubed and blogged.

Five months later, I have added e-learning course management, and even Skyping to my ever-growing range of iPhone-compatible activities. It seems I’m not alone in my view that iPhone is more than just another device.

According to Forrester analyst Ted Schadler, the iPhone

drives business culture change; it gives employees freedom to choose their own tools; and it changes the support model to self-service. But the real payoff of iPhone and similar mobile Internet devices is that it is a new platform for delivering content and collaboration applications to an increasingly mobile workforce.

(2009 p.1)

This assertion is remarkably positive, doubly so considering the source of the comment: Forrester, in common with the ‘other’ major industry analyst organization Gartner, are notable for their disdain of Apple products. In December 2007, Forrester’s Benjamin Gray et al published The iPhone Is Not Meant for Enterprises, a six-page report more commonly known by its subtitle The Top 10 Reasons Why We Recommend That IT Not Support It. In this document, Gray and his team leveled a number of criticisms at the device. Among them:

1. Doesn’t natively support push business email or over-the-air calendar sync.
2. Doesn’t accommodate third-party applications, including those internally developed.
3. Doesn’t support securing data on the device through encryption.
4. Can’t be remotely locked or wiped in the event of a lost or stolen device.
5. Lacks a hard keypad that provides feedback, which isn’t ideal for rapid and accurate input.
6. Has limited service provider support and its carrier lock-in inhibits flexibility.
7. Comes with a premium price tag.
8. Is only the first generation of the device.
9. Lacks a removable battery, so when the battery dies, so does the unit.
10. Lacks case studies of firms that have deployed it enterprise-wide.

Since 2007, Apple has worked assiduously to counter most of the deficiencies of the iPhone. A number of business-focused enhancements were integrated in the release of iPhone OS 3.0 on June 17, including:

• Added on-demand to require VPN login where needed.
• ActiveSync calendar synchronization issues fixed, and added CalDAV support.
• Encrypted device configuration profiles that are prevented from being deleted.
• New policy capabilities, including disabled cameras.
• Encrypted backup to the desktop through iTunes on PCs and Macs.
• New device functionality, including cut-and-paste, device search, and click-to-call.
• A thousand new developer APIs enabling developers more ways to build custom applications.

According to Forrester:

The iPhone’s intuitive interface, superior browsing experience, and rapidly evolving developer tool kit make content-centric applications far more appealing on an iPhone than on a BlackBerry or Windows Mobile device. While BlackBerry is still the email and calendaring winner, iPhone devotees do make the shift to typing on glass.1 It’s also important that Apple isn’t linking its mobile future solely to mobile providers. The iPod Touch delivers most of what enterprises need over 802.11, lacking only GPS and 3G network access.

For enterprises, this makes an iPod Touch a viable addition to a BlackBerry or Windows Mobilecentric strategy. …Should you consider supporting iPhone? At least three companies say yes.

(2009, p.1)

In Oracle (one of the organizations Forrester spoke to) employee demand drove the company to adopt the iPhone. In Kraft Foods, the device has becomes a totem to demonstrate that their IT division is serious about supporting culture change. By January 2009, almost half of Kraft Foods’ mobile users have iPhones, with about 400 new iPhones ordered each month.

In Amylin Pharmaceuticals, the "passion" (p.3) and sponsorship of a C-level exec who has long advocated offering more user choice for mobile devices and open platforms for computing saw the iPhone as an opportunity to give employees the mobile capabilities they were asking for. The iPhone has become the company’s “enterprise netbook,” with support for the campus-wide wireless network. They have also found the iPhone “easier to support than other mobile platforms.”

Based on the evidence supplied by these an other organizations, the iPhone offers genuine workplace benefits including "self-service, empowered employees, and mobile collaboration" (p.4). Notably, employees were willing to "vote for freedom" by buying their own iPhone rather than take a company-supplied PDA. Ted Schadler states that if an iPhone makes an employee happy – and more productive, then supporting it delivers collateral benefits of a more content workforce, and a new line of communication between IT and employees. 

With the continuing growth in business- and productivity-centered iPhone apps, mobile collaboration opportunities are greater for the iPhone than for pretty much every other PDA. What begins as a better user experience is consolidated by an enhanced developer tool kit in OS 3.0 and the continuing maturation of the iPhone ecosystem.

Forrester say that anyone who has used both iPhones and BlackBerry will confirm that "the internet feels natural on an iPhone and a like chore on a BlackBerry" (p.8). Document viewing, WebEx presentations, and Internet access are better on the iPhone.

As developers build new applications for SharePoint access, data analysis, multiway conferencing, and training, the workforce can leave their laptops at work."

