The E-Learning Curve Blog has moved!
You will be automatically redirected to the new address in 10 seconds. If that does not occur for some reason, visit
http://michaelhanley.ie/elearningcurve/
and update your bookmarks.
Well, after (yet another) summer of soft days, rain, drizzle, rain, torrential downpours, rain, flooding (followed by rain) I've had enough, and I'm off to Italy for a fortnight; just enough time for me to miss the rain, then...
Ciao, and see y'all soon. Keep e-learning!
--
Somebody once said:
Although e-learning began as a new way to deliver training, it cannot remain that way because it is no longer able to adequately support all the learning needs of individuals and organizations by itself - if it every was. E-learning has moved in a new, somewhat unanticipated direction that is not always reminiscent of an instructional framework. To be more influential, e-learning must be reinvented. While continuing to provide a viable instructional option in a formal learning setting, it must also move toward informational and collaborative solutions that focus more prominently on the specific jobs people do. It must move beyond courseware and classrooms and into work. To reinvent e-learning is, in many ways, to reinvent learning itself.
(Marc J. Rosenberg, Beyond E-learning)
In essence, this means transforming learning, so that learning activities and resources are situated around
enabling learners to construct their own knowledge in the context of what resources they need to carry out their activities effectively.
David Jonassen says:
In constructivist learning environments, technologies are used to situate learning tasks in a variety of contexts. With video, very rich and engaging contexts can be created.
He asserts that in the traditional organizational approach that
[u]nfortunately, most e-learning replicates the worst features of face-to-face instruction. So, it may be cheaper to "deliver" knowledge over the Internet, but it will not be more effective.
In the context of organizational development and workplace learning, this is commonly known as the systems-based approach to instructional design & development (ISD). A system is a set of elements or components that must integrate to perform a specific function. Every job in an organization is used by the organizational ecosystem to produce a product or output. The product or output is the means by which a organization generates its assets and remains self-supporting. In theory, this leads to the creation of a virtuous circle of continuous growth and development.
In learning and development, this systems-based approach is epitomized by the 
ADDIE conceptual framework, most notably refined by Dick & Carey in The Systematic Design of Instruction (1996).
The ADDIE approach has been one of the core tenets of instructional design for the best part of two decades.
I think ADDIE is a myth.
And I'm not alone in reaching this conclusion. In his article In Search of the Elusive ADDIE Model (2003), Michael Molenda undertook a Livingstonian attempt to discover the source for the original reference to the ADDIE model. Molenda’s research uncovered no original reference for the ADDIE model. This lack of an original reference led Molenda to write,
I am satisfied at this point to conclude that the ADDIE Model is merely a colloquial term used to describe a systematic approach to instructional development, virtually synonymous with instructional systems development (ISD). The label seems not to have a single author, but rather to have evolved informally through oral tradition. There is no original, fully elaborated model, just an umbrella term that refers to a family of models that share a common underlying structure.
(p.1)
My view is that ADDIE emerged from the principles of project management, and resemble the philosophy and practice to this discipline's methodology more than a pedagogy. Treating learning like a project leads to "training outcomes" equivalent to project deliverables.
While these training deliverables may have value in and of themselves, they have limited value for learners in the longer term. We could even say that the training outputs are valid; some of the objectives of the learning intervention designed according to the precepts of ADDIE may be met but
Our field of educational communications is founded on the premise that communicating content to students will result in learning. In educational communications, information or intelligence (in many different forms) is encoded visually or verbally in the symbols systems employed by each technology. During the "instructional" process, learners perceive the messages encoded in the medium and sometimes "interact" with the technology. Interaction is normally operationalized in terms of student input to the technology, which triggers some form of answer judging and response from the technology in the form of some previously encoded (canned) message. Technologies as conveyors of information have been used for centuries to "teach" students by presenting prescribed information to them which they are obligated to "learn."
(Jonassen, 2001)
So, can we re-invent e-learning?
