It definitely worries me that he may be right ...
Hi, my name is Tony. I'm a numbskull.
Keywords: eLearning 2.0, Enterprise 2.0
Hi, my name is Tony. I'm a numbskull.
Enterprise IT (big systems like LMS, ERP, CRM with lots of workflow built in) and Network IT (free-form technologies like blogs, wikis, flickr, del.icio.us) provide solutions in almost precisely opposite ways. Enterprise IT is used by authorities to define new workflows, interdependencies, and decision rights up front, then impose them. Network IT creates egalitarian and free-form environments in which workflows are not specified and decision rights not allocated up front; they instead emerge over time to the extent required. ... Perhaps the most important difference between the two technology categories is that most workers welcome Network IT, and are hostile to Enterprise IT. The former give them new freedoms; the latter impose new constraints. The former let them collectively figure out how work will be done; the latter define it for them.
Very interesting post by Jakob Nielsen on how people scan your pages. It's what they call an "F pattern."
As an example look at:
Some comments from the article in terms of writing for the web:
If you think Learning Management Systems & e-Learning Solutions is heady stuff, take a look at ... (web 2.0 stuff)
I am becoming more and more convinced that at our best we are KNOWLEDGE
BROKERS. Our job is to get just the right amount of information from just
the right person who has it to just the right person who needs it. We do
that by supporting platforms that enable the connectivity of people, and
collaboration between people. We can craft simulations that simulate the
REAL work learners need to accomplish. We compress time with these sims
and offer many more “experiences” (quests) in a shorter amount of time: more
hypothetical problems to solve. We can encourage, and support users in
creating their own “stories” delivered via media such as audio (podcasts) or
He's saying something that I tend to agree with. What we spend most of our time doing is understanding the knowledge that people need to be successful and how we can provide it to them quickly and effectively. The information exists somewhere before we ever show up. But it's our job to pull it out and transform it into something useful. And, we shouldn't underestimate the value proposition in that ...
At the same time, I think we are often too hung up on the form of delivery of knowledge. I really believe that we fall prey to this far too often and need to challenge any choice of delivery.
To help spark some thoughts around this, take a look at:
"The era of mass media is giving way to one of personal and participatory media,
says Andreas Kluth. That will profoundly change both the media industry and
society as a whole"
supplant other communication and knowledge management systems with their superior ability to capture tacit knowledge, best practices and relevant experiences from throughout a company and make them readily available to more users.The discssion that has followed asks the really important question:
Will these tools really be adopted or is this going to be similar to other Knowledge Management efforts with lots of hype and poor results?
Adoption Rate = Perceived Usefulness (PU) * Perceive Ease of Use (PEOU)PU is “the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance” – software that is perceived to be useful gets adopted at higher rates.
"The good news is that the new technologies focus not on capturing knowledge itself, but rather on the practices and output of knowledge workers."
Things like del.icio.us bookmarks and Flickr picture uploading are driven by personal convenience and value (easily accessed bookmarks or a place to share pictures with friends and family).
The McKinsey article identifies three forms of work:
And, as we all have seen, the shift in corporations is towards more tacit work and that tacit work represents where the real value is (we optimize and automate away differences in transformational or transactional work). The McKinsey article points out:
This shift toward tacit interactions upends everything we know about
organizations . . . . the rise of the tacit workforce and the decline of the
transformational and transactional ones demand new thinking about the
organizations structures that could help companies make the best use of this
shifting blend of talent.
If this is where the real value can be built in organizations, then clearly training organizations should ensure that we are focusing our efforts on tacit work. But, I would claim that much of training aims at transactional work and some level of skill building towards tacit work. But relatively little of our dollars are spent on truly support and enabling tacit work.
Combine this with the fact that less training is going to be needed as we become better at Business Process Management Instead of Learning, and we see the fact that:
Training will be marginalized unless we become more focused on supporting and enabling tacit work.
Seattle Pacific University founded its computer-science department almost three decades ago, when the discipline was still going through growing pains. But this year might be the department's last. In its heyday during the 90s, the university -- a private Christian institution -- often had more than 125 computer-science majors. Now there are only 24, and none of this year's incoming freshmen indicated any interested in majoring in the field.
Last year's contest took place in Shanghai, and the local favorites from Shanghai Jiaotong University parlayed their home-field advantage into a narrow victory. The highest-ranking American squad finished a distant 17th, a disappointing showing that prompted experts to wonder if American programming was in serious decline.When I was speaking at an event recently, I commented on these trends. Someone asked a really interesting question...
Would I recommend to my own children to go into Computer Science when they
go to college in a few years?
Reinventing the intranet
Modern social software could be the key to building effective enterprise
We need agility and execution to be able to respond to the ever increasing pace of changeWhat is interesting about this is that there is a natural intersection going on in corporate IT solutions where there is a natural synergy between:
But because of this agile kind of environment where we will be able to more rapidly change processes, rules, applications, interfaces, decision support, the key barrier will remain our ability to support the understanding of the newly formed processes, what is needed, what will happen next, etc. That's right, the key lynchpin for all of this is:
This is already being done in these systems in some forms, but will rapidly grow so that the learning follows the process descriptions. This is what I believe Jay Cross and Tony O'Driscoll talk about with workflow learning, but a particular application of it.
It will be interesting to see how this moves forward.
I would very much invite your comments or pointers to related information.