(p.8)

In the workplace context, communities of practice for the iPhone can lower support costs. All three firms discussed here have iPhone wikis so that employees can support each other. This "community-led support model" (p.8) may be new for many organizations, but it’s effective where the iPhone is concerned.

In Kraft Foods, their early adopters provide better support than their IT team can. As a bonus, Kraft Foods sees a growing desire for self-service that is driving a workforce culture change. It expects to see similar changes in other areas in the future. Even from a financial perspective, data plans for other mobile devices are more expensive than the consumer plans (US telecom provider) AT&T is offering for iPhones. This company was able to reset its baseline plan pricing 30% lower for all phones because it supported iPhone.

As with the emergence of non-formal and informal learning in organizations, and the growing pervasiveness of social media tools for collaboration in enterprises, it seems that the demand for, and growing acceptance of the iPhone as an enterprise-level communication, collaboration, and learning platform is due to people power. Despite the declamations and derogatory noises of industry analysts it seems that, like all politics being local, all communication is ultimately personal.

A phenomenon of the popular adoption of Web 2.0 technologies in society-at-large seems to be a concomitant shift in the culture. Beginning in 2008 and gathering momentum ever since, we have noted again and again that people are less willing to accept what they are told, and are making choices based upon their own experience, judgment, and from information more likely supplied by peers than from opinions delivered from “upon high.” So it has gone for traditional media channels. So will it go for enterprise communication?

You decide.

___________

References:

Gray, B., Whiteley, R., Silva, C., & Dines, R.A. (2007). The iPhone Is Not Meant For Enterprises: The Top 10 Reasons Why We Recommend That IT Not Support It. Internet: Available from http://www.forrester.com [Accessed 16 April 20 2009] Subscription or Purchase Required.

Schadler, T., Brown, M., Gray, B., & Burnes, S. (2009). Making iPhone Work In The Enterprise: Early Lessons Learned. Internet: Available from http://www.forrester.com [Accessed 16 April 20 2009] Subscription or Purchase Required.

–

• Regulate CPAs in accordance with the law and the Institute’s Code of Ethics in the public interest.
• Ensure that CPAs are constantly up to date in all matters relating to their professional work.
• Maintain the highest levels of educational standards for new entrants to the profession.
• Represent the interests of members where appropriate.

The CPA’s Suzanne Shaw, outlined the reason for the emergence of non-formal and informal e-learning technologies in the Institute:

As one of [the bodies] in the Ireland that train accountants and regulate them throughout their professional life, our members are predominantly split three ways: practitioners; entrepreneurs; and employees of businesses.

All of them are at the coalface of the current economic climate and many of them use tools like LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook to give one another practical advice about sustaining businesses and planning for a long-term environment. It’s a great way to get information out to people really quickly.

It seems that the CPA members are using Facebook and Twitter to share articles and information to keep each apprised of developments in their domain. Ms. Shaw again:

The beauty of social networking is it enables two-way communication or, if you want, one-to-many communication. The CPA uses it to gauge feedback on courses and products and adjust them accordingly.

One of the benefits of LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter is that they are "ready-made." The CPA’s experience is that they can concentrate on the business use of the technology without contributors having to worry about the technology per se. Despite being (by it’s very nature) a very traditional organization, the obvious business advantages of using these platforms for information-sharing seems to have eased the transition to using social media. There are a number of core uses of social media for learning in the CPA:

• The CPA recently set up a space on Facebook for new students to get and share information.
• In terms of professional use, with closed LinkedIn forums are used, so information can be kept confidential between members.
• CPA accountants are using Twitter as a way of relaying information or lobbying issues.
• Professional members make use of LinkedIn to keep in touch with each other, as well as business associates.

Interestingly, one of the main drivers of the growth in utilization of social media tools is that accountants’ clients are "pushing them to be more involved in online communication" according to Ms. Shaw.

It seems that once members are exposed to Web 2.0 technologies, they adapt their own information-sharing practices to include Twitter and Facebook. Ms. Shaw stated that:

Many share war stories and know-how in the forums. With CPE seminars taking place across the country, people not only meet up but can also keep in touch. Because people have hectic working lives and a home life to balance, they can’t get to every course or seminar, so they …use these tools to share notes and find out where the next course is taking place. Not every one can make it to the centre of Dublin after a day’s work, so we’ve started uploading video lectures. Students …are recording podcasts of lectures and sharing on places like Facebook. We estimate about 10% of our 5,500 members and students are using social media for continuous professional education. With Facebook, for example, they are truly engaging with one another. Many use it because they are that generation, others have begun dabbling. It can only grow from here.

Brutus, in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar tells Cassius that 

There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune

Act IV, Scene 3.

