Masie, CES and 6Ds

When Eliot Masie’s report #2 from CES, “Where Has All The Learning Gone?” came in this week it focused on a long-standing issue for L&D, branding. Honestly, until about 6 months before I was hired by The Forum Corporation in the nineties I didn’t know L&D was a profession. This is after growing up in the service industry and an early career in financial services, both heavy on training. Masie rightly states that learning is part of an increasing number of products, technologies and environments. He even provides a list of phrases used to describe the learning component of products. (spoiler alert: not a single one uses the word “learning”) He submits, for our consideration,

“…we may need to look at our field’s branding and engagement with the evolving technologies to better brand and position Learning…”

In the forward to Salim Ismail’s book Exponential Organizations, Peter Diamandis, founder and chairman of the XPRIZE Foundation, introduces what he calls the 6Ds; Digitize, Deceptive Growth, Disruptive, Dematerialize, Demonetize and Democratize. I would assert that learning is moving through these six phases. While I agree that branding is an issue, the lack of recognition of our industry’s progression through these phases is a much larger issue.

  • Phase one, digitize, is easy. Learning is no longer contained to binders and SME’s heads. It exists in videos, online documentation, podcasts, elearning programs and more. Digitization? Check.
  • Phase two, deceptive growth, requires us to broaden the lens a bit and accept that the fact that the industry (as poorly branded as it is) is not the product. With digitization has come a wave of new learners and the learning opportunities. Just a hunch, but If you added up all the hours spent by students in formal school environments (K-12, Higher Ed, Vocational, etc.) in 1990 it would be less hours than that accumulated in a month by viewers of DIY YouTube videos. Growth? Check.
  • Phase three, disruptive? Check. I don’t think I need to unpack this one.
  • Phase four, dematerialize, is where I believe the industry is now and what is described by the Masie’s CES observations. In increasingly rare cases will learning be “the thing”. It will instead be absorbed into product, technology and the environment. However, this is not a devaluation. Phone manufacturers compete on the quality of the cameras which have dematerialized from their stand-alone product form. Learning will also be a battle front.

All industries in this fourth phase must adopt to a new way of packaging and delivering its value. A focus on partnerships and a willingness to take a back-seat are two important requirements of this phase. The next two phases are where the real show begins. For now, as an industry, we need to examine how we can deliver the exponential value of learning in a world that needs it now more than ever.

10X Learning & Development

In his book “Exponential Organizations; Why new organizations are ten times better, faster and cheaper than yours (and what to do about it),” Salim Ismail defines exponential organizations as “…one whose impact or output is disproportionately large–at least least 10x larger–compared to its peers because of the use of new organizational techniques that leverage accelerating technologies.” This definition is meant to describe the winning companies of the future as well as some current high performers. If 10x is the target for companies then it must also be the goal for the organizations that support those companies. Organizations such as Learning & Development.

While the products and services delivered by L&D are much discussed, my focus for the last two decades has been on optimizing the internal organizations that enable those products and services. While the tools available have changed dramatically in that time, the same cannot be said for the L&D organization.  This is evidenced by the continued challenges faced by L&D. In many cases these are same challenges that were present when Trolley and van Adelsberg were writing Running Training Like a Business in 1997.  In an age of disruption and a quest for a 10x advantage, the L&D organization must change and change fast. Three key drivers for successfully navigating this change will be; thinking big and wide, adaptable and curious teams, and a relentless pursuit of speed.

Thinking Big And Wide

At the core of this change is a change of mindset. It is no longer sustainable to think about linear improvement in process and impact. This straight line incrementalism will rapidly fall behind the needs of company looking to achieve the “hockey stick” exponential growth curve. L&D needs to begin challenging itself to achieve game changing results in all areas. Setting goals at these levels is the foundation for forcing new thinking. Getting halfway to a billion dollar goal is still better than achieving a 10 million dollar one.     

Targets such as these often cause an organization to look around the room and ask, “How are we going to do that?” Most likely, the answer to that question is not in that room. The requirements of speed and outsized impact force an organization to look outside itself.  Cross-domain transfer is an essential skill of tomorrow’s L&D organization. We have already seen the benefits of this cross-domain transfer on the learning product side in gamification, UX, social sharing and more. Cross-pollination on the organizational and process front is also available from other domains such as fast growing startups or the software development process–we just need to look.

