links for 2008-05-04

• gethuman
  database of key presses to make when calling various 800/888 customer service numbers - helping to bypass the automated system and get right to a human.
  (tags: consumer resources tools phone VRU customer_service)

Free Comic Book Day - May 3

Get your geek on tomorrow (Saturday, May 3rd) with Free Comic Book Day.

Check out the details and to find a participating store near you.

links for 2008-04-30

• 10 Sure-Fire Tips to Becoming a Rapid E-learning Pro…Rapidly! - The Rapid eLearning Blog
  (tags: elearning rapid-development)

Common Craft at it again: Podcasting in Plain English

Common Craft’s latest offering … Check it out

Despite being around for years, podcasting is often misunderstood. This video is our way of building awareness and hopefully adoption of a technology that any computer user can use.

Mark your calendars: National hairball awareness day

April 27th … No - I’m not making it up. So, mark your calendars to celebrate.

Firewalling knowledge workers

From Ignatia Webs … AG08 breakfast bytes about managing knowledge, personal and team productivity …

One of the biggest problems in companies is the firewall if you want to work with social media. You need to ask permission and you seldom get it …

It’s not just the actual firewall in an organization, which is problem enough. (I understand and accept the need for security as well as protecting an organization’s brand …. It is the heavy-fisted, we’ll just block everything approach that is nonsense.)

I see much much more a firewall mentality - a way of thinking among managers and leaders that restricts learning and knowledge activities to inside-the-firm.  The learning activities outside of the firm’s firewall generally acknowledged are college-level courses; and that’s only if the courses are inherently applicable to one’s current position and work in the organization. I’m not just referring to whether the firm would reimburse me for the expense … I understand the requirement of applicability in those situations.  No … I mean that the fact some learning has indeed occurred outside the organization is not acknowledged, recognized, or cherished.

If I participate in a community of practice of learning technology professionals which is outside the firm … I get a “oh, that’s nice”

But participating in a CoP inside the company … and I get “good job!”

 

If I complete a series of training programs and courses that are all in the firm’s LMS, I’ll get recognized for taking initiative in my learning and following through in increasing my knowledge and skills.

But if I engage my personal learning environment  - perhaps through a Ning group or contributing to a wiki … even on the same set of topics … I get, “You still need to complete the courses.”

Never mind that those courses are horribly boring and their scenarios are irrelevant to me and my work. Things are trackable in the LMS and everything is kept in a nice, neat and inside-the-house report.

I’m wiling to bet that the best, most effective (and most interesting) learning has come from things read and done and people/groups on the other side of the firewall.

Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Management - Is there a difference?

“So, how is this different from knowledge management?”

As I discuss a knowledge transfer (KT) methodology it’s not a question that gets asked a whole lot; but when it is it tends to sidetrack the meeting or presentation.  The questioner is almost always someone who’s lived through the adoption of a knowledge management system in the recent past and is concerned that KT is merely a new name to an old failure. They, understandably, have a concern akin to, “Fool me once - shame on you. Fool me twice - shame on me.” They don’t want to be set up to fail yet again because KM has left a lingering bad taste in their organizational mouth.

I propose that there IS a difference between their experience of a classic KM tool or system and a knowledge transfer methodology today.

The classic KM approach was mostly about buying and deploying a single, massive, enterprise-wide system where everyone would just naturally see its value.  Folks would dive right in and input their information and knowledge and experience; and others would then quickly and efficiently search for this knowledge to use on their jobs.  But it never worked out that way.

Although a KM system was deployed, there was little if any change management … and there was precious little accountability in its use. Its value was not well presented; and even if value statements were promoted in the organization they were seen as hollow managerial platitudes.

In part, the problem was that KM had been viewed as an open-ended, one-size-fits-all approach (which does have an appeal to large organizations in that it gives the impression of unity and uniformity). 

Knowledge transfer, however, starts off with a different set of problems to tackle. Because it has a different starting point, it is handled differently … therefore KT is different from KM.

In my working with clients, knowledge transfer is more specific and tactical. Perhaps a function is being outsourced to a third-party vendor; or a function is moving from one geographic location to another onshore; or two or more functions are being consolidated.  Therefore, KT work is more project-oriented and focused on achieving a defined result - reducing cost, increasing efficiency, removing redundancy, and so on.

Knowledge transfer presumes that there is knowledge-holder, or originator/owner, and there is an end-user, or recipient of the knowledge. Whereas KM was rather generically applied across an organization and is systems oriented, KT is more tactical and person-to-person or group-to-group oriented. (Granted, there is a movement afoot of “KM 2.0,” which is not so much the classic KM approach but closer in nature to what I describe as knowledge transfer … that’ll be a subject for a different post, however).