___________________
References:
Dick, W. & Carey, L. (1996). The Systematic Design of Instruction (4th Ed.). New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Exclusive Interview with Professor David Jonassen (2001) IN: elearningpost [Internet] Available from: http://www.elearningpost.com/articles/archives/
exclusive_interview_with_professor_david_jonassen [Accessed 12th January 2007]
Molenda, M. (2003). In Search of the Elusive ADDIE Model. [Internet] Available from: http://www.indiana.edu/~molpage/
In%20Search%20of%20Elusive%20ADDIE.pdf Accessed 12 May 2008
Rosenberg, M.J. (2001) What Lies Beyond E-Learning? learningcircuits.org e-zine [Internet] Available from: http://www.learningcircuits.org/2006/March/rosenberg.htm Accessed 14th April 2007
As I've discussed in the past, there's a whole constituency of e-learning courseware developers who, for either practical, philosophical, or even purely financial reasons have decided to create learning
content using open source and free-to-use courseware.
One of the tools I looked at in the past is an open source Integrated Development Environment for producing e-learning called Salasaga. According to the author it will be
a free, easy to use GUI authoring environment that helps you create visually impressive and actually useful learning material. The short term goal for this project is to provide such an environment, and we're well on the way to a first release for doing that.
Initially similar to Adobe Captivate, but will eventually incorporate an AJAX (browser based) playback capability for advanced content. Flash has at least one serious design limitation (from [his] POV) making it nearly useless for comprehensive e-learning, and this appears to be addressed by the existing capabilities of AJAX in browsers these days.
Today, I just received an e-mail from Justin Clift, the developer behind the IDE. He updated me on the latest developments with the tool; primarily that it's in Alpha 4 version at the moment, and that going to included in Ubuntu Intrepid. He's excited.
In my view, any tool or utility that enables a wider range of people to access e-learning, whether as learners, or as in this case through leveraging the means of production can only help the future growth of e-learning as a means of educating the widest possible group of people.
--
So I have a folder of my back-up HDD called Attic - you may have a similar - Archive, or My Stuff, or Guilty Secrets, for all I know. I make a point of occasionally going in to my Attic directory to have a root around among what's stored there and having a look through old folders and zip files with deliciously obscure names like toiltrouble.pdf, avalon.doc, or BladesDemo.exe that once meant something, and that I have now completely forgotten what they represent.
Opening one such document yesterday, I re-discovered a table that clearly illustrated the differences between the 20th Century and New Economies, and here it is.
Table 1 The Emergence of a New Economy
| Old Economy | New Economy |
| A Skill | Lifelong Learning |
| Labor vs. Management | Teams |
| Business vs. Environment | Encourage Growth |
| Security | Risk Taking |
| Monopolies | Competition |
| Job Preservation | Job Creation |
| Wages | Ownership, Options |
| Plant, Equipment | Intellectual Property |
| National | Global |
| Status Quo | Speed, Change |
| Standardization | Custom, Choice |
| Top-down | Distributed |
| Hierarchical | Networked |
| Regulation | Public/Private Partnerships |
| Zero Sum | Win-Win |
| Sues | Invests |
| Standing Still | Moving Ahead |
Source: John Doerr, Kleiner Perkins, Caufield & Byers
In my view John Doerr's chart should be printed, laminated and posted beside every learning & development professional's desk, so that they are constantly reminded of the value of the work they undertake, and the potential lifelong and work-based learning helps to realize in the development of individuals, and society-at-large.
That's all for today. Now, for your homework, reflect on the chart.
___________
References:
Doerr, J. The Emergence of a New Economy. Kleiner Perkins, Caufield & Byers.
--
Sad to see two of the great anchors of my youth gone today. Firstly - and this will mean nothing to you if you live outside Ireland or the UK and if you can't remember the culinary marvels of Bird's Angel Delight, fishfingers, beans, and chips on a Friday, and Tom Baker as Doctor Who - Grange Hill ("flippin' heck Tucker!" "Just say no, Zammo!" And so on) is no more.
--
Secondly - and more profoundly - musician Richard Wright from Pink Floyd died age 65 from cancer.