In a similar vein, I would suggest that there are trends in the uses and the adoption of technology. The current global economic environment as well as the emergence and broad adoption of easy-to-use Read/Write Web tools like Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn in society-at-large are profoundly re-shaping the ways people and organizations communicate.

As we know from Rogers’ writings on diffusion of innovation, people’s attitude toward a new technology is a key element in its diffusion. Roger’s Innovation Decision Process theory asserts that innovation diffusion is a process that occurs over time through five stages:

   1. Awareness
   2. Interest
   3. Evaluation
   4. Trial
   5. Adoption

The final phase of the diffusion process is characterized by large-scale continued use of the idea or technology, and by "satisfaction with" (Diffusion of Innovations, 2003, p.2) the idea. This does not mean that the the individual or organization that has accepted the idea will use it constantly, rather, it means that the diffused idea has been integrated into their schema or metal model as a valuable asset or resource.

Figure 1 Diffusion of Innovation curve
[Click to enlarge]

Individuals or organizations will typically go through these processes at varying speeds, depending on factors ranging from the cost, time, and effort required to implement the diffused concept, the return on the investment, how well it aligns with their previous experience with similar concepts, as well as the complexity of the idea or technology under consideration. By endorsing and supporting a range of well-tested, free-to-use solutions, that are currently very positively received in the public consciousness due to their apparent ability to elect presidents (Obama), overthrow despotic regimes (Obama again for Dubya Iran), and circumvent traditional media channels (Michael Jackson’s death). Such momentum is hard to ignore, especially when coupled with the economic imperative of clients demanding access to CPA members’ skills via social media.

However, a corollary to the curve described in Figure 1 (above) is the Gartner Hype Lifecycle illustrated in Figure 2 (below).

Figure 2 Generic Gartner Hype Cycle
[Click to enlarge]

I would suggest that Twitter, Facebook etc are well on their way to reaching what Gartner describes as the "Peak of Inflated Expectations" associated with this type of innovation. It remains to be seen if the CPA can take this flood in the tide of technology and progress their non-formal learning initiatives, or if they will be "bound in shallows and in miseries" if they are unable to leverage the potential of this phenomenon.

___________

References:

Kennedy, J. (2009). Number crunchers find social media a ‘tweet’ surprise. Silicon Republic. [Internet] 29 June. Available from: http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/article/13271/ [Accessed 29 June 2009] 

Rogers, E. M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed.. Simon & Schuster International.

–

1. Blended learning
2. Talent management
3. Web / Learning 2.0
4. Knowledge centers
5. Immersive learning simulations (serious gaming).

I will discuss the first three of these today.

Multiple-Channel learning or ‘blended’ learning is not a new learning approach, but it is becoming more common within training programs. Multiple-channel learning uses a range of learning modalities to train learners, as appropriate to the content and the context (see Figure 1). For example, a learning module might include some classroom learning, followed by some self-paced e-learning, with periodic online virtual classroom sessions for discussions. When learners reach a level of competence, they could be assigned mentors who work with them during their on-the-job training period.

Figure 1. Multiple “Blended” Learning Channels

However, no formula exists for a successful multiple-channel learning course. The question that a learning and development professional must ask is,

What instructional blend is going to work best, given the kind of students, the nature of the content, and the skills these people need?

Sometimes blended learning includes just two modalities, like self-paced online learning along with virtual classroom for discussion and interaction. Sometimes a face-to-face component is central, with synchronous and asynchronous instruction, mentoring, or community of practice used for review, collaboration, and support.

Increasingly, employers struggle to attract and retain the best talent. Enter Human Capital Management. Organizations need the ability to seamlessly assess worker competencies and to provide employees with learning experiences that will close knowledge gaps and enhance job performance. Learning doesn’t stand by itself any longer — it’s integral to the other components of human capital management (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. The Four Pillars Of Strategic Human Capital Management

But unified learning and talent management systems don’t necessarily integrate. Many organizations have embedded legacy point solutions for learning, performance, and compensation. These solutions do not integrate well, and this inhibits seamless movement of information. For example, once a manager conducting a performance review identifies one or more employee competency gaps, the manager should then have the ability (through integrated applications) to assign learning directly to an employee learning plan that will help close the gap.

Learning 2.0 is a trend in which employees take more control of their learning and knowledge gathering. They decide what they need, where to go, and how to find information from a variety of resources both inside and outside of their corporate intranet (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Employees Drive Their Own Learning

To facilitate this, workers must have robust tools like expertise location, search, and instant messaging (IM) available to them, and they must know how to make the best use of these tools. A new mind set is required for Learning 2.0 to succeed. Many business leaders (and indeed HR departments) think of learning as classroom courses, even though most are beginning to grudgingly accepted e-learning as appropriate for certain kinds of training. Many people – especially those from a traditionalist or pre-digital era – are still skeptical about the place of informal tools in the work environment. The thinking goes:

Dollars allocated to learning are for formal courses, even though learning after formal college education takes place informally and non-formally.

