Maximizing ROI

For Highest ROI, Stay Above ‘The Line’
Findings #2 and 3 give clear guidance about how to achieve higher job competence and, thereby, the highest return on our learning investments. The point in the ROI graph below at which the curves for the declining value of formal learning methods and and the increasing value of informal learning methods intersect identifies a key ‘learning maturity’ milestone. This is the point at which the return on further investments in formal learning diminishes and further investements in informal learning methods really makes sense. At this theoretical cross-over point, a worker has developed his or her foundation knowledge and skills and possesses the cognitive framework needed to effectively assimilate and apply new knowledge independently. Drawing a horizontal line through this point shows where investments in learning will bring the highest return. The highest returns will be obtained from investments made above the line, with below the line investments being made selectively.


Highest Return on Investment


Target Formal Learning for Less Competent Workers.
Investments in formal learning methods should be targeted primarily for less competent, presumably newer, workers. These would include investments in instructor-led training, e-learning courseware, etc. This approach will provide these workers with needed foundation knowledge and skills. Additional investments in formal learning beyond the point of learning maturity should be made selectively, since more competent workers will, generally, not benefit proportionately from these methods.

Target Informal Learning for More Competent Workers.
Investments made to facilitate informal learning should be targeted primarily for more competent, presumably more experienced, workers. Competent workers will benefit disproportionately from investments made to build the social and technical knowledge-transfer infrastructure of an organization. Supporting the establishment and operation of strategically focused communities of practice and expert knowledge repositories will help more competent workers build on their existing capabilities to acquire the knowledge updates needed in a rapidly changing world. Conversely, investments made below the line for informal learning for less competent workers should be limited to methods that are specifically appropriate for them, like new-hire mentoring programs.

Summary
So, which school of thought is right--those who think that all learning must be instructionally designed or those who believe that facilitating informal learning is the only viable approach? Both are right and both are wrong because both approaches are vitally needed. We just need to make sure we use the most appropriate methods available to provide people with the learning resources they require based on their level of learning maturity. And, happily, helping people learn in the ways that are most useful to them will also support the business outcomes we desire and give us the highest returns on our learning investments.

p.s. I added a missing graph and made a few minor corrections to the previous post.

Findings from NSF Study

Sorry for the recent hiatus--I went fishing for a week and then there was a Blogger technical problem, but I'm getting back on track...

The formal vs. informal learning debate seems a little silly at times, since both are needed. At one end of the spectrum are instructional designers who insist that formal learning methods are the only valid ones. At the other extreme is the recent ‘workflow learning’ crowd that insists that trying to design courseware to effectively deal with today’s accelerating information overload is a fool’s errand. So, which approach is right? Apparently, they are both right and both wrong. The point is that they are two approaches to learning that are both mjore and less appropriate under different circumstances.

Preliminary results from a recent National Science Foundation-funded research project give us some simple, but very powerful insights about the kinds of relationships formal and informal learning methods have with business outcomes and how to optimize an organization’s learning delivery system to achieve the highest ROI. The group studied was a large group of technical account reps within a global hi-tech company.

Finding #1
Job competence of sales engineers demonstrated a statistically significant positive correlation with customer satisfaction. Job competence was measured by manager-validated self-assessments and customer satisfaction was measured through a company-wide customer survey program. Organizational units with higher mean job competence ratings also had higher customer satisfaction ratings. Since learning professionals cannot impact customer satisfaction directly, any meaningful ROI assessment must first demonstrate that it is correlated with job competence. If competence is positively related to customer satisfaction, and learning methods can be demonstrated to correlate with competence, then a value chain from learning to business outcomes can be inferred. So the first step was to statistically validate what we would intuitively believe--that higher competence leads to improved business outcomes, in this case higher customer satisfaction.

Finding #2
The extent of participation in formal learning demonstrated a statistically significant negative correlation with job competence. Yes, you read this correctly—a negative correlation! (See the Correlations graph below.) Does that mean that the more workers are engaged in training, the less competent they become? The more likely explanation is one that we intuitively understand from our own experiences. Less competent workers need to develop baseline knowledge and skills and, therefore, engage relatively more often in formal learning experiences. More competent workers, by definition, have already developed that foundation and, therefore, take relatively fewer classes. They're the ones who probably teach the classes or transfer their subject matter knowledge to others to develop and teach the classes!