Adaptable and Curious Teams

The future of L&D, with its accelerating rate of change and large unknowns, requires a highly adaptable L&D team. This is not only an internal staff versus outsource view. Adaptability must be a key trait in our learning professionals.  Flexibility must be built in to all their roles. Teams must be able to form and dissolve as needed.  In this new world of business, resources must be able to wear multiple hats as the organization’s needs evolve and demand volume fluctuates. Only an L&D organization resourced both inside and out in this way will have the fresh perspectives, increased agility, and improved results that winning companies require.

Those same speed and impact requirements also demand a strong spirit of curiosity leading to a culture of experimentation. It is no longer sufficient to wait for the perfect or the proven. L&D must become a laboratory, trying countless ideas in order to find the “secret sauce.” Failed experiments must be viewed for what they really are: learning. These learnings no longer stigmatize the “scientist” but instead drive more experiments that are both well-defined and carefully measured. It is only with this change in approach that L&D can hope to keep up with the companies they support.

Speed. Speed. Speed.

We all know the timeless adage, “cheap, good, and fast: you can only pick two.” For over two decades L&D has been forced to focus on the “cheap” dimension, leveraging outsourcing and digitization to drive down the costs of learning. For the last decade we have seen dramatic improvements in “good’ as we incorporate new knowledge drawn from cognitive science, gaming and other domains.  The next decade will be the age of “fast.” The saying that time is money has never been more true, and time has never been more expensive.      

There are three critical dimensions to the speed of the L&D organization of the future; speed to product, speed to learner, and speed to value.  Speed to product is the time from need to solution.  Increases on this dimension is required to support our businesses who continue to see compressed cycle times for products, services, and improvement. Speed to learner is the time from solution to learner. Simply having solutions in a catalog does not create value or impact. Getting solutions deployed to those who need them when they need them is essential.  Speed to value is the time from learner to impact and value–how quickly a learner can put a new skill to work. In this age of acceleration, only L&D organizations with a deep focus on speed will be able to keep up with business.    

Let’s Change The World

As I have written here before, the upskilling of the world’s workforce is of paramount importance. Adapting to this new business environment will be a challenge for many of these people. Preparing them for whatever comes next is the role of tomorrow’s L&D organization. Realigning our workforce, both currently employed and unemployed, with the work our companies need will require a new mindset, new ideas, and new approaches. Is your L&D organization ready for the exponential future?

The Talent Blockchain

I read a recent Inc. Magazine article on a company using blockchain technology to create a individual’s knowledge score.  This knowledge score will be a verifiable way for individuals to communicate their experience and expertise.  The article talks about the application of this blockchain application for the disruption of employee training.  The company is launching in 2018 and is starting not with employee training but instead with product reviewers.  This makes a lot of sense.  Advertisers and brands are a much faster path to cash for a new company.

While employee training  is not where the company is starting, it did get me thinking about the application and implications for the employee Learning & Development industry.  I have written previously about my thoughts the move to learner-centricity, not solely in the area of solution development but also in the area of learning records. The application of a blockchain based solution in L&D has the chance to make this a reality. If you are not familiar with blockchain technology there is no shortage of primers and tutorials available.  You can start here and go as far down the rabbit hole as far as you wish. For the purposes of this post all you need to know is that blockchain technology allows for the the creation of an independent and trusted ledger of entries. In this case a ledger of individual skills and performance.

New technology, like any change, requires a strong case for adoption. I believe that there are three tail winds currently blowing that will help accelerate the acceptance of a blockchain solution.