Wright appeared on the group's first album, The Piper at the Gates of Dawn, in 1967 alongside original songwriter Syd Barrett, Roger Waters on bass, and with Nick 'Top Gear' Mason, the drummer. Dave Gilmour joined the band at the start of 1968 while Barrett left the group shortly afterwards. In the early 'acid' days of 
Floyd, Wright was seen as a dominant musical figure in the band (though not as much of one as Syd Barrett, the band’s chief songwriter and front man at the time) - his keyboard style suiting the psychedelic zeitgeist of the late Sixties. While not credited as a singer on The Piper at the Gates of Dawn, he sang lead on Barrett-penned songs like Astronomy Domine and Matilda Mother, as well as notable harmonies on Scarecrow and Chapter 24. Examples of his early compositions include Remember a Day, and It Would Be So Nice. As the band's sound evolved, Wright became less interested in songwriting and focused primarily on contributing his distinctive style to extended instrumental compositions such as Interstellar Overdrive, A Saucerful of Secrets, Careful with that Axe, Eugene, One Of These Days and to film scores (More, Zabriskie Point and Obscured by Clouds). He also made essential contributions to Pink Floyd's long, epic compositions such as Atom Heart Mother, Echoes and Shine On You Crazy Diamond. His most commercially popular compositions are The Great Gig in the Sky and Us and Them from 1973's The Dark Side of the Moon. He also contributed significantly to other mid-period Floyd classics like "Breathe" and "Time".
Wright recorded his first solo project, Wet Dream, and released it in September 1978 with little fanfare. However, the album is regarded with some acclaim among Pink Floyd fans. Battling both personal problems and an increasingly rocky relationship with Roger Waters, he was forced to resign from Pink Floyd during The Wall sessions by Roger Waters, who threatened to pull the plug on the album's tapes if Wright did not leave the band. However, he was retained as a salaried session musician during the subsequent live concerts to promote that album in 1980 and 1981. In 1983, Pink Floyd released the only album on which Wright does not appear with The Final Cut.
There was this big personality clash between me and Roger, and at the end of the day I realised that I couldn't work with this person anyway - so I left.
The other band members also fell out with Waters, with Gilmour and Mason starting work on a new Pink Floyd album without him in 1986. Wright rejoined the group - minus Waters as they continued to record and tour as Pink Floyd. They made two more Pink Floyd albums - I was lucky enough to see them play in a rained-out RDS in Dublin on the 'Momentary Lapse of Reason' tour, and again on the 'Division Bell' tour in 1994.
He joined his former bandmates (with the exception of Barrett), one last time at Live 8 in Hyde Park in 2005.
With Wright's passing, a hugely important chapter in my personal narrative has ended.
RIP
--
I'll start this post by issuing a mixed metaphor alert: 
today, we're going to talk about an elephant in the room, which also happens to be an 800lb gorilla.
Intrigued? Now read on...
Back in February this year, I wrote the first of my occasional series on Recession and the challenge to e-learning; in that first piece, I concluded by suggesting that
in the era of $100 a barrel oil and the value of virtual classrooms; the ROI of e-learning as opposed to traditional methods; even the impact of traditional ways of teaching on the environment ("e-learning" becomes "eco-learning" anyone?).
Based on an announcement made last Thursday 10th September 2008, I can now assert that we are beginning to see that there is validity in this conclusion. Based on the level of investment one e-learning enterprise has committed to developing the industry in the medium- to long term, the market in now in a place to support the proposition that the ROI on e-learning makes sense, and generates profit.
E-learning giant Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH) – formerly known as Riverdeep – is to create 450 jobs at a new R&D headquarters in Dublin. Riverdeep had its origins in Dublin in 1995 and under the leadership of Barry O’Callaghan became a global name in the e-learning K-12 market space. As an educational publisher, HMH has over 100,000 customers, generating approximately US$2.5bn in annual revenues, profits in the region of US$1bn, and 50 per cent market share of the US K-12 market, the world’s largest education market.
HMH is to establish its global e-learning R&D centre in the greater Dublin area, creating 450 "high-value" jobs over the next five years.
Fiona O’Carroll, senior vice-president, Digital Products R&D at HMH confirmed the Irish Government’s vision to create a knowledge economy by investing in people, research and innovation was a key factor in the company’s decision.
The new R&D centre will be a focal point for e-learning and educational innovation. Employees, partner companies and collaborating universities will be attracted by the quality of research, people, innovation and commercialisation activity in the centre.
The Centre will involve establishing a globally networked team in Ireland with team members and innovation partners based in the US and around the globe. The company said these jobs should be very attractive to seasoned technology professionals, engineering and technology graduates, highly creative thinkers and innovators in the e-learning space.
As I've said in the past, Ireland has a vibrant technology and knowledge-based industrial economy, and one of the domains we excel in, is in e-learning - I guess most people in the industry have heard of SmartForce and Electric Paper, for example. These large companies notwithstanding, there are over fifty 'other' e-learning development houses in the country. Not bad for a country with a population of under 5 million people.
