Learning got stuck in itself...

Lately, a few independent 'things' seem all to move in the same direction : the direction of exploring better business models for the learning industry. My CCL colleague Nick has blogged 'why a lot of training doesn't work' and is in the midst of writing a paper on how to implement his ideas of future learning development. One of his frustrations is how we can tolerate that so little of what we train gets transferred into work. Is the training room the best design for that? Last week I co-facilitated a follow-up call on the learning scenarios work that started at last year's Online Educa Berlin and the questions were all derived from the book "Business Model Generation". I actually have a signed copy of that book ever since I heard and saw Alex Osterwalder speak at the World Creativity Forum (you don't need a business strategy, you need a business model.) Then there is the continuous stream of blog posts on what is wrong with education and the corporate universities that mimic it, while at the same time there are so many articles on new learning formats going on as well...  Still the flipping point doesn't seem to be in reach for learning... Could it be that the only thing we really need right now is the proper business models for learning?

Here is the summary:

• The current learning model once seemed to work...   
• But the world changed, and the mainstream way to learn didn't...
• We know where we are going...
• Many new learning formats have actually risen in the last decade...
• Yet it doesn't seem disruptive enough or go fast enough...
• Could it be that we have all elements in place now, but what we really lack is the proper business model?

Hang on to your horses, this might be a long post, especially if you will explore all the links I'm throwing in.

The current learning model once seemed to work

In the golden age of corporate training and the days of the Organisation Man, the world was predictable, people used a diploma as an entry ticket for a lifelong job, and got all the learning they needed along the career path from their employer. Corporations copied the learning model of universities : lectures in classrooms away from work by experts and often on a corporate campus, followed by some practice and a course attendance certificate. It worked. Past performance was a predictor of future performance, everyone needed the same skills because they did the exact same job, and the learning need was mainly know-how: knowing how to perform. A lot of the current 'modern' practices in talent management can actually be traced back to the military's experience in 'education' soldiers for WWII. (You can read more about that in the excellent book Talent On Demand). But the 'lecture' format is of course much older and traces back to early universities. Classroom lectures have their pros and cons as every other learning method, but they did provide the massive learning needed in the dawn of the industrial age when a massive skilled workforce was required and when for the first time in history we saw the rise of mass education. A lot of our educational system stills shows its roots of the industrial age, eg the graduation year is used as a batch number as Ken Robinson explains in a TED talk.

The point is that the currently still mainstream learning business model once made a lot more sense then it does now: it was build for another time. As any system grows over time, it becomes 'stuck in itself', and unable to change from within.






But the world changed, and the mainstream way to learn didn't...

Then the Internet happened. The world became smaller, flatter, faster, spikier and ultimately more blurry. This had a profound effect on many established businesses; just think of the encyclopedia industry, music industry, the publishing industry, film industry, healthcare, etc... These industries also had established business models and entire ecosystems that were 'stuck in themselves'. But with trial and error, one by one these industries got flipped around and now operate in entirely new ways... This kind of destructive innovation creates new winners and overthrows established names.

Learning to date still operates mainly among the old models, it hasn't flipped (yet). It still focuses mainly on knowledge content (which changes fast and is available on the Internet anyway), is facilitated by paid experts, away from actual work. Yes we automated parts of the learning process via the good ol' learning Management system so we now actually know whodunnit, and at what cost. Yes, there is an ever rise in e-learning, albeit often as 'plan B', because plan A got cancelled in one of the recent crisis cuts. Yes, we discovered as an industry that we neglected 80% of learning  (informal learning). Yes we have mobiles in our pockets. But the mainstream corporate learning is still the same at its core, it just spread its tentacles in more directions. In fact, while more and more industries see the flipping point coming when 'digital becomes the new normal' and new market dynamics arise, the education and corporate learning systems seem to be lagging far behind. Watch Peter Hinssen in his TEDxBrussels talk on 'may the flip be on your side'. The talk is about the halfway point of healthcare, but you can substitute 'healthcare' with 'education' and get the same story...




We know where we are going...

As a rule in the learning world: we never fully agree on anything. Yet, if you attended any learning conference in the past years, or read a few magazines and blog posts you'll see that we all more or less agree on where we're going. There are things stuck, wrong and/or broker with what we currently do. It's not that we don't see that. We know we have an issue with learning transfer and proving the impact of learning interventions for example. We know that people expect their learning in less time, at less cost. We know that people actually learn from repeated content and practice, but we still organize ourselves around one-time events. We come to understand much more about our brain, but in the words of John Medina in his excellent book 'Brain Rules':

"If we were to design a learning environment that is directly opposed to the fundamental wiring of our brains, we will design a classroom and then design a cubicle!"

Below is 'the learning mixer' from Jay Cross' blog from 2007. We know that we will move the sliders more to shorter, work-embedded, pulled, ... learning.

Here are a few hints of where we're going:

• Less 'one size fits all' toward more 'personalized'
• Less 'push' and more 'pull'
• Less 'HR and manager dictates' and more 'learners in the driving seat'
• Less 'classroom away from work' toward more 'work embedded learning'
• Shorter, to the point learning nuggets spread over a learning process time that is in line with the time needed for change (eg skill change can be fast, behavior change takes year(s))
• Agile and continuous rather than reactive and episodic
• Less 'knowledge' and more 'actionable' learning
• Less 'in the classroom' toward 'everywhere'
• Less 'learn this' toward more 'learning to learn'
• Less 'formal' toward more 'informal/social' learning
• Less 'managed' and more 'connected'
• ...