  • Gig economy – A growing portion of the workforce is re-evaluating its relationship with employment.  As the workplace becomes more project or gig focused and less employment based learning solutions will require a new dimensions of value. Portability not of the solution but of the credential associated with successful completion of the learning will be essential.  Learners will be less likely to seek out learning experiences that do not allow them to get credit for that learning that can be taken with them to the next gig.  
  • Learner-centricity – This trend is already underway in the learning solution arena.  Technology that allows for enhanced assessment and dynamic pathing for learners based on performance has made learning more focused for individuals. This trend will also extend to learning records and work experiences.  Rather than have a series of silos or islands like former employers, LMS systems, online academies, universities holding parts of an individual’s history the individual will hold a single, portable, verifiable record.  This blockchain verified curriculum vitae (BVCV) could serve as a companion to one’s LinkedIn.  LinkedIn acting as the marketing brochure and the BVCV as the ingredients list.
  • Micro-certifications – As employers continue to show increasing favor for “what can you do?” over “what have you done?” a verifiable record of smaller units of learning will be necessary. Learning solutions will increasingly be deconstructed into components to allow learners to better target desired skills which are favorable in the marketplace. Capturing the volume of these micro skills will require something other than a certificate for the wall.

How could a BVCV work?


Lifelong Learners (L3) would participate in learning opportunities provided by the multitude of sources now available. Companies, universities, independents and others would then enter the newly acquired skills data to the blockchain record. The learner would use their, always updated BVCV to present their value to potential employers. Employers would be able to seek out hyper specific skills sets as well be able to trust the professional record of potential candidates. Employers would contribute performance data, not unlike the ratings and feedback provided on the various freelance sites or the endorsements on LinkedIn or back channel rating sites like The Funded or RateMyProfessor and Glassdoor. All of this becomes part of the living BVCV record.

In addition to the value of the transparency and trustworthiness offered to employers the BVCV also also motivates L3 ‘s. The onus of upskilling individuals moves from corporations to the individuals themselves in the gig economy. Because the path between upskilling and monetization is clearer learners are better able to see how an investment in upskilling themselves makes sense. Helping L3’s see what skills are in highest demand in a marketplace could also assist on this front.

So what is stopping us?

  • Understanding and acceptance – Blockchain is new to many. Many only know it through the bitcoin or other cryptocurrency application. L&D, recruiters, employers and learners must gain an understanding of the technology and its underlying security. It is only with this understanding will the required stakeholders adopt this as the path forward.
  • Agreement on standards – While currency transactions are simple and identical in format, learning events are not. Standards will need to be defined and agreed by both suppliers and employers in order for the BVCV to deliver its highest value. The L&D industry can point to multiple examples of where they have been able to create a standard (SCORM, Tin Can, etc.) but the required inclusion of employers and recruiters into this process will complicate the process. Without buy-in from the parties that allow learners to monetize their skills the BVCV simply becomes another CV not The CV.
  • Historical versus future – The great mass of skills and experience acquisition activity has already happened for many individuals. This is not to say that more will not occur but capturing the historical value creation is often a stumbling block to adoption. Any learner will want credit for what has been done not just what they do moving forward. The conversion of a learner’s current record to the BVCV is essential. Without this conversion the approach is less appealing to the a large portion of the workforce.

Personally, I think a blockchain solution is a win-win-win. Learning solution providers benefit from increased demand from motivated lifelong learners looking to increase their value in the talent marketplace. Employers and recruiters benefit by having a single trusted source for candidate evaluation and targeting. And L3s benefit from having a simple, portable, trusted means of capturing and monetizing the value they can deliver to an employer. The early adopters will likely be industries that already require CLE’s followed by compliance training across industries. We know why the blockchain is coming we just don’t yet know how or when.

  Note: I have no connection to or any blockchain companies.  I am simply a fan 🙂


High Leverage Skills

This post originally appeared on the Learning Hacks blog

We are always looking for disproportionate returns. Think about the world of investments where the holy grail is to find the magical place where returns are greater than risk. What about how we think about skill development when it’s done in the pursuit of improved performance?

Much of what we do is a combination of multiple skills.  Just as it takes 17-26 muscles to smile think about how many skills are required in order to develop a business strategy, talk to customers or give a sales pitch. If we are in search of disproportionate returns we need to look at skills carefully.  By understanding the contributing skills we can better understand and breakdown performance drivers. As we deconstruct key skill bundles, sales pitching for example we begin to see common contributing skill bundles.  These bundles are simpler than the higher order skill but often still contain contributing skills.  These skills feel “generic” in nature since they are without the context of application. They are analogous to muscles in the body in that like your bicep, they can be exercised, strengthened and in doing so improve any number of applications in which they are used.

