Thinking like a Knowledge Worker

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:

1. Empiricism (observable facts)
2. Rationalism (thinking things through)
3. Constructivism (formulating new ideas)

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]

To-Learn Lists: September 2008 Learning Circuits Blog Big Question

This month's Big Question emerged from a short essay written by James Collins in LEARNING JOURNEYS Top Management Experts Share Hard-Earned Lessons on Becoming Great Mentors and Leaders (2000). The author wrote:

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]

--

Rapid E-learning: using the 80/20 rule to prioritize learning needs

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:

• reducing procedural mistakes
• identifying new customers
• influencing the behavior of others
• reducing error in products

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:

• Ensure that you have identified prioritized needs that rapid e-learning is best placed to address
• Use the 80/20 rule to guide your analysis of the prioritization of training
• Use the three-step approach (see Figure 1) to conduct rapid training needs analysis

1. Identify the full range of performance improvement opportunities
2. Establish criteria and rank accordingly with experts – concentrating your efforts on top 20%
3. Translate to objectives and seek approval

• Use rapid tools (check-lists) and rapid methods (phone, workshops, virtual classroom, surveys) to gather your data.

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.

--

Rapid E-Learning and the 80/20 Rule

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:

• Speed is king.
• Knowledge is exploding.
• Budgets are shrinking
• Classrooms are not scalable.
• Workplace learning is informal.
• People forget.
• Key knowledge is proprietary.

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]

--