Did you notice that no one’s really calling themselves an LMS company anymore? If you use the Wayback Machine to analyze familiar LMS systems, you’d see a transition from standalone e-learning courses to learning management systems to added LMS functionality like authoring tools, learning content management systems, synchronous training platforms, and then to the convergence of learning management with talent and performance management. Most companies are now calling themselves something more than just an LMS company- the LMS is just part of a suite. The first chart below is adapted from one by Bryan Chapman and illustrates the learning & talent management convergence.

In addition to the convergence of learning management and talent management systems, we’ve got this disruptive technology thing going on. (and I do realize that e-learning was very disruptive…)

However, I find myself having two entirely different conversations with people…

One conversation will be about creating tracking workers’ competencies, addressing skills gaps, managing the pre-hire to retire cycle, developing learning plans, and matching gaps to learning interventions. And it will likely flow into discussion around labor shortages, boomer retirements, skills of new workers, etc.

The other conversation will be about collaboration and connections – how to use wikis, blogs, social networks, virtual worlds, etc. and it will likely flow into discussions around control and culture. We’ll talk about open vs. closed, pull vs. push, hosted vs. installed, generational issues in learning, and how to manage change.

Take a look at this second chart, below, which illustrates e-learning 1.0 and e-learning 2.0. If you combined the two charts you’d have 3 little galaxies…LMS converging with talent management and LMS (e-learning 1.0) converging with disruptive technologies. What’s a learning professional to do?

Is this familiar?

• Joe is retiring; Julie is a college graduate just starting her job
• Joe has a boatload of knowledge; Julie has limited knowledge of the job
• Joe is an exemplary worker and is the model for creating competencies; Julie gets a learning plan based on the model
• The learning plan was created and includes online courses, face-to-face instruction, webinars, tutorials, reading, and periodic mentoring by her supervisor.

Meanwhile…

• Julie completes everything in her plan…(oh no, now what?)
• Julie wants connections and to be connected, experiential learning, interaction, and feedback from Joe (and others) before he retires
• Julie starts to look for another job…

But wait…like superman the training dept….

• provides avenues for online social networking (public or add-on to LMS)
• has Joe and Julie work together in a Wiki (public or private)
• blends learning methods & delivery channels
• provides a repository of learning assets that Julie can choose from
• provides access to the Internet

The difference here is about making a space for disruption. Often, an organization will not adopt disruptive technologies because they don’t think they are as good as what they already have. Or they’re too new, too small. Take VoIP as an example. I use Skype almost exclusively but fall back on the land line if it gets really funky. But I am creating a space for it. I don’t want to be the one holding the telegraph…

I don’t think we need two conversations.

I latch on to just about everything that comes across my screen on social networks and learning. I try not to get too discouraged by the number of new! social network services I’m invited to (or my hesitation at inviting other’ people) but instead get in there and have a go. I try to make connections: Facebook as an LMS? (I tried but doesn’t work for me in the corporate setting because it lacks reporting and, we know how important reporting is. A University would probably find value though).

Here’s one thing that caught my eye…Jay Deragon, in several posts, writes about the future of social networking and includes predictions from several social network executives. Here’s my synopsis:

• Ubiquitous: ‘Social networks will be woven into every product and thing we touch.’ (Karl Jacob, CEO of Wallop)
• Open: ‘We are pushing boundaries of what closed and open mean. It’s very necessary for people to take identities with them and supplement with content from elsewhere.’ (Dustin Moskovitz, co-founder or Facebook) “…portable profile that allows single log-on and pick and choose what to expose on different social nets.’ Rich Rosenblatt, CEO of Demand Media
• Profitable and targeted: business model integrates social networks using ads targeted from social graphs (Moskovitz). As well, the gap between total ad dollars and online ad dollars close. (Safa Rashtchy, from the investment firm Piper Jaffray)
• Fueled by wireless devices: mobile growth complemented by rich media like video will further grown social networking (Rashtchy, Deregon)
• Big chasing the small driven by the growth of user-generated content in niche areas, small players are driving acquisitions.

I agree with these – they’re not all that provocative. For helping people learn I see much discussion on how we can use social networks in new models of blended learning, the call for SSO (please! I’ve run out of password variations), targeting groups, wireless, multimedia, and how acquisitions impact corporate programs.

But what really interested me is Deragon’s idea on a missing piece-systemic thinking. Someone who wrote a bit about systemics and learning, Robert E. Young, writes about how systemics may recognize links between learning and motivation in his call for classroom reform. We can easily make a jump to apply this to corporate learning. An oft-quoted passage from his book in his book, Critical Theory and Classroom Talk, is:

…avoid a split between what men consciously know because they are aware of having learned it by a specific job of learning, and what they unconsciously know because they have absorbed it in the formation of their characters by intercourse with others, becomes an increasingly delicate task…

Don’t we do that? Split how we track what was learned? Is this motivating?