Worse again, in certain “toxic” workplace environments individual or small group engage in the unsavory activity of empire building – where they attempt to gain control over key projects and initiatives in order to maximize their job security and promotability.

Empire builders hoard credit and prestige for projects, and knowledge-sharing is anathema to them. This approach prevents other people in the organization from contributing in a meaningful manner, and alternative or competing projects to address the project’s goals are destroyed regardless of their merit. The outcome of empire building is, inevitably, that the organization suffers as a whole, projects fail, and organizational goals are achieved only partially, inadequately, or not at all. This sort of behavior is very common.

The tender shoots of non-formal learning will inevitably be destroyed by the weeds of empire building. For non- and informal learning initiatives to be implemented successfully, environment of sharing, where employees are expected to share rather than hoard information must be formed.

More…

_________________

References:

Schooley, C. (2008) Informal Methods Challenge Corporate Learning [Internet] Available from: http://www.forrester.com Accessed 12 March 2009

…have acquired visibility and saliency [because they] sit at the juncture of new thinking concerning the nature of learning about new forms of knowledge, about the transformation of the nature of work and about the modern enterprise in a globalized economy

(cited in Fuller & Unwin, 2002, p. 95).

As a concept and set of practices, ‘workplace learning’ has entered a period of political, economic and social transformation. Advances in technology, the demise of manufacturing industries and the growth of service sector industries, have led to changes in the meaning of the ‘workplace’ (for example, home-working (Felstead et al, 2000), working on-the-move (Felstead et al, 2005), ‘flexible’ working (Felstead et al, 1999); concomitantly, the shift towards new, post-industrial style workplace structures and practices,

have led to a new set of concept and practices surrounding ‘workplace learning.’ These include:

• different workplace contexts
• different workplace knowledge-sets
• different workers

to those of the past.

Workplace learning used to occur in the classroom or via online ‘e-training courses.’ While this style of learning is still important for regulatory or compliance training, a strong need is emerging for informal learning that is more closely integrated with employee work. Examples include:

• Some categories of business and technical training
• Procedural learning
• Deeper learning that requires concept development and interaction

Here are some reasons why this shift is happening:

Information / cognitive overload is affecting all workers. We can’t store all the facts, details, and data we need to do our jobs today, and more information is created every year.1 Thus, an important new skill is the ability to search effectively to find the information you need when you need it. It might even be information presented in a course that you took online a year ago.

Immediacy of information is critical in today’s workforce. With today’s fast business pace and emphasis on speed to market, employees may need to access a particular 5-minute piece of learning that will get them to the next step fast.2 This means that learning must come in smaller chunks that are only a click away. It also means that information and learning tend to blur in the work environment.

The Internet generation brings a different work style. The computer-savvy, 20-something ‘digital natives’ (Prensky, 2000) are very good at using technology to find what they want. They are impatient and want to access information resources quickly, and they assimilate and connect this information to their work. This workers prefers to drive personal learning, rather than simply receive information from an instructor.

Learning and development professionals need to begin working with lines of business outside of the traditional HR / Training orbit to ensure that the organizations provide a variety of formal and informal learning opportunities for employees. In some cases, the training department within HR organizes both formal and informal learning. In other contexts, HR handles formal learning, and individual lines of business handle the informal learning related to their specific activities (with consultation from learning professionals).

As well as these organizational changes, learning professionals must understand five key emerging trends:

1. Blended learning
2. Talent management
3. Web / Learning 2.0
4. Knowledge centers
5. Immersive learning simulations (serious gaming).

More…

_____________________

References:

Felstead, A. and Jewson, N. (2000) In Work, At Home: Towards an Understanding of Homeworking, London: Routledge.

Felstead, A., Jewson, N. and Walters, S. (2005) Changing Places of Work, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fuller, A. and Unwin, L. (2003) Learning as apprentices in the contemporary UK workplace: creating and managing expansive and restrictive participation, Journal of Education and Work, 16:4, pp. 407-426.

Lee, T. Fuller, A., Ashton, D., Butler, P., Felstead, A., Unwin, L., & Walters, S. (2004) Learning as Work: Teaching and Learning Processes in the Contemporary Work Organisation,
Workplace Learning: Main Themes & Perspectives Learning as Work Research Paper, No. 2.

Prensky, M. (200) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. [Internet] Available from:http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf Accessed 21 October 2007

Stern, A. and Sommerlad, E. (1999) Workplace Learning, Culture and Performance. Institute of personnel and Development, London.

