Regular

posted 25 Jul 2006 in Volume 9 Issue 10

Masterclass

E-learning strategy Part II

Oliver Schwabe presents an in-depth three-part masterclass for creating a corporate-wide e-learning strategy.

Note: For a copy of the Masterclass featuring all the illustrations as they appeared in the print version, please e-mail the managing editor, Graeme Burton, on gburton@ark-group.com. This will aid understanding of the particular individual scenarios.

In the knowledge-based economy, the efficient delivery of training is a key source of competitive advantage. E-learning – often called ‘virtual learning’ to take account of the many non-traditional ways in which learning can be delivered – has therefore been widely adopted by organisations.

It provides a means of offering an ever-wider range of training to more people than was ever cost-effectively possible with face-to-face teaching models.

Learning-performance metrics today must, therefore, be defined based upon the impact on business systems. But in order to define the fitting metrics, the key scenarios in which e-learning takes place must be understood in more detail. In the second part of this three-part series, we will focus on how to devise a high-performance e-learning strategy with a particular emphasis on these important scenarios.

Fundamental to this is the understanding that we are not enabling value generation within a static environment. ‘Value’ needs to be understood as the knowledge flow(1) required by the knowledge beneficiary (typically the employer) while the environment is just as volatile and complex as that of the knowledge beneficiary’s market.

It is this environment that we consider the ‘value network’(2) of the virtual-learning experience. Devising an e-learning strategy with this in mind places high demands on the approaches and tools used for enabling value creation.

In the first part, we identified all the participants in the virtual-learning experience and the ‘transactions’ between them. Participants are the roles assumed by different people in the network and transactions are the negotiated tangible and intangible exchanges between them. Figure one (3) shows the fundamental structure of a high-performing virtual-learning space (4).

Key scenarios

A scenario essentially defines a number of synchronized relationships that enable a specific value to be created. It is a sub-set of the overall value network. High-performance e-learning depends upon the following key scenarios:

Knowledge application;
Needs analysis;
Knowledge creation;
Content design and development;
Content provisioning;
Knowledge validation.

These scenarios, although presented separately, form an integrated value network as discussed in part one.

Scenario one: Knowledge application

The primary purpose of any learning engagement is to add value to the organisation that is paying for it – the knowledge beneficiary. This is achieved when it receives the expected benefits. The knowledge creators – the organisation’s staff – in turn receive the benefit of remuneration. These benefits can be described as ‘tangible’ in the value network (because they involve something very tangible – normally money) and are subject to change depending on the relationship between the two.

While many of the transactions occur synchronously, the underlying sequence is that the knowledge beneficiary will articulate tangible and intangible demands upon the performance of the knowledge creator, with certain expectations about how these demands will be met.

But at the same time, the knowledge beneficiary will trust in the ability of the knowledge creator to fulfil these demands. Before the knowledge creator enters into a learning engagement, however, expectations will be raised regarding the benefits to be gained and a fulfilment of these expectations will be assumed, based upon a trusting relationship.

The knowledge creator should then acquire the demanded knowledge via the learning engagement and use it to fulfil the demands of the knowledge beneficiary in exchange for the previously mentioned benefits. This scenario is shown above, excerpted from the overall value network.

The crucial element is, of course, the mutual trust exchanged between the knowledge beneficiary and the knowledge creator. Without this trust, coupled with expected benefits, the knowledge creator is unlikely to engage effectively in a learning engagement. Likewise, without the trust of the knowledge beneficiary in the abilities of the knowledge creator, the knowledge beneficiary’s performance expectations will be stunted.

From the dynamic perspective of the complete value network, we therefore also need to realise that the health and vibrancy of their relationship will affect the relationship between the knowledge creator, other knowledge creators and the knowledge-creation enabler. It will also affect the relationship between the knowledge beneficiary and the course provider significantly, since the investment of resources into the knowledge creator to partake in a learning engagement is, in fact, accomplished via the course provider.