In my view, this investment will prove to be a game-changer. As it is, you could say that HMH are the only game in (e-learning) town - if they manage the innovations and outputs afforded by this R&D centre correctly, HMH will grow to become the Google of e-learning. Indeed, the Google approach (especially the famed "20 per cent time") is a perfect model for any knowledge-based organization that wants to stimulate growth through innovative new products invented and developed by their own subject matter experts. Similarly, this R&D centre will provide the organization with the potential benefits of having an audience for life: if HMH products have the skill and facility to instil the joy of learning in the kids that they currently provide e-learning solutions for, they will have an audience for life, given that these Digital Natives (click on the link for Marc Prensky's seminal article) will grow up associating the brand with discovering knowledge and the fun of learning. In essence, we can say that the company has the potential to mould a whole generation of learners, which is an extraordinary business opportunity, but also a huge responsibility.
Do I now hear the distant trumpet of an approaching elephant?
I do...
Just an observation really. Rumours of this investment have on the jungle telegraph here in Ireland for some time now, and I was originally going to post on this topic last Thursday (the day of the announcement).
An African elephant (sans room)
I held back, because I wanted to see what reaction would come for the Irish L&D and e-learning blogosphere. I'm disappointed to say that no-one has posted a reaction to the largest investment in their industry, ever.
I'm sure people are still formulating their thoughts - I for one want to read how others in the e-learning industry here in Ireland are responding to this investment.
_____________
References:
HMH to Create 450 Jobs and Base Global R&D Headquarters in Dublin. Enterprise Ireland Press Release. [Internet] Available from: http://www.enterprise-ireland.com/eicms/interiorpage.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRORIGINALURL=%2FNews%2FPress%2BReleases%2F2008%2FPressSep102008.htm&NRNODEGUID={077DB63F-4925-4D96-BEB3-364BF11C8EB1}&NRCACHEHINT=Guest
[Accessed 10th September 2008]
Ireland wins €350m HMH deal after tough worldwide battle. Irish Independent. [Internet] Available from: http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/ireland-wins-8364350m-hmh-deal--after-tough-worldwide-battle-1473370.html
[Accessed 10th September 2008]
--
The goal behind this series of posts about knowledge working and knowledge workers is to understand something of the audience that most of the efforts of organizational learning and development professionals are targeted at; the knowledge workers (KWs) themselves. Today, I'm will wrap up the series by concluding my analysis of the William P. Sheridan's How to Think like a Knowledge Worker (2008).
I believe that knowledge working is intimately bound within the organizational context: knowledge workers use their skills and experience to innovate solutions to real-world problems. One of the primary conditions of knowledge working is the social aspect – knowledge workers typically collaborate with their peers, whether they are individuals with similar skill assets, such as application development teams working in an agile software development environment, or in project teams which require knowledge workers from different disciplines (technical architects, business analysts, and product consultants, for example) to cooperate in the implementation of the solutions on a customer site.
In this context, Sheridan uses the Human Knowledge MindMap (see Figure 1. to converge the skills and knowledge of domain experts to look at the internal processes a knowledge worker uses to codify and utilize information in a fashion to what Donald Schon calls reflection-in-action.
We can say that the purpose of the mindmap is to enable KWs to "think effectively" (p.13). Most peoples’ thinking, is not clear, focused, or systematic enough to perform knowledge work competently. The purpose of the Human Knowledge MindMap is one approach that enables users to do this. Whether during learning, or on a job, effective thinking consists of a set of components as characterized in the mindmap.
Table 1 Knowledge worker thought processes
Sheridan suggests that to carry out this activity, the worker should do the following:
Then proceed with the following steps:
________________
References:
Sheridan, W.P. How to Think like a Knowledge Worker:A guide to the mindset needed to perform competent knowledge work. United Nations Public Administration Network, New York. [Internet] Available from: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/unpan/unpan031277.pdf [Accessed 24 August 2008]
Back in August I reviewed an application called Cooliris (formerly PicLens). In concluding my review, I said that
...this tool is exciting, [and] exhibits great potential, but needs a little work to get it past the finish line. Having said that, I can easily see it being a common part of the web experience in time to come, particularly if the developers can sustain the "fun factor" supplied by navigating through content in this environment.