–

the acquisition of knowledge independently of conscious attempts to learn and the absence of explicit knowledge about what was learned’

(Reber, 1993, quoted by Eraut 2000, p.12)

This is, he argues, because most workplace learning takes place outside formal learning contexts, and informal learning carries with it connotations of

so many other features of a situation, such as dress, discourse, behavior, diminution of social differences – that its colloquial application as a descriptor of learning contexts may have little to do with learning per se.

(p.12)

Not only does the term carry unwanted and confusing implications, but it is too vague to be of any real utility. For Eraut, an analysis of learning must focus on activities and the outcomes that that contribute to significant changes in capability or understanding. In a sense, Eraut does not define non-formal learning; rather, he defines the characteristics of formal learning (p.12) as:

1. A prescribed learning framework
2. An organized learning event or package
3. The presence of a designated teacher or trainer
4. The award of a qualification or credit
5. The external specification of outcomes.

The implication of this categorization is that any learning that does not exhibit all of these characteristics should be classed as non-formal. Some reviewers (Colley, Hodkinson & Malcolm, 2002) make the point that Eraut does not make clear what the status is of learning in situations that meet some, but not all, of his ‘formal’ criteria. My interpretation of his characterization is that the very nature of a formal activity –

following or according with established form, custom, or rule

(Merriam-Webster Online, 2007)

validates Eraut’s description.

More…

____________

References:
Colley, Hodkinson, Malcolm (2002) non-formal learning: mapping the conceptual terrain. a consultation report [Internet] Available from: http://www.infed.org/archives/e-texts/colley_informal_learning.htm [Accessed 28th January 2009]
Eraut, M. (2000) Non-formal learning, implicit learning and tacit knowledge, in F. Coffield (Ed) The Necessity of Informal Learning: Policy Press. Bristol

1. Awareness
2. Interest
3. Evaluation
4. Trial
5. Adoption

Awareness
At this first phase in the diffusion process, individuals or organizations become aware of a new idea or technology, but lack detail about it. For example, they may be aware of it’s name (i.e. e-learning) or the underlying technology (Web-based content delivery), but not know how how this manifests itself, or how it works.

Interest
At this point, the individuals or organizations want to know more about the concept or technology: what it is, how it works and it’s potential. This can be understood to be the “WIIFM” (”what’s in in for me?) stage, as the potential user investigates how it may enhance productivity and performance, or revenue generation, for example.

Evaluation
The next cognitive process concerns assessment; the individual or organization mentally “tries out” the idea or technology. The information attained in the previous is applied to their particular circumstances.

Trial
If the diffusion is deemed to have some potential, the individual or organization will try it out. Typically, this is a small-scale pilot implementation which provides specific information about how the solution aligns with the individual’s or organization’s requirements. According to Bohlen and Beal (1957),

…individuals need to test a new idea even though they have thought about it for a long time and they have gathered information concerning it.

(p.2)

Adoption
The final stage in the cognitive path is adoption. The phase is characterized by large-scale continued use of the idea or technology, and by “satisfaction with” (p.2) the idea. This does not mean that the the individual or organization that has accepted the idea will use it constantly, rather, it means that the diffused idea has been integrated into their schema or metal model as a valuable asset or resource.

Individuals or organizations will typically go through these processes at varying speeds, depending on factors ranging from the cost, time, and effort required to implement the diffused concept, the return on the investment, how well it aligns with their previous experience with similar concepts, as well as the complexity of the idea or technology under consideration.

More…
______________

References:

Bohlen, J. M., Beal, G. M. (1957) The Diffusion Process, Special Report No. 18 (Agriculture Extension Service, Iowa State College) 1: 56-77. [Internet] Available from: http://www.soc.iastate.edu/extension/presentations/publications/comm/Diffusion%20Process.pdf [Accessed 3rd November 2008]

Rogers, E. M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed.. Simon & Schuster International.

–

A true learning person also has a “to-learn” list, and the items on that list carry at least as much weight in how one organizes his or her time as the to-do list.

More specifically, The Big Question is about:

• If you have a to-learn list and are willing to share, and willing to share how you work with that list, that would likely be helpful information.
• As Knowledge Workers, work and learning are the same, so how does a to-learn list really differ from a to-do list? How are they different than undirected learning through work, blogging, conferences, etc.?
• Are to-learn lists really important to have? Are they as important as what Jim Collins tells us?
• Should they be captured? If so how?
• How does a to-learn list impact something like a Learning Management System in a Workplace or Educational setting?
• What skills, practices, behaviors do modern knowledge workers need around to-learn lists?