There is an irony in this … in that a knowledge transfer process (at some point) should include a knowledge management stage. In other words, KM has to be rolled into KT in order for the knowledge to be successfully transferred, kept up-to-date and be searchable/retrievable by the intended recipients. 

It comes as no surprise to me (but apparently it is surprising to others) that KT and KM are not exclusive of each other … and KM is not to be dismissed as “old school” or useless. Okay - so, KM was not well implemented or managed when it first caught on as the next big thing. So what?!? It doesn’t mean that it itself is worthless. Indeed, KT without KM is no more effective or useful.

I’m pulling together a presentation on KT and KM - not so much on distinguishing their differences and similarities … but more about an understanding of how the two interact with and depend on each other …

links for 2008-04-20

• The Bamboo Project Blog: More Thoughts on Why Workplace Learning Is Largely Learning 1.0
  (h/t Tony Karrer) as a workplace learning person (instructional designer) this is of great importance and impact to me.
  (tags: web2.0 education learning technology elearning)
• The Bamboo Project Blog: Jane Hart’s Top 100 Tools for Learning: Looks Like Workplace Learning is Still Web 1.0
  (h/t Tony Karrer) will have to dig into these data … need to pull together a presentation soon and this will definitely help
  (tags: learning enterprise resources elearning web2.0)
• The Bamboo Project Blog: Seven Strategies for Supporting Personal Learning Environments at Work
  (h/t Tony Karrer) I’ve worked on what is a PLE with some of my colleagues. Now can use this to pull together a how-to-support.
  (tags: ple learning web2.0 elearning enterprise2.0)

Friday Fun: My body could feed 13 cannibals

Created by OnePlusYou

 

It’s always nice to know how to help …  

The offending section (that ticked off the consultant)

I posted about how I managed to tick off a consultant when I included a short section on a kind of what-is-knowledge …

Well, here is the offending writing … (keep in mind that this is only one page in a collection of learner materials for a classroom workshop) …

What Is Knowledge?

“Knowledge is a very difficult thing to define, but without some sense of the difference between information and knowledge, you run the risk of confusing the two and developing a confused approach to Knowledge Transfer that falls prey to hazards …

We have an intuitive sense that knowledge is broader, deeper, and richer than data or information. Knowledge is information plus something - meaning, action, organization, patterns of behavior or whatever …

Knowledge is information plus contexts of a variety of types.”

Reamy, T (2001, August 9). Knowledge Maps, An intellectual infrastructure for KM. InsideKnowledge, 5, Retrieved August 5, 2007.

 

Information

Knowledge

We have a document that is a procedure statement. It contains pieces of information like, “When you finish Step X, the next step is Y.”

There are a number of additional contexts through which this information becomes knowledge: * Historical: We used to do Y before X, but it led to all sorts of problems. * Applicability: This procedure only applies to customers with deposits totaling more than $100,000. * Personal: An associate has never read this procedure document before; therefore, does not know the sequence of steps. * Value: Following this procedure is important because if you do not, the company will be liable for up to $10 million in fines. * Relatedness: This procedure is similar to procedure P in the enterprise; but it differs in the following ways: L, M and N.

And then I included notes in the facilitator guide to guide the learners through some examples …

The entire point being that unless you delve into some of the contexts that make up a body of knowledge, then all you’re doing is collecting out-of-date, irrelevant and incomplete information. And that is a sure way to fail at Knowledge Transfer.

In which I tick off a consultant - (Knowledge Transfer)

Was called to work on another knowledge transfer project where the client is transitioning a series of functions from one office location to another. The people aren’t moving to the new location - just the function; and there is concern that there’s a bunch of knowledge that will just disappear as a result.

A consultant from another firm has been serving as the primary lead for this project team; and I have been assigned to develop workshop materials for learners on how to create a specific, practical Knowledge Transfer Plan. These learners have no knowledge on knowledge transfer yet they will eventually be accountable to ensure the transfer occurs as efficiently and effectively as possible.

One of the sections in the workshop is a short (5 minute, tops!) segment on the nature of knowledge as a collection of information assembled within contextual frameworks, which provide meaning to the intended recipient of that knowledge. And boy! was this consultant ticked off … and I wasn’t taking any prisoners on this one …

Consultant: What is this about? It’s too academic.

Me: It’s probably 5-minutes tops and only one and a half pages in the learner guide.

Consultant: But you don’t need to include this at all.

Me: So, they are required to create a knowledge transfer plan but they won’t have any idea on what knowledge is? That’s a sure way to set them up for failure.

Consultant: They’ll know because I’ll tell them.

Me: But you’re just doing the pilot. When you’re gone there’s no guarantee the message you give will stay the same in later versions. Remember the game of telephone?