I'm pleased to say that since then Cooliris has moved forward. 
While updating my Foxmarks today, what should I see on their (Foxmarks') homepage but the self-same Cooliris, under their 'Other add-ons we like' category. If you'd like to try the application for yourself, click here to go to their website.
In my view it's great that there are fun educational applications available; when confronted with the task of providing learning and development services for the organizations and institutions that we're involved with, it's sometimes easy to forget that above all else, learning should be a rewarding experience for everyone.
So well done to PicLens and maintain the development effort guys!
--
Return again to a topic I looked at recently, here's some insights to thinking like a knowledge worker I discovered while undertaking my research on the subject. The concepts explored here are investigated in much more depth in a paper called How to Think like a Knowledge Worker by William P. Sheridan. I'd love to go into the level of detail that the author does, but to invoke the spirit of Star Trek's Dr. McCoy "For God's sake Jim, - I'm a blog, not a research paper."
"I'm a Doctor, not a blog..."
Moving on...
In his paper, Sheridan asserts that
Knowledge consists of concepts available to process information and guide action. Knowledge Management refers to "smart use of know-how." In a knowledge economy more and more tasks involved "think work."Thinking involves the separation of relevant information from irrelevant information. Therefore, "think work" is a component of "knowledge work," specifically the information processing part - the other part is just the "informed action" part.
(2008 p.5)
The author asserts that by assembling a "Human Knowledge Mindmap" (see Figure 1) we can develop a method to ensure the quality of knowledge worker outputs. He cites the example of W. Edwards Deming's methodology for quality control in industrial economies being "shunned" in the US, but being a key component in the growth of the Japanese automobile industry in the middle- to late 20th century as an example of how ignoring such approaches is done at organization's peril.
The central ideas of Sheridan's approach are Conceptual Pragmatism and Cognitive Economy.
If your question is "How do I know?" then [your answer] will involve some combination of empiricism, rationalism and constructivism. Such cognitive amalgamations do what makes "knowing" possible.
(p.9)
Figure 1. Human Knowledge Mindmap (after Sheridan)
We can say that there are three factors that characterize knowledge:
While we all undertake all three of these approaches, most people emphasize one of the trio; these "habits of emphasis" lead to partial or at best inadequate learning and knowing.
More...
________________
References:
Sheridan, W.P. How to Think like a Knowledge Worker:A guide to the mindset needed to perform competent knowledge work. United Nations Public Administration Network, New York. [Internet] Available from: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/unpan/unpan031277.pdf [Accessed 24 August 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:
how you work with that list, that would likely be helpful information. 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]
--
Today's post concludes my short review of Kineo's 80/20 approach to rapid learning content prioritization and development.
Previously, I considered how the 80/20 Rule could be applied to e-learning, and suggested that Juran's Axiom of "the vital few and the trivial many" meant that we could say 80 percent of learning results originate from 20 percent of inputs for any activity or process. For example, 80 percent of an organization sales come from 20 percent of customers, or 80 percent of performance in an organisation is attributable to 20 percent of workers.
In the learning domain, this rule can be applied to the process of training prioritization. In organizations the purpose of learning and development is to improve worker performance. There are many ways and opportunities for employees to improve their performance:
Effective training should focus on providing what’s necessary to enable people to improve performance. However, the 80/20 rule suggests that not all performance improvement opportunities merit the same focus. Rather it suggests that 20% of opportunities, if addressed 80% of the total potential value of a training solution (assuming the ‘perfect’ solution will address 100% of opportunities completely. Focusing training efforts on that top 20% is a far more efficient model than attempting to cover the remaining 80%. For rapid e-learning with a relatively short duration, having this focus is critical.
In this context, Kineo recommend a value-driven model for identifying and prioritising opportunities for rapid e-learning to influence performance that will contribute the most to organizational performance.
According to Stephen Walsh from Kineo, this process has a number of key activities:
Figure 1. Value-driven model for rapid training needs prioritisation (courtesy Kineo)
For a more detailed look at this approach, go to Kineo's website, or download the Rapid Guide on How to Rapidly Identify Training Needs.
--
You'll know if you're a regular reader of The E-Learning Curve Blog that I have discussed the usage of the Pareto Principle (also known as the 80/20 Rule) in previous blog posts. Elsewhere in the e-learning blogosphere, Tony Karrer at the eLearning Technology blog has also discussed what he calls the "Corporate Learning Long Tail" in some depth.