So it’s really a bunch of Big Questions this month. I’m not going to answer any of them, as I’m not so conceited as to think that you haven’t better things to do with your time, than to think about what I do with my time. However, the topic did get me thinking…

First of all, some context – I undertook some research on the text that the idea of the To-Learn List originated from. Learning Journeys contains 37 two- to three-page essays by

some of the best and most well known of human resources and organizational leaders and pioneers. From Stephen Cover to Dave Ulrich, from Marshall Goldsmith to Robert Eichenger, these individuals have done much to shape current thought in the areas of organizational development and leadership.

Amazon.com reviewer

As such, the text is orientated towards the needs of HR and organizational development people, rather than learning & development professionals. No harm: it’s always useful to get a different perspective (or to put it another way – a friend of mine reads a certain national newspaper because he “…likes to know what the enemy is thinking!”). One of the elements of the text that became apparent to me (from reading a part of the text using Amazon.com’s Look Inside functionality) was that the learning perspectives discussed would probably work better for people who are not professionally involved with training others: in this capacity, it indicated some potentially useful approaches on how to engage others in continuous learning, and pointed towards some avenues that might assist in achieving this objective.

As discussed in a previous blog entry on the E-Learning Curve, one of the central components of the impact of learning (and specifically the development of knowledge workers’ expertise in organizations) is the context within which the learning takes place. A central element of this context is the type or format of the learning taking place. In the literature, it is apparent that a dichotomy exists between the paradigms of formal, goal-directed training programs, and informal “learning at the watercooler” (Grebow, 2002); what Michael Eraut (2000) describes as incidental learning that takes place almost as a side effect of work: “it is difficult to make a clear distinction between formal and informal learning as there is often a crossover between the two” (McGivney, 1999, p.1). Another complexity in the discussion is where is non-formal learning located in relation to the diametric opposites?

I support Alan Rogers’ (2004) view that a “new paradigm” for learning exists, in which “most programmes will be partly formal and partly informal” going from formal to informal and from informal to formal in both directions along a continuum (see Figure 1) . “Both forms of education are important elements in the total learning experience” (looking again at non-formal and informal education – towards a new paradigm, 2004).

Figure 1 the Learning Continuum

Similarly, Hodkinson and Hodkinson argue that focusing on the extent to which learning is planned and intentional may be a way of by-passing the distinction between formal, non-formal and informal altogether.” (Colley, Hodkinson & Malcolm, 2002).

So, to return to the topic, my To-Learn List has one entry: to learn.

I would categorize myself as a “learnivore” – I continually acquire new knowledge and information through my Web-, book-, podcast-, and presentation reading, blogging (reading and writing), academic study and research, and work-based learning-related tasks. These activities are drivers for the information I try to take on board in my attempts to enhance my skills, abilities, and expertise.

_____________

References:

Colley, Hodkinson, Malcolm (2002) non-formal learning: mapping the conceptual terrain. a consultation report [Internet] Available from: http://www.infed.org/archives/e-texts/colley_informal_learning.htm [Accessed 28th January 2008]
Coombs, P. (1968) The World Educational Crisis, New York, Oxford University Press.

Eraut, M. (2000) Non-formal learning, implicit learning and tacit knowledge, in F. Coffield (Ed) The Necessity of Informal Learning: Policy Press. Bristol

Goldsmith, M. Kaye, B. Shelton, K (eds.) (2000) LEARNING JOURNEYS Top Management Experts Share Hard-Earned Lessons on Becoming Great Mentors and Leaders. Davies-Black Publishing

Grebow, D. (2002) At the Water Cooler of Learning [Internet] Available from: http://agelesslearner.com/articles/watercooler_dgrebow_tc600.html [Accessed 30th January 2008]

McGivney, V. (1999) Informal learning in the community: a trigger for change and development NIACE. Leicester.

Rogers, A. (2004) Looking again at non-formal and informal education – towards a new paradigm [Internet] Available from: http://www.infed.org/biblio/non_formal_paradigm.htm [Accessed 30th January 2008]

–

A true learning person also has a “to-learn” list, and the items on that list carry at least as much weight in how one organizes his or her time as the to-do list.

More specifically, The Big Question is about:

• If you have a to-learn list and are willing to share, and willing to share how you work with that list, that would likely be helpful information.
• As Knowledge Workers, work and learning are the same, so how does a to-learn list really differ from a to-do list? How are they different than undirected learning through work, blogging, conferences, etc.?
• Are to-learn lists really important to have? Are they as important as what Jim Collins tells us?
• Should they be captured? If so how?
• How does a to-learn list impact something like a Learning Management System in a Workplace or Educational setting?
• What skills, practices, behaviors do modern knowledge workers need around to-learn lists?

So it’s really a bunch of Big Questions this month. I’m not going to answer any of them.