I think this delicacy is especially important in the performance-based training that is becoming common in many corporations. Driven by assigning learning interventions (which include training and other activities) to skill gaps under the umbrella of talent management, we can create a divide between I know what I know because (you told me) I learned it (or should learn it) and “I know what I know because I formed it with others. The latter is not tracked in the LMS. Instead, it’s our own measure. Is there some devaluation of the connections created through social networks because of how we traditionally have measured and tracked learning? Does is make social networks unappealing?

Since processes such as talent and learning management aren’t going away any time soon (quite the oppositve), I think it calls out for the need to keep many elements of subjectiveness attached to the processes associated with corporate learning and talent management and – more importantly – approach the process systemically by looking at the whole vs. the parts.

As “Jane Doe Researcher” I don’t want my performance to be evaluated on what someone else tells me I’ve learned and don’t want to be held to a list of competencies. I’d want my learning to be evaluated based on the character, depth, and richness of what I’ve learned alone and through my connections – globally, locally, within the corporation, and externally. {AND THANK GOODNESS IT IS!}. Does this make any sense whatsoever?

In a prior post I wrote about working and learning online. It generated some comments about isolation (while working at home) and about support for learning at work (i.e., does the corporation make learning possible and do they value it). This article, Managing the Mobile Workforce raises similar issues in the context of managing different personalities and cultural influences among a  growing number of mobile workers (25% of the world’s working population by ’09 the study says).

Based on the findings of the Cisco-sponsored study that is the basis of the article, here are some considerations for supporting mobile workers (and I’ve added considerations for the online learners’ experiences below the bullet points):

• The article says your company must have hired the right people for mobile work – self-motivated, resilient, extrovered and independent (and says they should test for it).

Self-efficacy is something I’m sure we’ve all read about when discussing what makes a good online learner. (If you’re not familiar with the term, see here). What this point says to me if that we must help those who do not think they can learn online – recognize their successes, support them technologically, show them how others have experienced success with learning online; in short – remove the stress from the situation. We cannot make anyone a successful online learner but we can certainly help remove barriers. I certainly don’t think we should test anyone though. (can you imagine… you do not exhibit self-efficacy for online learning – so you can’t learn this way). As if we’re the same everyday. Anyway…

• The article says you must have hired the right leadership so as not to mismanage the mobile worker. Mismanaging the mobile workers includes lack of communication (isolation factor), too much communication (micromanaging), and those other things that make a bad manager in any environment – lack of interpersonal skills.

To me, this is a duh statement. My experience with good management is the individual who lets you manage yourself by adapting to who you are -some like a lot of communication, some don’t. I think the same holds true for online learners. Some like to read through all the resources you’ve provided, others like to skim and use them when they need them. A good learning experience means you let people manage their own learning while you adapt to who they are (you provide options).

• The article says you must have the right tools and resources for mobile workers. This might include video, social forums, and of course sufficient connectivity.

As learning professionals, we normally hopefully take resources into account for every experience we design. This is getting tougher I think for IDs and for IT who don’t always know what the setup is like for the mobile worker. Do you design for the lowest common denominator? Make multiple iterations? Do you have the right resources to do this?

• The article also raises good points about culture.

Localization of content, acceptance of online learning, distribution of workforce, technological infrastructure are all considerations we consider now.

Managing mobile workers is becoming more of a hot topic based on demographic changes, global work environments, and technology infrastructure. I think we’ve got a one-up on this topic in the learning field. We’ve been managing the online learning experience for quite awhile now. Been there. Doing it.

For a talent management spin on this study, see this post by Max Goldman at the SuccessFactors blog.

I was thrilled to have worked with Mark Albrecht on a new report on talent management.

At my prior job I worked on creating competencies. Working with several managers, I can recall one saying that the process was a ‘boatload’ of work. It was (and is).

Training has long been an arm of HR as has benefits, compensation, recruitment, leadership development, and hiring. However, functions are not always fully integrated and often individual areas operate as silos with many disconnects. Training, often seen as the cosmic solution to organizational problems, is just one element of organizational development.

The goal of organizational learning as a whole should encompass training and the overall development of talent. Talent Management Systems provide those tools but can be complex and can create confusion when an organization is seeking to implement a solution.

Many organizations are looking for end-to-end solutions – Learning Management, Learning Content Management, and Talent & Performance Management – a suite of products that they don’t have to piece together but are fully integrated. The LMS footprint is growing.

In the report Mark Albrecht suggests selecting a system using a “Talent Management Selection Framework” over the less effective RFP process. This use case-type process will help you avoid scope and feature creep. It allows you to select “your” system.