Over the weekend, I encountered a very useful paper describing a practical application of the 80/20 rule (though not, as we'll see, the Pareto Principle).
Now read on...
My experience of the e-learning industry is that the best and most effective practitioners are always looking for even more efficient content development methodologies, media production technologies, and approaches to content distribution to enable them to design, develop and deliver content to learners. In this regard, British e-learning development house Kineo always seem to have something interesting to say about the potential uses - and value - of Rapid E-learning, and one particular piece published in this month's 
Newsletter struck me as being particularly useful. In the article How to Rapidly Identify Training Needs Stephen Walsh discusses a strategy to pinpoint and prioritize training needs - "rapidly of course."
The value of any learning intervention is the change it achieves. If you know where the business challenge is, and you can pinpoint how learning can change behaviour, correct costly errors, and improve performance at the right time, you're setting yourself up for laser-accurate learning.
In his seminal article Rapid E-learning: Disintermediate or die! Ted Cocheu asserts that:
Learning is rapidly changing from today’s hierarchically-driven, curriculum-based training process where instructional designers and trainers intervene to transform subject matter knowledge into courseware, into a “flattened” world where experts transfer their knowledge more directly to those who need it. In this brave new flattened learning world, training professionals will focus more time on capturing and transferring expert knowledge than developing formal courses.
To support these changes in the design, development, and delivery of content, a number of factors need to be considered:
Rapid E-learning "changes the development model, leverages new tools, and dramatically changes the economics of content development" (p.2). By focusing on specific learning needs, e-learning developers can generate a much higher return on investment in training when compared to content designed using a more traditional ISD-based approach.
The methodology suggested by Kineo is designed to assist learning professionals identify and prioritize learning needs that are appropriate for rapid e-learning in organizations using a "value-based analysis."
This will get you to the outcome that a more detailed training needs would, but in a fraction of the time, by focusing specifically on the greatest points of pain and potential to add value. Identifying those key points means taking an 80/20 approach to needs analysis.
The Kineo interpretation of the Pareto Principle is based upon Dr. Joseph M. Juran's pioneering work in Quality Management in the 1930s and '40s. He "reduced to writing" his generally applicable observation (which I suggest that we should really call Juran's Axiom) of the relative importance of the "vital few and trivial many." Juran observed that in any activity or set of tasks, a few (20 percent) of the functions are vital, and many (80 percent) are trivial. However, as he stated in his 1975 article The Non-Pareto Principle; Mea Culpa he "...mistakenly applied the wrong name to the principle." In Pareto's case it meant one-fifth of the people owned four-fifth's of the wealth. In Juran's research for the US Government, he identified 20% of defects in a production process causing 80% of the quality issues. Project Managers know that 20 percent of the work (the first 10 percent and the last 10 percent) consume 80 percent of time and resources. Extending from this, Juran asserted that the 80/20 Rule could be generalized, from the science of management to the physical world, and indeed to learning and development processes.
In this context, 20 percent of learning interventions, if properly identified, should address 80 percent of the learning needs of an organization, and 80 percent total potential value of a training solution (assuming the ‘perfect’ solution will address 100% of learning.
Focusing training efforts on that top 20% is a far more efficient model than attempting to cover the remaining 80%. For rapid e-learning with a relatively short duration, having this focus is critical.
(How to Rapidly Identify Training Needs p.2)
As such, implementing a value-driven model based on the 80/20 Rule for identifying and prioritizing learning interventions can be a highly effective means to enhance worker performance in an organization.
More..
References:
Cocheau, T. (2005) Rapid eLearning: Disintermediate or Die! [Internet] Available from: http://ww.elearningforum.com/downloads/rapid_elearning.doc [Accessed 15th May 2006]
Juran, J.M. (1975) The Non-Pareto Principle; Mea Culpa [Internet] Available from: http://www.projectsmart.co.uk/docs/the-non-pareto-principle.pdf [Accessed 30 August 2008]
Walsh, S. (2008) How to Rapidly Identify Training Needs [Internet] Available from: http://www.kineo.com/documents/Kineo_Rapid_Guide_Identify_Needs.pdf [Accessed 30 August 2008]
--