First of all, some context – I undertook some research on the text that the idea of the To-Learn List originated from. Learning Journeys contains 37 two- to three-page essays by

some of the best and most well known of human resources and organizational leaders and pioneers. From Stephen Cover to Dave Ulrich, from Marshall Goldsmith to Robert Eichenger, these individuals have done much to shape current thought in the areas of organizational development and leadership.

Amazon.com reviewer

As such, the text is orientated towards the needs of HR and organizational development people, rather than learning & development professionals. No harm: it’s always useful to get a different perspective (or to put it another way – a friend of mine reads a certain national newspaper because he “…likes to know what the enemy is thinking!”). One of the elements of the text that became apparent to me (from reading a part of the text using Amazon.com’s Look Inside functionality) was that the learning perspectives discussed would probably work better for people who are not professionally involved with training others: in this capacity, it indicated some potentially useful approaches on how to engage others in continuous learning, and pointed towards some avenues that might assist in achieving this objective.

As discussed in a previous blog entry on the E-Learning Curve, one of the central components of the impact of learning (and specifically the development of knowledge workers’ expertise in organizations) is the context within which the learning takes place. A central element of this context is the type or format of the learning taking place. In the literature, it is apparent that a dichotomy exists between the paradigms of formal, goal-directed training programs, and informal “learning at the watercooler” (Grebow, 2002); what Michael Eraut (2000) describes as incidental learning that takes place almost as a side effect of work: “it is difficult to make a clear distinction between formal and informal learning as there is often a crossover between the two” (McGivney, 1999, p.1). Another complexity in the discussion is where is non-formal learning located in relation to the diametric opposites?

I support Alan Rogers’ (2004) view that a “new paradigm” for learning exists, in which “most programmes will be partly formal and partly informal” going from formal to informal and from informal to formal in both directions along a continuum (see Figure 1) . “Both forms of education are important elements in the total learning experience” (looking again at non-formal and informal education – towards a new paradigm, 2004).

Figure 1 the Learning Continuum

Similarly, Hodkinson and Hodkinson argue that focusing on the extent to which learning is planned and intentional may be a way of by-passing the distinction between formal, non-formal and informal altogether.” (Colley, Hodkinson & Malcolm, 2002).

Sp, to return to the topic, my To-Learn List has one entry: to learn.

I would categorize myself as a “learnivore” – I continually acquire new knowledge and information through my Web-, book-, podcast-, and presentation reading, blogging (reading and writing), academic study and research, and work-based learning-related tasks. These activities are drivers for the information I to take on board in my attempts to enhance my skills, abilities, and expertise.

_____________

References:

Colley, Hodkinson, Malcolm (2002) non-formal learning: mapping the conceptual terrain. a consultation report [Internet] Available from: http://www.infed.org/archives/e-texts/colley_informal_learning.htm [Accessed 28th January 2008]
Coombs, P. (1968) The World Educational Crisis, New York, Oxford University Press.

Eraut, M. (2000) Non-formal learning, implicit learning and tacit knowledge, in F. Coffield (Ed) The Necessity of Informal Learning: Policy Press. Bristol

Goldsmith, M. Kaye, B. Shelton, K (eds.) (2000) LEARNING JOURNEYS Top Management Experts Share Hard-Earned Lessons on Becoming Great Mentors and Leaders. Davies-Black Publishing

Grebow, D. (2002) At the Water Cooler of Learning [Internet] Available from: http://agelesslearner.com/articles/watercooler_dgrebow_tc600.html [Accessed 30th January 2008]

McGivney, V. (1999) Informal learning in the community: a trigger for change and development NIACE. Leicester.

Rogers, A. (2004) Looking again at non-formal and informal education – towards a new paradigm [Internet] Available from: http://www.infed.org/biblio/non_formal_paradigm.htm [Accessed 30th January 2008]

–

Systems of creation, production and distribution

The commonly-held notion that a knowledge economy is a services economy is misleading. As information and knowledge add value to basic products manufacturing and services are becoming increasingly integrated into complex chains of creation, production and distribution. At the core of the economy are goods producing industries, linked into value chains which see inputs coming from knowledge-based business services and goods related construction and energy industries, and outputs going to goods related distribution service industries[1].

Convergence or divergence

One feature of the emerging knowledge economy is increasing evidence that the nations of the world are polarizing, rather than converging, in economic terms. Standard growth theories suggest that economies subject to market forces should converge in terms of per capita GDP levels, either absolutely or relatively. But the reality is quite different.

Countries appear to be moving towards two peaks or nodes, one at high incomes and one at relatively low incomes. This polarisation of countries into different strata of economic activity and of living standards is becoming both pronounced and persistent – what is often referred to as “twin-peaks dynamics[2].” What the future will show as the knowledge economy unfolds remains to be seen, but there is little in the recent historical record to assure policy makers that market forces will deliver a continuing process of convergence to US levels. In such a world the consequences of policy failure or inaction can be dramatic.