This scenario is a key scenario, because it is the trigger for the value network as a whole. If the perceived value of the learning engagement by the knowledge beneficiary matches the perceived value of this by the knowledge creator then, and only then, is a step taken towards a value network that can perform sustainably and highly effectively.

Scenario two: Needs analysis

In order to determine possible return-on-investment (ROI), the first step – as in any ROI analysis – is to identify what specific performance is required. Only when this has been clearly identified and defined can we explore whether or not a specific learning engagement has been of value or not.

Figure three, excerpted from the main value network graphic, depicts the roles that must be involved in the definition of what knowledge needs to be created by the knowledge creator. In contrast to traditional learning environments, the high-performance e-learning space demands inclusion of the knowledge creator, the knowledge beneficiary, the course provider and the knowledge-creation enabler – broadly speaking, the course tutor – to achieve this goal.

The starting point is scenario one, where the definition of knowledge-beneficiary demands and knowledge-creator expectations occurs. Based upon this, the knowledge-creation enabler is involved to determine how specific knowledge is best created.

The first scenario only depicts the questions being posed by knowledge creators to knowledge-creation enablers because this process is a ‘hidden’ one in that the knowledge-creation enabler is continually tasked with gathering information about this sense making and feed it into the later scenario: content design and development.

Based upon the negotiated exchange between the knowledge beneficiary and knowledge creators, a relationship develops between the knowledge beneficiary and the course provider. While the former communicates needs to the course provider – both regarding form (tangible) and content (intangible) – the course provider uses trust, image and assurance to communicate the suitability of courses provided for fulfilling needs.

In addition, course providers leverage their relationship with the knowledge-creation enabler to assure the knowledge beneficiary that the actual knowledge-creation process will work according to expectations.

A further significant relationship is that between the course provider and the knowledge creator. Just as the trust, assurance and image extended by the course provider to the knowledge beneficiary ensures fitting expectation setting for both parties, the same holds true for this exchange between the course provider and the knowledge creator.

This scenario is a key scenario because it will define the actual content and delivery mechanisms for fulfilling the demands and expectations of both the knowledge beneficiary and knowledge creator. Only if the perceived value of the learning engagement is shared by the knowledge beneficiary, the knowledge creator and the course provider, can the knowledge-creation enabler effectively support the needs that triggered the engagement in the first place.

Scenario three: Knowledge creation

Following the exploration of what the knowledge gained in a learning engagement is intended to achieve, and clearly defining the relevant needs and perceived value, the knowledge creation in high performance e-learning spaces needs to be examined in more depth.

The relationships of relevance are particular to the virtual learning space and do not extend naturally from more classical environments due to the speed at which information travels through the value network and the engagement process itself.

In essence it can be seen in the figure below that knowledge is created by knowledge creators in three main ways:

Via interaction with the knowledge-creation enabler;
Via interaction with their peers, and;
Via interaction with the knowledge beneficiary.

Knowledge development by knowledge creators is triggered and guided through the efforts of the knowledge-creation enabler. Following on from this trigger, knowledge creators make sense and learn together, while validating their learning continuously against the exchanges they have negotiated with the knowledge beneficiary.

The knowledge-creation enabler plays multiple roles in order to ensure that knowledge creators achieve their goals.

The knowledge-creation enabler must, on the one hand, be highly supportive of individual student’s needs but, on the other, also serve a developing student community that pro-actively and intensively shares sympathy, encouragement, questions, trust and commentary.

As a virtual-community developer, supporter, facilitator and guide, the knowledge-creation enabler hence controls the space for knowledge creation. While this control does not, at the same time, mean assuming responsibility for the successful efforts of the knowledge creators during the engagement, it does mean an extremely high level of responsiveness, encouragement and counsel based upon the principles of appreciative inquiry.

Furthermore a key factor for the effectiveness of this work is the perceived authenticity of sympathy and trust by the knowledge-creation enabler for the knowledge creators and their needs.

This is a key scenario since it determines how effectively a virtual-learning space can be created that optimises the ability of knowledge creators (staff) to gain the knowledge they need to fulfil the exchange negotiated with the knowledge beneficiary (their employer).