The other characteristic of these simpler skill bundles is that they can act as limiters for all the higher order skill bundles that are built on them. Like a computer connected to the internet via a dial-up modem.  No matter how you upgrade the processor, memory or other elements of the computer as long as the “connection” skill remains unimproved the overall performance for task that require that skill will remain limited.

So if you are looking for disproportionate returns from your learning, look for high leverage skills.  Often improving a high leverage skill only a little drives high cumulative gains because that skill is foundational to so many activities.

The Performance Learning Stack

This post originally appeared on the Learning Hacks blog

I find frameworks helpful. Particularly when looking at complex systems they can help to identify interdependencies and “chunking” information has been shown to help the brain handle more. I love analogies because they force us to think differently about things and grasp new ideas faster. As I started my exploration of multiple domains for learning hacks I found myself awash in information and in need of some structure. At the same time my role as lab rat with neuro-enhancers re-introduced me to the concept of “a stack”.

Why a stack?

The concept of a stack exists in many domains. It is a combination of elements that makes the whole. In the cases of nutrition and neuro-enhancers it is a combination of drugs that delivers a larger benefit than any one element individually. In the technology domain the stack refers to all the layers required to deliver, and limits the delivery of, a solution. This goes from data center through to user interface with networking, operating system and application in between.

One of the challenges I think todays enterprise learning industry faces is our focus on local optimization rather than system optimization. This is understandable as system changes require greater control so it will always be easier to advocate and deliver improved e-learning rather than an improved learning culture in organizations. However I worry that we have lost the forest for the trees and that we are missing the opportunities to drive game-changing innovation by focusing our energies on incremental improvements.

The reality is that any improvement to the learning stack can produce enhanced performance. The stack also allows us to better understand the relationships between elements. Which ones are limiters to the ones that follow in the same way that a dial-up network limits all applications on your computer? Which ones can increase existing learning in the same way an additional vitamin makes another more effective? When was the last time your skills training included a module on unlearning existing habits before trying to overwrite them with a new approach?

I have found this stack a helpful way to “bucket” the hacks from science, Eastern thought, sports psychology, learning theory etc.  With each of these elements there is also a need for tools to be developed and data to track the performance of the stack. I am very certain this stack will evolve as we as an industry continue to explore. I look forward to others’ thoughts and feedback.


A Decent Proposal

This post originally appeared on the Learning Hacks blog

Image via Wikipedia


“Customers don’t care about your product.  They care about their problem.”

– every successful entrepreneur I have met

My proposed framework, an adaptation of Alexander Osterwalder’s Business Model Canvas, is anchored by the value proposition.  It is also where I see the many of today’s training organizations fall down.  The inability to define themselves in terms of the value they provide to customers is more than just window dressing.  A value proposition is not simply a catchy slogan but it defined where an organization invests its limited resources to drive maximum value.  A classic example of this was Xerox’s late nineties re-branding from “copier company” to “document company”.  This single word change set off a slew of product innovations that has kept the company relevant for the past decade.

Enhanced performance enabled by learning

My proposed value proposition is carefully worded as well. “Enhanced performance” describes the solution to the problem faced by training’s customers.  Companies don’t need courses, coaching or any of the other products manufactured by training departments.  They need the results these can produce when done right.  Focus on the benefit. It’s the only thing the customer cares about.

“Enabled” reflects the changing role of the training department from the arbiter of the “right way” to one which facilitates, curates and architects knowledge transfer.  Words like “delivering” and “providing” suggest a centralized approach and neglects the importance of the learner’s emerging role as contributor and informal learning.

This value proposition also acts a test.  If an activity doesn’t fall into it is should be out. I understand that performance has many drivers but the push by some towards a generalist approach has left many of the drivers sub-optimized.  “By learning” ensures that the focus is on optimizing the knowledge component of performance.

Now What?