Divergence and concentration

These same dynamics may cause changes in the industrial structure of knowledge economics. Many contend that increasing inequality can be observed at the international, national, regional, household and personal levels – that the rich are getting rich, while the poor are getting poorer. Some economists suggest that increasing returns from network economies and learning economies characteristic of knowledge economies will lead to industrial concentration – a world of winner takes all[3]. Others contend that the expansion of the knowledge driven economy will create a proliferation of material, firms and activities at all points and at all levels, suggesting that no one can expect to enjoy continued control of markets.

There may be temporary monopolies but they cannot last. And it is misconceived to think that the key lies in being at the point of delivery of the product: the low cost and ease of access to the delivery mechanism mean that the rents are driven down at the delivery level and instead migrate back up the value chain to those with genuinely scarce factors and competitive advantages[4].

Whichever proves true, the knowledge economy will see the development of new business models.

Footnotes:

[1] Sheehan, P. Tegart, G. (Eds.) (1998) Working for the Future: Technology and Employment in the Global Knowledge Economy. Victoria University Press.

[2] Sheehan, P. and Tegart, G. (Eds.) (1998) Working for the Future: Technology and Employment in the Global Knowledge Economy, Victoria University Press, p100. See also Quah, D. (1996) ‘Convergence Empirics Across Economies with (Some) Capital Mobility,’ Journal of Economic Growth, 1(1) pp. 95-125 [Internet] Available form: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2235377 [Accessed 20 August 2008]

[3] Arthur, W.B. (1996) ‘Increasing Returns and the New World of Business’, Harvard Business Review, July-August 1996, pp. 100-109

[4] Kay, J. In: DTI (1999) Economics of the Knowledge Driven Economy, Conference Proceedings, Department of Trade and Industry, London.

–

Systems of creation, production and distribution

The commonly-held notion that a knowledge economy is a services economy is misleading. As information and knowledge add value to basic products manufacturing and services are becoming increasingly integrated into complex chains of creation, production and distribution. At the core of the economy are goods producing industries, linked into value chains which see inputs coming from knowledge-based business services and goods related construction and energy industries, and outputs going to goods related distribution service industries[1].

Convergence or divergence

One feature of the emerging knowledge economy is increasing evidence that the nations of the world are polarizing, rather than converging, in economic terms. Standard growth theories suggest that economies subject to market forces should converge in terms of per capita GDP levels, either absolutely or relatively. But the reality is quite different.

Countries appear to be moving towards two peaks or nodes, one at high incomes and one at relatively low incomes. This polarisation of countries into different strata of economic activity and of living standards is becoming both pronounced and persistent – what is often referred to as “twin-peaks dynamics[2].” What the future will show as the knowledge economy unfolds remains to be seen, but there is little in the recent historical record to assure policy makers that market forces will deliver a continuing process of convergence to US levels. In such a world the consequences of policy failure or inaction can be dramatic.

Divergence and concentration

These same dynamics may cause changes in the industrial structure of knowledge economics. Many contend that increasing inequality can be observed at the international, national, regional, household and personal levels – that the rich are getting rich, while the poor are getting poorer. Some economists suggest that increasing returns from network economies and learning economies characteristic of knowledge economies will lead to industrial concentration – a world of winner takes all[3]. Others contend that the expansion of the knowledge driven economy will create a proliferation of material, firms and activities at all points and at all levels, suggesting that no one can expect to enjoy continued control of markets.

There may be temporary monopolies but they cannot last. And it is misconceived to think that the key lies in being at the point of delivery of the product: the low cost and ease of access to the delivery mechanism mean that the rents are driven down at the delivery level and instead migrate back up the value chain to those with genuinely scarce factors and competitive advantages[4].

Whichever proves true, the knowledge economy will see the development of new business models.

Footnotes:

[1] Sheehan, P. Tegart, G. (Eds.) (1998) Working for the Future: Technology and Employment in the Global Knowledge Economy. Victoria University Press.

[2] Sheehan, P. and Tegart, G. (Eds.) (1998) Working for the Future: Technology and Employment in the Global Knowledge Economy, Victoria University Press, p100. See also Quah, D. (1996) ‘Convergence Empirics Across Economies with (Some) Capital Mobility,’ Journal of Economic Growth, 1(1) pp. 95-125 [Internet] Available form: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2235377 [Accessed 20 August 2008]

[3] Arthur, W.B. (1996) ‘Increasing Returns and the New World of Business’, Harvard Business Review, July-August 1996, pp. 100-109

[4] Kay, J. In: DTI (1999) Economics of the Knowledge Driven Economy, Conference Proceedings, Department of Trade and Industry, London.

–