Finding #3
Informal learning methods demonstrated a statistically positive correlation with job competence. (See the Correlations graph below.) In this case, informal learning methods included a well organized ‘communities of practice’ program supported by extensive, expert knowledge capture and retrieval processes and technologies. Does this mean that informal methods are more effective than formal ones? Again, a more likely explanation exists. Less competent workers do not have the cognitive framework needed to effectively assimilate new knowledge independently, and therefore, utilize informal methods relatively less. More competent workers, who have developed the needed cognitive framework, seek to enhance their existing understanding as things constantly change by using informal learning methods more frequently.

Finally, A Definition

OK, on with a more complete definition. Rapid eLearning (as in all learning) involves at least two parts or aspects: capture and accessibility. Although not nearly as succinct as I would like, here’s my definition of Rapid eLearning at this point--or at least a list of distinguishing attributes.

Part #1—Capture:

• The goal of Rapid eLearning is to keep people knowledgeable in a fast-changing world.
• It is best suited for updating a person's exisitng knowledge in the midst of quickly changing conditions.
• The strategy for accomplishing the goal is to disintermediate the transfer of knowledge from experts to learners—to create the shortest path from experts to learners.
• The methods for implementing that strategy normally involve electronically capturing (recording) and transferring expert knowledge directly for synchronous and/or asynchronous access.
• Synchronous tools include everything from webcasting (live audio/video streaming) and web conferencing (like WebEx, Live Meeting, etc.), to tools with more robust learning-oriented functions (from companies like Centra, Interwise, and Macromedia).
• Asynchronous access options range from self-production tools (from companies like Articulate and Accordant) to complete enterprise solutions (from companies like Altus Learning Systems).

Part “2—Accessibility:

• The other goal of Rapid eLearning is to make knowledge easily accessible so people can find exactly what they need, when they need it.
• A key accessibility factor in a viable Rapid eLearning solution is searchability. Level 1 searchability involves keyword and metadata-based methods. Level 2 searchability is more comprehensive and involves full-text search.
• Raid eLearning ideally provides granular, point-of-interest access to exactly the specific content needed (not just the file level, but the subtopic level).
• An emerging accessibility method that is beginning to gain traction in enterprise learning is subscription (such as RSS)—the ability to subscribe directly to sites with exactly the content a specific learner is interested in or needs to know about.

More Rapid eLearning Confusion

In Dianne Archibald’s recent article, “Rapid E-Learning: A Growing Trend,” she states:

“The definition of rapid e-learning differs among experts, but generally it’s considered to be e-learning that can be developed quickly and inexpensively. REL uses tools and processes that decrease development time (and costs) dramatically.”

Who could argue with that? Faster for many kinds and training and many situations is a necessary (if, for some, not a completely desirable) thing. Although Diane does an excellent job in her article in manways, and I recommend it highly, it is also an good example of the fundamental and pervasive confusion on the subject.

Diane mentions the term “courseware” fourteen times in her brief article. Clearly for her, Rapid eLearning is a way of creating “courseware” more quickly. And Diane is not a lone in this interpretation—doing what we have done before as trainers, instructional design, but doing it more quickly. And there’s the rub. According to this interpretation: on-line courseware = Rapid eLearning; courseware = training (eTraining); therefore, Rapid eLearning supposedly = Rapid eTraining. There’s nothing wrong with Rapid eTraining—it’s desperately needed. So, to avoid confusion in the future, let’s all agree to use the term Rapid eTraining when we are referring to methods and tools for rapid courseware development.

Rapid eLearning, on the other hand, is actually about learning—not courseware development. There are many ways to help people quickly learn what they need to know. Building courses more quickly may be one of them, but that’s not the essence of Rapid eLearning. The essence of Rapid eLearning is creating the shortest path between those who have knowledge and those who need it. It’s about disintermediating the process of transferring knowledge, not intermediating it more quickly. Rapid eLearning is about transferring time-critical knowledge as quickly, easily, and as cheaply as possible--it’s not about courses. The essence of rapid eLearning is subject matter knowledge—not instructional design.

Diane says, presumably for the benefit of those who are resisting Rapid eLearning because may compromise the integrity of instructional design: “By blending REL with other forms of training, it may be considered a part of a valid e-learning solution…” But, the preferred recipe should be: “The optimal eLearning solution is achieved by blending various forms of training (including eTraining), which provide foundation knowledge and skills, with Rapid eLearning, which keeps people knowledgeable in a fast-changing world.

For the term Rapid eLearning to be meaningful, it's not just about doing things differently--it's about doing different things. Let's focus not on courseware--let's focus on learning.