So that is my suggestion for the new training organization’s value proposition.  I like the sound of checking companies for PEL (performance enhancing learning). And I like the role of enabler as it feel more collaborative.  Now comes the fun part, what startups call minimum viable product.  The next step is to build a straw man example so that customers can react to it.  This may take a minute.

What are your thoughts?

Here Comes Lean Learning Part 2

This post originally appeared on the Learning Hacks blog

The Lean Learning Philosophy

So that we have some more to discuss let’s propose some guiding principles for adopting a lean learning approach.  The tools for executing a lean approach to learning will continue to change at a rapid pace but, if valid, the underlying principles should not.  These principles, in some cases, challenge long held beliefs of the industry but are core to successful implementation.

#1 Learning is no longer solely the domain of the training department

Learning professionals must accept that they are the accelerant and marketers for behavior change not the keepers of the brain.  Learners, like customers in every industry, have become “prosumers” both taking in and creating learning content.  Unless training is willing to accept the validity of learner created content, it will never be able to move with the speed necessary to keep up.  This is not to say that on meta issues like structure and technique the pros don’t have a leg up.  It is only to say that the contribution of the salesperson, on closing a sale, may deliver as much value (I think more) as the approach taught in the sales program.

#2 Training organizations are intermediaries

Unlike I.T., (my least favorite analogy for the learning industry) training departments don’t actually make anything.  They source, structure, market and manage the product.  In my post (New Analogies Apply Within) I called training professionals “marketers” selling “Gatorade for corporate athletes”.

Lean learning calls for a laser-focus on what is needed.  With the Internet, someone who wants to learn about anything is only a click away from a video, blog, or Yahoo group.  Lean learning is about creating a compelling product (from any and all sources) and “selling” it to the learners that need it.

#3 You don’t know what you don’t know…and that’s O.K.

The purpose of the lean approach is to acknowledge that the right solution is likely not found in the training department’s offices or even in the learner assessment study report.  The solution is what works in the field.  Full stop.  Companies are moving so fast that, even if you could design an assessment and select the right sample, you would still be missing the mark on timing.  And, since training often delivers to the lowest common denominator, you incur relevance, credibility and time costs for learners who may be above that line.

Lean approaches this by allowing the learners to co-create the solution through their feedback and actions.  Not sure which part of the sales process is creating disappointing results?  The answer is found in the fact that the most used tool rolled out in your MVL is on the topic of qualifying buyers.  Not sure where customer satisfaction is falling apart?  Look at the long discussion of setting expectations on the discussion board.  In any number of ways learner feedback will help to shape the most impactful learning.  Combined with hard metrics, (see#4) a lean approach helps an organization to prioritize and grade performance support efforts.

#4 Business metrics are essential, learner metrics are observable

By treating the learner like a marketplace, you can readily observe their levels of satisfaction with the product (did they use it? did they forward it? did they contribute to it?).  As we discussed above, their actions will provide important feedback to the development of the learning product.

But, the essential measures of lean learning are the business metrics that the learning product is targeted at.  Whether it is strategy implementation or increased performance in some business activity, these metrics are the dashboard in much the same way that customer conversions are for start-up businesses.  The phrase “bought in” is frequently used when strategies or new approaches are rolled out for good reason. It is fine to attend a class, visit a wiki or watch a video but it is not until the learner puts that new knowledge to work have they actually “bought it”.

#5 Perfect is the enemy of “good enough”

Instructional designers, like the software developers of yesterday, are often guilty of what I term “the long build and the grand reveal”.  After defining the specifications of the solution, they go away for a while (sometimes a long while).  Only to return when the learning solution is perfect and ready for pilot.  Returning to the value of a lean approach, this is an extended “time to value”.  This is also a lost opportunity to learn from early adopters and to get more iterations of the product completed.  Lean learning requires the learning professionals and the organization to be comfortable with this iterative “good enough” approach.

Final Thought

Lean learning is a concept that seems right on, for right now.  The pace of business is not slowing down anytime soon and learning professionals’ ability to build solutions off of “knowns” is not likely to increase.  It is time to stop trying to force an approach that was built for another time to work in this new environment.  Instead, it is time for innovation and new approaches, lean or otherwise.  If we can’t learn something new, then how can we expect to help anyone else do it.