One of the additional elements that demands consideration is, of course, the supporting and enabling communication channels that need to be blended in order to build the relationships driving knowledge creation. The most common and widely available tools are listed below. The tools are presented from the perspective of enabling cooperation and collaboration among the participants of the value network in general, and the participants of this scenario specifically.

E-mail

This tool is probably the most widely known channel of communication in virtual environments. Its asynchronous nature is suited to learning environments where knowledge creators will be engaged with learning at different periods of time and at a variety of locations. It is, however, poor for negotiating intangible exchanges;

E-mail distribution lists

These provide the same benefit as singular e-mail, although they are less personal and many corporate firewalls block them. Such lists are good for keeping groups informed of developments, but are poor for facilitating group dynamics;

Discussion forums

This asynchronous collaboration tool is one of the basic elements of any e-learning delivery. It is the focal point of collaboration among knowledge creators and community facilitation by the knowledge-creation enabler. Discussion forums are good for ensuring that peers share all work being done and can interact;

Instant messaging

Either using the popular PC-based tool or by mobile phone text messaging;

Whiteboard/screen-sharing

These tools can be considered together. All participants must be at their PC for the tool to be used. These tools only develop value if the meeting moderator uses the screen to add explanations and other information as the meeting progresses. In all other cases it is simpler to have everyone use a previously distributed file copy;

Audio-conferencing

As with e-mail, ‘normal’ voice conferencing remains a stable ingredient of any virtual-learning space. Of particular relevance is that the increasing availability of voice over IP (VoIP) software that has minimised costs. Audio-conferencing should be used regularly to ensure a live dialogue is created that strengthens the knowledge-creation process;

Video-conferencing

The role of visual broadcasting in e-learning remains relatively difficult in that experience has shown that it is preferable to only intermittently show live visuals to avoid distracting participants. Besides, even today the bandwidth required for high-quality transmissions is not always available. Ideally, video-transmission should be used selectively at important points in the engagement where building rapport is critical, such as kick-off events and milestones.

While many other tools could also be explored (for example, wikis, blogs and collaboration platforms) the above remain the mainstay of any e-learning engagement and offer rich opportunities for creating a blended dialogue.

Scenario four: Content design and development

While the incubation and acceleration of effective knowledge creation depends upon network dynamics as a whole, it is based on a gathering of information driven by the needs defined by the knowledge beneficiary (see figure five). These needs are converted by the course provider into raw content requirements and passed to the information compiler. It is the task of the information compiler to aggregate the information required and provide it to the information designer.

This scenario is a ‘key’ scenario because the balancing of raw content requirements, raw content (the aggregated information), designed content requirements and the design standards is a very well-defined process so far. This process must be highly automated and standardised to ensure that the needs voiced by the knowledge beneficiary are quickly turned into a form suitable for provisioning to the knowledge creators – the people ‘attending’ the virtual-learning sessions.

In contrast to more classical environments we must remember that the knowledge-creator enablers do not have the task of aggregating and preparing information for the knowledge creators, but of facilitating a knowledge-creation process. Their role is therefore very subtle.

The information compiler is usually a subject-matter expert with close contact with the relevant practitioner community. Raw content at this stage is put into pre-defined formats and benchmarked against design standards and designed content requirements by the information designer through acceptance testing.

Scenario five: Content provisioning

This scenario describes how the information designer, course provider and information provider interact in order to provide the knowledge creators with the information that need to be turned into knowledge during the learning engagement (see figure six).

As can be seen in the figure below, this scenario is unique because it is essentially based on tangible transactions due to the well-known nature of the processes and tools. This allows for a high degree of automation, as in the previous scenario.

In this scenario, it is important to recognise the interplay between designed content and technical functionality. The tighter this can be controlled and pre-defined through story-boards and re-usable learning-object frameworks, the more effectively and efficiently the needs of the knowledge beneficiary can be turned into information provided by the information provider to the knowledge creators.

This is a key scenario since, although it is highly standardised, it is the ‘engine’ for provisioning content to the knowledge creators and hence forms an indispensable element of the value network overall.

