Last Friday the Elearning Network hosted an event on Building Learning Communities.  It was a good chance to hear stories from people who have or are building (learning) communities.

The interesting parts that kept popping up during the event was the use of low or no cost tools.  Particularly, Drupal and Ning.  Even where the companies behind the learning communities were large, the creation of small and focused communties were relatively informal and experimental compared to other enterprise systems that were already in place.

It's not that Drupal or Ning are better than the larger and more robust systems, they're just really easy to set up.  With Ning it literally takes a few minutes to get a site up and running - with no money involed.  It doesn't mean the community will work or people will come and participate, it's just a low risk.

I was (pleasantly) surprised to see some of the larger companies using these tools and felt quite encouraged by it all.  I don't think it means that enterprise tools don't have a future - perhaps quite the opposite.  People and organisations can experiment with these tools - they couldn't do that a couple of years ago, not at such a low risk anyways.  Through this experimentation people will learn about building communities, what is involved, what works and what doesn't work.  All this learning in action will only help people create better and larger communities in the future across organisations.

I count myself lucky that the environment that I work in adopts technologies rapidly, not because they are new technologies, but because they are better ways at communicating and getting things done.

Why is it that on a personal level people use technology to do great things, yet when they turn up to work they are usually stuck working in an old an inefficient way.

It just kind of seems wrong to me, doesn't it?

Watch the following slide...enough said?

| View | Upload your own

Through humour and stories he argues that the world of human resources are facing a crisis and that things need to change.  I will say no more, The London Business Forum have been kind enough to provide the audio from the talk.

Listen to it. It's inspirational, thought provoking and funny.

I've observed various articles and blog posts trying to debate whether 'HR' should be renamed to Talent (Management).  Lots of 'ooohs' and 'aaaahhhhs' and 'buts' flew around, probably a bit of cursing behind the scenes as well.

It's great to see Seth put his own view across on. It might make some people wiggle uncomfortably in their seat, but it's worth a read.

I think there is valid point in saying that changing the name to 'Talent' would be spin if nothing were to change.  Those that are ahead of the game will recognise the drastic need for change, those that change to address the need to attract and retain talent would be worthy of the name, those that are ahead of the game would not want to be part of the HR or Personnel department as it would offend their talented ego.

• The availability of key skills (61%)
• A downturn in major economies (57%)
• Over–regulation (55%)

The interesting point from a Driven Systems perspective are CEOs concerns about lack of key skills.

What key skills need improving upon?

The points highlighted in the survey include:

• there is a high premium for individuals who have the courage to challenge
• improving customer service, attracting and retaining talent are key for competitive advantage
• shortages in technical AND business skills
• shortages in the ability to lead others
• difficulty in finding people who are creative and innovative
• crucial changes need to be made in recruiting, motivating and developing their people
• flexible working would play an important role in their business
• investing in training and development was also be considered key
• 43% of CEOs have mergers or acquisitions on the cards, yet poor management of HR is considered one of the top obstacles/concerns.

Not surprising...

There are some interesting points here, though not all that surprising.  We recently attended a talk by Sir Ken Robinson called 'The War on Talent'.  Many of the points mentioned above were highlighted by Sir Ken Robinson, where he believes serious lack of creativity and innovation will become a 'crisis' in its own right.

There doesn't have to be a skills shortage. We don't need more people in the world. We need to nurture what we have in a better way. Encourage people to learn, to discover themselves, to experiment, to create new ideas...better ideas.

There is a better way.

(To be continued...)

At the end of the talk there were some questions where Pixar University was highlighted as a great example of what some companies are doing to bring out the best in their people.

Some highlights of Pixar University include:

• every employee (from a cleaner right through to the CEO) is allowed 4 hours per week to attend any course or class they like.
• they are allowed to not to work and reject meeting requests that collide with their class.
• people got to meet and talk to people they would not normally meet
• people got to learn stuff they would not normally get the chance to learn
• people discovered new talents and passions
• people would get an understanding of the company as a whole (not just what their 'job' requires)
• it is not unusual for people to change jobs within the company after finding out they are really good at something else.

Pixar produce some great films, they plant a seed and allow people to grow, learn, be creative and discover their talents.

Do you think your company would change if they adopted something similar?

A short animation by Pixar.

It's about curiosity, exploration and trying to understand the truth.  As opposed to being a fundamentalist - someone who first considers whether a fact is acceptable to their beliefs before exploring.

Seth Godin uses the example of TV ads, where for 40 years companies have been advertising to people that don't really want to see the ads.  Just so they can make more sales to repeat the advertising and sales loop again.

The problem now is times have changed and "the smartest people have switched their TVs off".  It just doesn't work anymore. The cost versus the revenue does not make business sense.

Whilst the example given was for advertising, it equally applies to many other sectors.  We should be curious. We should be asking questions. We should be changing our behaviour. Our solutions. Our outlook on life.

"It's a 5, 10, 15 year process, where people start finding their voice.  Where they realise the safest thing to do feels risky, and the riskiest thing they can do is play it safe." Seth Godin

The question is, what safe things are you doing?

Professor Tara Brabazon from Brighton University has said: "Too many students don't use their own brains enough. We need to bring back the important values of research and analysis."

Tara goes on to say "I ban my students from using Google, Wikipedia and other websites like that."

This approach can be seen as naïve and has been compared to the challenges the music industry is facing today (banning the copying of music doesn't stop people from doing it).  Forcing people to adhere to only using 'old' methods is not the answer. Neither is using the internet as the only solution.  Balance is key.  If a student really wants to step up to do their best, they would naturally use a variety of methods to research a topic.

And anyways, if students are not producing the work, maybe they should be given guidance on how to do better.  If all else fails, then surely the student should not pass the course/degree?

Some (great!) advantages of not banning the internet for students

• The net is great for finding information that some books will never tell you.
• Websites naturally link to related sources.
• Relevant (and focused) online communities can have existing discussions of interest, if you can't find an answer you can always ask.
• There are usually focused websites and blogs, written by professionals and/or enthusiasts that can often give up to date information, thoughts or other perspectives.
• Searches can often lead you to materials that you never new existed.  This could even mean books that are not available in your local library.
• Everyone is different and learns differently.  Some people are happy learning from a book, others learn better through practice, and so forth.  To ban something that could really make the learning experience more enjoyable and more effective could be seen as irresponsible.
• There are many web tools that can assist people to organise their thoughts.
• A student could start a blog on their ideas and get feedback from fellow students, Professors and the rest of the world.

These are ideas off the top of my head.  I am sure there are plenty more.

If banning internet from students seems wrong.  Then why do so many employers ban the internet from employees?  Where should the line be drawn?  (This is topic deserves another blog post!)

The full article is over on our website, however, here is a snapshot of what you can expect:

1. You want your churn rate to go through the roof
2. You don't want your workforce to learn, grow and perform
3. You want your competitors to head hunt your best talent
4. You don't really want your business to be successful
5. You want to maintain an expensive paper driven system
6. You believe technology can't solve your problems
7. Excellent support is a myth
8. You want to waste your valuable time
9. As a business you do not want to improve your bottom line
10. You don't want a Performance Mangement System to be implemented in weeks

If you are not sure about it why not check out  The Tao of Twitter and/or the Newbies Guide to Twitter?  We hope they will convince you to sign up and follow us!