Here Comes Lean Learning

This post originally appeared on the Learning Hacks blog

Lean Learning Anyone?

I have worked in the training industry several times since I left it a decade ago for the worlds of venture capital and private equity.  But, not since 2001, have I had the opportunity to spend significant time taking a deep look at it.  And coming back to it with fresh eyes and the experience of 10 years of business building has caused me to question the pace of change in the industry.

Many of the same industry players exist, as do many of the thought leaders and industry organizations. As a result, the means and techniques used to produce learning have also remained relatively constant.  While the tools, delivery channels, and underlying theories have improved, the instructional design methodology has not moved far from its linear approach.

needs analysis => design => develop =>pilot => implement

This standard production approach, with its emphasis on needs analysis and careful progression through each step no longer fits with the pace of business.

Training Gets Lean

Steve Blank is the leading proponent of the Lean Start-up methodology.  As a former entrepreneur, and now professor of entrepreneurship at Stanford, Blank saw the traditional software development process for start-ups as misdirected.  Development’s linear process, build it and then go find a customer, led to excessive spend with an unknown result.

The development of learning events follows much the same process as software with program piloting substituting for beta testing.  The resulting problems occur in training is much the same way the do in software development.  Companies are spending a great deal on training programs that are misdirected and ineffective.  And, by the time they realize it they often feel like they have committed to many resources to change course.

I am not suggesting that the lean training approach described below is right for all training, just as lean is not right for all start-ups.  But I do believe that in many situations a lean approach is better suited to today’s business challenges.

Into the Unknown

Blank recognized that the traditional linear process was designed based on “knowns”.  These “knowns”, known problem and known solution specifications, are requirements for the traditional approach.  If either of these is not known, or more likely wrongly known, the product won’t be of value to customers. Blank’s lean approach offers companies a better way when one or both of these items is unknown.

Traditional instructional design methodology has similar requirements.  Know your learner, and know the capability gaps or, just as with software, the customer will not find value in the solution.  This places a huge requirement on upfront needs assessment, translation of business objectives to learning objectives and learner definition.  Getting to the known takes time and it is time that most businesses no longer have.  So rather than enforce a requirement on the business to satisfy a methodology why not find a methodology that meets a business environment of speed and unknowns.

What Is Lean?

Blank’s lean methodology is just such a methodology and its adaptation to learning presents an interesting case for a new method of driving performance fast.  The biggest change in Blank’s lean approach is the blending of the needs assessment/specification stage with the development stage.  Rather than assuming “knowns”, Blank’s approach embraces unknowns.  By using a hypothesis of the customer and the solution, a company releases what Blank calls a “minimum viable product” (MVP). This is the smallest possible example of the value of the full solution. The company then uses this kernel of its solution to attract early adopters who in turn, through their behaviors and feedback, teach the company what additional features and functions are most valuable for the company to build.

Iterate through this cycle as fast as you can and the result is a solution with market validation that is ready to scale and a group of evangelists for the product to help it find more customers fast.  Companies often have to “pivot”, according to Blank, based on customer learnings and often find their ultimate solution in a place they had not originally thought of.

Lean Learning: What’s the Value?

In my search for a clear value proposition for lean learning’s approach, I found what I often find; someone smarter had already solved this problem in another area.  In the recently released book “Strategic Speed: Mobilize people, accelerate execution”, Authors Davis, Frechette and Boswell describe successful strategy roll-outs as having faster time to value and more value over time.  Perfect!

For the lean learning approach the same is true.  Through the use of the MVP or in this case “minimal valued learning” (MVL) the organization can almost immediately begin to reap the benefits of improved performance.  The value of this improved performance can rapidly grow through end-user feedback and proper metrics.  By including end-user content and validation this learning resource also remains ”evergreen” reducing the maintenance costs and extending the shelf-life of the learning.  This drives increased value over time.

What do you think?

I wrote this post to take advantage of another technology phenomenon, crowd sourcing.  This idea is not fully baked, nor is it perfect.  It is the seed of idea that I feel strong enough about to share.  Over the next few weeks I will be working to further develop this idea through feedback that I have already received from the unlucky few folks that I have already made to suffer through my ramblings on this subject.  What you find appealing and well-thought out in the above is likely the result of these kind souls’ feedback.  What you find wanting is all mine.  