Consultant: I don’t think it’s necessary.

Me: Based on what data so far? I mean, how do you know whether this information is or isn’t necessary?

Consultant: Because we have a knowledge transfer system that automatically prompts them.

Me: To do or think what? It’s an old knowledge management system that is dressed up with the word ‘transfer.’

(That’s when I crossed the line, I think)

 

But this thing gets me so mad … when other companies and consultants push their old, tired, worn out KM system or approach and just re-label it as knowledge transfer because that’s what’s in vogue right now.  Ya know … you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.

links for 2008-04-12

• How to Make Videos for Flickr From Your Photos
  (tags: flickr photos videos)
• Pencil - a traditional 2D animation software
  something that can help as I continue to explore the use of animation or comic strips in the design and development of eLearning programs
  (tags: applications animation opensource free elearning)
• Embiggen Those TinyURLs - Freshblog
  those tinyurl things are good for Twitter and the like, but sometimes I just want to see the full URL
  (tags: tools tinyurl)

Ah - the Future! Ooo Swish! (Fun Vid)

 

Third time the charm? What will Heroes be like this season?

From io9

Season three of Heroes will introduce two new characters, because the show isn’t overcrowded enough already: Joy, who’s in her early twenties and good at getting herself into, and out of, trouble. And Senator Robert Malden, a “political straight shooter” in his fifties

I was so into Season 1 … then Season 2 was a bit confusing, but maybe that was due to the writer’s strike in that they didn’t have good scripts that really tied it all the pieces together. (Gotta love that last scene last season with Syler having regained his powers!)

Here’s hoping that season three gets back to the delicious awesomeness of season 1.

Reflections & Experiences on in-house, out-house

From Clive Shepherd’s blog: In-house, out-house, that old question

He presents three basic options for learning development in an organization - move it all out, keep it all in, compromise with a small in-house group and use outside contractors where appropriate.

And I’ve lived through ALL three (and it’s still not over!). For years my group were working behind curtain #2 (the in-house crowd). Then only a few years ago, the company decided that the design and development of learning was not core to their business … and outsourced we were. Interestingly, my group was taken onboard by the outsourcing firm.

Now, the original company is reclaiming the learning design and development function. They want to have it back in-house, but with it looking more like what Clive writes about in the third option.

As we are going through this transition back to the original company, one of the conversations are about depth and breadth of knowledge and expertise. To what extent should a lil’ ol’ instructional designer like myself be experienced and expert, even, in programming or project management? Should we be specialists or generalists?

If we choose to specialize, then this could put serious limitations on the work to be done (”Sorry, we don’t have a designer who has capacity to work on your project right now.”)

If we choose to generalize we run the risk of “jack of all trades yet master of none” perhaps.

Individuals have been sharing their ideas and preferences; however, the company taking us back has yet to decide on their particular preference. More to follow I suppose.

Knowledge Transfer - Hearing about this a lot lately

A term that I’ve been hearing a lot more is knowledge transfer … have been for the last several months now. And I’ve had an opportunity to develop a knowledge transfer methodology for a client (which is one reason for my not blogging for such a long time).

Now with this project completed, I’ve been seeing this work being used by several different business units in my client’s organization - which was one of the intents in developing this methodology in the first place.

The methodology came from a need to be more efficient when transferring functions to an outsourcing partner. And now it is being used to consolidate departments along with transitioning business functions to other locations in the client organization.

One of the more interesting things (at least for me) is how the client has been looking at other companies that offer a knowledge transfer approach or knowledge transfer system - which is really a renamed and dressed-up knowledge management system. I guess that these other companies are looking to tap into this niche of knowledge transfer … but it seems to be more about just reselling KM systems as knowledge transfer. I suppose that organizations have a bit of bad taste in their mouths around knowledge management - having bought big and expensive systems that no one uses anymore. So, these companies are trying to reposition it as transfer rather than management. (You can dress up a pig … but it’s still a pig in the long run)

Is there a difference between KT (transfer) and KM (management) … I think so, based on this project’s work.

And over the next several days/weeks ahead I’m thinking of writing about my lil’ adventures into the KT world.

links for 2008-03-13

• Learning 2.0 eBook - Free | Mission to Learn
  (tags: learning2.0)

links for 2008-03-12

• Video: Twitter in Plain English | Common Craft - Explanations In Plain English
  (tags: commoncraft howto twitter video)

links for 2008-03-10

• 14 “OTHER” Ways to Use RSS Feeds | MakeUseOf.com
  some very neat stuff - put this in the “check all of these out”
  (tags: rss tools applications)

links for 2008-03-02

• Logic+Emotion: The Novelty Curve
  (tags: visualization)