Scenario six: Knowledge validation

The final key scenario ensures that the information provided to the knowledge creators will fulfil the needs of the knowledge beneficiary. This process would traditionally be called ‘quality control’. It is focused not on the form or content of the e-learning courses, but on their ability to help knowledge creators fulfil the demands of the knowledge beneficiary – as defined in the initial scenario.

Validation touches upon several other scenarios. In addition, a quality controller can ensure that the formal requirements for a more encompassing accreditation of the virtual-learning course is met (such as EQUIS). Content practitioners can help ensure that the needs of the knowledge beneficiary – the employer – are substantiated by a larger community of practitioners.

Figure seven captures the key transactions associated with the knowledge-validation scenario. Here, the transactions are largely intangible. Indeed it could be argued that the intangible deliverables of need, trust and assurance are more general attributes of this value network as a whole. As such, they could be removed from the representation and defined as the culture of the context.

This scenario is key because it is the basis for performance assessment. Only when the knowledge beneficiary gains the intended benefit on the basis of the high performing e-learning space can the value of the whole effort be assessed.

The benchmark: bringing it all together

The model above and detailed in the previous article is based upon a pragmatic practitioner perspective and experience rather than empirical and validated research. In this respect the model can be considered as the synthesis of ‘good practice’ in respect to designing high performance e-learning spaces.

Taking the step towards identifying it as a ‘benchmark’ is done in the awareness that knowledge creation is an individual, unique and dynamic process. In the end, any performance evaluation (which will be discussed in the third article in the series) must focus on three things: its own context, a benchmark and specifically defined performance measures. This series can only provide suggestions for the last two points, while the individual context needs to be separately assessed by those most familiar with it – the knowledge beneficiary (employers, broadly speaking) and the knowledge creators (employees).

Case study snap-shots

The following case studies are anonymous to protect the innocent. The general themes are recognisable, however, and also begin to provide a pointer towards over-arching performance measures that will be explored in more depth in the final article of the series. The snap-shots are intended to demonstrate how the model previously presented can be used to explore e-learning offerings.

Non-governmental virtual academy

A global non-governmental organisation headquartered in the US that runs about 100 mid- to lower-level managers through a virtual e-learning program comprising of general management themes and specific strategic issues. The program is almost completely virtual and asynchronous.

Significant challenges to the program include missing relationships between:

The course provider and the knowledge beneficiary;
The lack of a quality controller, and;
A weak relationship between the course provider and the knowledge-creation enabler.

On average, about two-thirds of participants complete the courses with varying levels of success. In general the roles of knowledge creator and knowledge beneficiary are identical. The major recognised strength lies in the relationships between the knowledge creators (the students) and the knowledge-creation enablers (tutors).

Academic online university

A US-based, fully virtual and asynchronous academic university with graduate and post-graduate offerings. About 800 students are involved in a wide range of courses at any one time. Significant challenges include weak relationships between the course provider and the knowledge beneficiary mainly due to the academic focus that is traditionally displaced from an operational business focus.

On average about 85% of participants complete the courses with varying levels of success. In general, the roles of knowledge creator and knowledge beneficiary are identical. The major recognised strength lies in the relationships between the knowledge creators and the knowledge-creation enablers, and also the relationship of the course provider to the quality controller.

Academic hybrid university

A major UK-based distance learning institution that delivers programs with both virtual and face-to-face components. Almost nine-tenths of the participants complete courses with varying levels of success. The major recognised strength lies in face-to-face events of knowledge creators (students) and knowledge-creation enablers (tutors) that underpin the distance learning component. In addition a strong relationship exists with the quality controller. The significant challenge of the offering lies in the weak relationship between the course provider and the knowledge beneficiary as discussed in the previous example.

Commercial training program

A professional virtual-coaching company in Germany serving leadership development programs to clients globally, both individually and to small groups in engagements of between six and eight weeks. Teaching is by a blend of distance delivery and sporadic face-to-face events. All participants complete courses successfully. The main strength of the offering lies in the relationship between the course provider and the knowledge beneficiary, and the relationship between the knowledge creators and the knowledge-creation enablers. The major challenge lies in the relationship to the quality controller since offerings are highly customised and hence focused on participant need fulfilment versus standards enforcement. Delivery is a mixture of synchronous and asynchronous approaches.