Watch Clive Shepherd's presentation on transforming learning and development, it gives a good summary:





Many new learning formats have actually risen in the last decade...

We don't just know. We also do. We unleashed a lot of new pedagogic approaches (often embedded in new technology). We revolutionized learning, at least in small quantities. There are plenty of tools, experiments, success stories, disruptive changes, etc out there.

I'm just going to name a few examples here. Over the past years, Khan Academy became a phenomena in the educational space. There are now over 3000 short but qualitative videos on there from subjects ranging from algebra to explaining the current economic crisis. There is other open source educational material too. Last year, I joined a MOOC  (Massive Open Online Course) for the experience and this year I'm lurking in the big Change MOOC. On the platform Coursera you can join up for free courses given by expert professors in the field - I tried out the first episodes of the Model Thinking course for example. Very insightful. I've also joined the just started course 'Venture Class' by Chuck Eesley. You may have been tempted like me and 420000 other people at the start of the year to sign up for 'the year of coding'. Years ago prof Mithra scaled learning to Indian rural areas with his 'hole in the wall' project. You probably heard of the flipped classroom or maybe are against the whole idea. Just last weeked I blogged about a cool learning web app QStream, and I'm experimenting with lots more such as Vyew.com, curatr.com,  quantified self tools, etc  (don't worry, I'll tell you about them on my blog over the next months). There's so much exiting stuff going on in learning land...

Watch this TEDxGlasgow talk by Donald Clark with the title 'More pedagogic change in the last 10 years than in the last 1000 years'.






Yet it doesn't seem disruptive enough or go fast enough...

Yet... where do we stand compared to where we potentially can stand? What's holding us back?
The best illustration of this 'divide' between what we know we should do for learning, and what we offer as an industry came in the form of Steve Wheeler's "Upstairs Downstairs" review of the 2011 Learning Technologies conference in London in which he contrasts the agenda of learning practitioners in the upstairs speaking room with the same-old-same-old talks of the vendors in their booths downstairs.

When I'm putting myself bluntly in the head of a vendor's: they are stuck in their business model, and unless they'll move to a new model that will generate them money they have no incentive to move, at least not before others do. Let's face it: the revenue generator by far in our industry is 'face time' with an expert (speaker, facilitator, trainer, ...), our companies procure training as 'events' (and thus we get events), we don't hold learners or even the training department accountable for business results (because that is the yardstick of the business itself, training thus becomes about satisfaction or 'dog food' model as Clive calls it), when we ask people what they really want they say 'course', some countries have legislation in place to give people x hours of class a year, ...  the whole learning ecosystem is stuck in itself.

Many cry for a revolution (tear down the school and training departments!). What will be the spark?
See George Siemens's slides below where he claims that we are not disruptive enough yet. Yes, we disrupted on how we deliver content. There's more disruptions, and they are really transformative... BUT... is it because we have a disruptive technology available that it will happen?

Edgex Disruption

View more PowerPoint from gsiemens

Could it be that we have all elements in place now, but what we really lack is the proper business model?

As I said in the beginning : any system that starts innovative and new grows into legacy over time, and only a few manager to change and adapt from within. We know were learning is logically headed, and we have plenty of experience and tools in place by now. Could it be that all we are lacking now is a disruptive business model? The overhaul of the music industry did not happen because Apple made a cool device alone, it happened because Apple drafted an entire new business model around it(self). What do business models for future learning look like?

For an introduction to business models, read the book and visit the site 'Business Model Generation', or at least watch the introductory clip here:



The 9 building blocks on the business model canvas (creative commons license) allow you and me to prototype with new learning business models. And in the words of one of the authors of the canvas: don't fall in love with your first idea. Prototyping is having a conversation with your own ideas. For more info on the canvas also read this post 'building dynamic business models'.

Personally I like the concept of flip thinking to start a business model draft. We already talked about a mild flip: the flipped classroom. Another example is offboarding instead of onboarding learning. Yet another is people hiring the boss they want to work for, instead of the other way around (check out viewhire.com for that one). Just take a current 'stuck' practice and flip it, and see where you end up...

Try this for size:

• HR and managers no longer hold the training budgets, but every individual gets a development budget assigned that he can spend on himself and team members.
• During learning events, there are no more experts/trainers available, the group facilitates itself based on input gathered (some may be suggested by experts)
• People first commit to a tangible performance goal (eg www.stickk.com), then receive learning hints 
• Content is always sold with the source for people to make their own custom and personal adaptations. Textbooks become living documents. An e-learning example is rapidcourse.com. 

Well, that was a long post, wasn't it? Still with me? I'm dying to hear your points of view and attempts to draft new business models for learning. Hans and WIllem are starting up an initiative on this, you may want to check it out.

I'll end with the summary once more:

• The current learning model once seemed to work...   
• But the world changed, and the mainstream way to learn didn't...
• We know where we are going...
• Many new learning formats have actually risen in the last decade...
• Yet it doesn't seem disruptive enough or go fast enough...
• Could it be that we have all elements in place now, but what we really lack is the proper business model?