The Call For Lean Learning

This post originally appeared on the Learning Hacks blog

Last week Ben Horowitz, who with Marc Andreessen has launched a few billion dollar companies and now plays VC, posted about why training is one of the most important things comapnies can do [full post here] I think he is right. Unfortunately, I think that most people’s willingness to skip training is driven by the misguided attempts they experienced in the corporate world. With start-ups realizing that building their product based on customer learning is the right thing to do, what about building their people with learning?

This idea has fascinated me since it was sparked by a series of discussions with some really smart people a few weeks ago. As a colleague of mine points out, lean is not right for everything. This is true even in the start-up space where Horowitz makes a great case for “Fat Start-Ups” (OK, I may have a bit of a man crush on guy who can grow companies and cites rap lyrics to support his points). However lean may be right for a lot of things and especially in a start-up where speed is valued much more highly.

Adopting the Blank & Ries touted customer development cycle to employee development would be interesting for those tasked with driving performance. Minimum viable product (MVP) becomes MVL (minimum valuable learning?). A course is actually co-developed by the people that will use it thereby building evangelists that will spread the word (no more dictating attendance). The focus is on speed and learning-based iterations not a big build and the hope that the market (learner) likes it.

Learning must be the focus of all organizations. In a video posted by Venture Hacks, Marc Andreessen states that there are two things to fund. Products that become companies and companies that can build products. Many of today’s start-ups fall into the first category. As they grow they must turn themselves into the latter. Markets shift, customers are fickle but high performing people are forever.


New Analogies Apply Within

This post originally appeared on the Learning Hacks blog

Training has long used I.T. departments as their role model. Once the misunderstood backroom of corporations, CIO’s now sit at the leadership table offering strategic insight and business value. Training aspired to make the same leap from oft-questioned expense to essential strategic investment. There is a big difference though. Training doesn’t make anything!

Just Learn It!

The mind-set of training needs to change from manufacturer to marketer. Training departments offer courses on leadership yet rarely sit at the head table of the corporate party. They train on sales, yet one look at attendance data will show you that the most attended trainings are frequently mandated, not sold to their audience. Training pros are marketers and packagers of a performance-inducing product. Like Gatorade for corporate athletes. Training should even steal the Investopedia explanation of marketing, “The ultimate goal of marketing is to match a company’s products and services to the people who need and want them, thereby ensure profitability.”

I unlocked the “SalesPro” badge!

Today’s digital and social media world has exposed the desire of many to be “prosumers”. Learning needs to let go of its “keeper of the knowledge” belief and welcome this change. Yes, learning is made more efficient by the use of proven methodologies and structures not known by every employee. The trade off is the authenticity and “real-world” endorsement of skill building activities, not to mention the increased engagement of employees in their development. By focusing on supporting and enhancing the work of the producers and easing the barriers to the consumers, training can accelerate and scale a company’s learning. This doesn’t just mean installing Yammer or Chatter to provide a platform. Where learning pros will add value is by acting as marketers to build their brand’s (high performance) connection to its customers. Training can achieve this by catalyzing the conversations (think aggregator sites) and constantly looking outside for ideas and analogies on how to incent learners (think FourSquare badges) or encourage sharing (think Like buttons and followers). There will always be a role for more traditional learning events but today’s business speed requires a new approach. One where user generated content and real-time adjustments are the norm.

Crowdsourced Learning?

The biggest switch for Training in this new analogy is in process. I.T. has for a long time embraced a linear and carefully structured design methodology. This process starts with a detailed needs analysis, design frameworks, pilot process and roll out. Training’s instructional design methodology follows a similar pattern. Marketing, on the other hand, with all the emerging channels and tools available to it, has been forced to adopt an experimental mid-set for customer-development. One where things are tried, learned from and improved. One where speed-to-market is increasingly seen as equally important as perfect-to-market. Today’s customers (read learners), it turns out, see “authentic” as more engaging than perfect.

But that’s next. Think lean start-up. Think lean learning.