Case study conclusions

These snap-shots point to general patterns in value networks associated with e-learning offerings and spaces. Technology has a subsidiary role to the relationships in the sense that it enables and supports virtual cooperation and collaboration in the learning engagement.

However, a number of general patterns consistently emerge:

The information provisioned to knowledge creators is being continuously automated and standardised through the help of technology;
The needs of knowledge beneficiaries are often not fulfilled by offerings that conform with the demands of quality controllers;
The importance of the relationship between knowledge creators (students) and knowledge-creation enablers (tutors) is usually underestimated;
The relationship between the knowledge creators and the knowledge beneficiary is seldom used as orientation for the learning experience of knowledge creators.

In summary

Scenarios and case studies help us understand fundamental patterns in value networks, while pointing to questions that need to be considered when designing purposeful virtual-learning spaces. The scenarios presented as key in this article are those relationships, in particular, that contribute to the establishment of healthy value networks deliver business impact. Since value networks consist of individuals acting in unique contexts, it is advisable to engage with them to create the specific value networks of relevance for them and their specific environment.

What is critical in one context may not be critical in another.

So, questions need to be asked, similarities and differences sought, and a continuous sense-making and validation process established.

In the next article, this series will end with a focus on the classical process model that can be distilled from the value-network-based reflections presented and specific performance measures required to build and maintain e-learning spaces, where the impact is significant and fast, including the relevant measures that must be taken to create such spaces. These performance measures will be presented using the structure of the intangible assets monitor and as a simple management dashboard to support in the design, development and implementation of high-performance learning spaces.

Dr. Oliver Schwabe has been involved with virtual learning since 2000. In this time he has personally designed, delivered and deployed a wide variety of academic and professional distance learning courses for a wide variety of non-profit, private, and commercial organisations, and to approximately 200 different students monthly – about 2400 students annually.

His company, Eurofocus International Consultants, www.euro-focus.com, specialises in using advance e-learning approaches for effective e-learning approaches, among other activities. He can be contacted at oliver_schwabe@t-online.de

For a complete copy of the Masterclass, featuring all the diagrams as they appeared in the print edition, please e-mail the managing editor Graeme Burton, gburton@ark-group.com

References

1. A Knowledge-based Theory of the Firm to guide Strategy Formulation. HTML version of article awarded the Journal of Intellectual Capital. Highly Commended Paper Award for 2001 http://www.sveiby.com/ articles/Knowledgetheoryoffirm.htm

2. Allee, V. 2002. The Future of Knowledge Increasing Prosperity Through Value Networks. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann

3. Images created using GenIsisTM for ValueNet WorksTM www.alleevaluenetworks.com, MS Excel 2003 and MS Visio 2003

4. Mapping in accordance with Allee, V. 2005. Field Book Consultation Guides. www.alleevaluenetworks.com

Glossary of terms

Knowledge beneficiary

The individual or organisation that will benefit from the virtual learning course – in most cases, the employer;

Knowledge creators

E-learning attendees or participants;

Knowledge-creator enablers

E-learning facilitators, primarily tutors;

Knowledge-creator’s supporters

Those who help e-learning participants to fulfil the requirements of their employers (the knowledge beneficiaries);

Information compiler

The course-content director;

Information provider

The provider of the technical platform over which the e-learning course is delivered;

Information designer

Designs the e-learning course from the raw content supplied by the information compiler;

Course provider

The organisation responsible for the development, sales and delivery of virtual learning courses;

Content practitioners

The experts who make their living from the subject matter at the heart of the virtual-learning course;

Quality controller

The organisation that audits the course for quality and consistency;

Knowledge beneficiaries

Organisations that will benefit from the e-learning course (ie: employers);

Course provider

The organisation responsible the development, selling and delivery of e-learning courses.