Regular

posted 23 Aug 2006 in Volume 10 Issue 1

E-learning strategy - part III

Oliver Schwabe presents the concluding article in his three-part masterclass for creating a corporate-wide e-learning strategy.

By Oliver Schwabe

Editor’s note: We are well aware that our web site is not able to convey all the many illustrations referenced in this masterclass. For complimentary PDF copies of all three masterclasses, as they appeared in the print magazine, please e-mail gburton@ark-group.com

This final article in the series focuses on the classical process model that can be distilled from the value-network-based reflections¹ presented in the previous two articles. It will also examine the specific performance measures required to build and maintain e-learning spaces, 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 monitor² (as described by Karl-Erik Sveiby in his ‘Knowledge-based Theory of the Firm To Guide Strategy Formulation’ article) and as a simple management dashboard to support the design, development and implementation of high-performance learning spaces.

Revisiting the key roles

As defined in the first article the key roles of relevance in the value network are:

Knowledge creators;
Knowledge creation enablers;
Knowledge creator supporters;
Knowledge beneficiary;
Course provider;
Quality controller;
Information compiler;
Content practitioners;
Information designer;
Information provider.

The process view

In the previous installment, six key scenarios were presented that need to be mastered in order to ensure the design, development and implementation of high-performance learning spaces. These scenarios were:

1. Knowledge application: The process by which the knowledge beneficiary gains value from the knowledge created during the learning engagement by the knowledge creator;

2. Needs analysis: The process by which the desired performance of the knowledge creator, after the learning engagement, is determined;

3. Knowledge creation: The actual process of knowledge creation for the knowledge creator;

4. Content design and development: The process by which the content for the learning engagement is gathered, designed and developed;

5. Content provisioning: The process by which the content for the learning engagement is delivered to the knowledge creator;

6. Knowledge validation: The process that validates the knowledge creation process.

The value network perspective presented in the previous two articles can now be sequenced in order to gain a more traditional understanding of the dynamics – that is to say, of what is going on underneath the surface.

While it could be argued that this perspective does not necessarily serve the purpose of understanding the dynamics, we need to remember that a bridge must be built between the systems perspective and existing corporate organisational and reporting structures to whom the learning engagement must be justified. These structures are likely to consider matters of learning and training in a more traditional manner.

For this article I have chosen a single scenario to provide an illustration: Knowledge application (see figure one). This scenario can be sequenced as in table one. From a process perspective this could be visualised as in the flow chart in figure two.

It is important to note in this respect that the central functions of ‘performance’ and result ‘performance completed’ need to be added in this specific view since, from a value network perspective, these happen inside roles. This is, of course, only a rough process overview, but suffices at this point in time to move to exploring the relevant performance measures.

The performance measures

Having now defined the value network and the corresponding process based upon the sequencing activity, the individual transactions can be used to define performance measures (see table two).

Upon closer examination we can see that there are categories of performance measures:

1. Process related. For example, an explicit confirmation is required for something or for process fulfillment itself;

2. Perceived value. For example, the subjective evaluation of a deliverable as being important and worthwhile;

3. Performance. For example, the tangible performance goals.

Measuring the first and third category is straight-forward and an established mechanism. Although at times challenging it links to the level four evaluation by Donald Kirkpatrick³.

The second category, perceived value, is the basis for understanding the performance of the intangible component of business operations. “Perceived value is a way to assess the level of value participants feel they receive from individual transactions, from other participants, and from the network as a whole.”⁴

The required activities

The deliverables associated with perceived value as a performance measure in the above example scenario are ‘trust’ and ‘benefits’ (see table 3).

Perceived value relates to such themes as reciprocity, value realisation, growth and stability. This, again, leads to the understanding that this value will, in general, be higher when people in certain roles see and appreciate each other as contributing to, and receiving from, the value network in a balanced manner. It cannot be emphasised strongly enough: No roles are gaining value at the expense of others. To attain maximum value, people in all roles in the value network must:

1. Support the purpose of the value network;

2. Understand the dynamics of the value network;

3. Appreciate their dependency upon the performance of people in other roles.

Activities that achieve this include:

1. Training in value network principles to ensure familiarity with systems-based approaches in organisational performance management;

2. Joint-discovery sessions to create consensus on the purpose of the value network through the use of value-network principles;

3. Role-based design of organisational structures through cross-organisational teams to improve appreciation of the value contributed to the value network through other roles.

In this specific scenario we would therefore need to focus on:

1. Educating the knowledge beneficiary and knowledge creator on value network principles;

2. Continuously validating the alignment of exchanges with the purpose of the value network;

3. Linking the learning experience of the knowledge creator tightly with the operational activities of the knowledge beneficiary.

The e-learning dashboard

Once all scenarios have been explored in this manner, the required activities can be mapped to the ten knowledge flows as argued by Karl-Erik Sveiby – again from his ‘Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm’ article⁵.

As a first step, the previously defined performance measures need to be associated with knowledge flows:

1. The first performance measure is related to individual competence (knowledge flow #1 in figure three);

2. The second performance measure is related to internal structure – individual competence (knowledge flows #4 and #5);

3. The third performance measure is related to internal structure – external structure (knowledge flows #7 and #8).

As a second step we need to fine-tune the performance measures to become indicators related to growth, renewal, efficiency and stability/risk. Remembering that the knowledge beneficiary is usually an operational manager and the knowledge creator is usually a member of their staff, the general indicators that would hence be applicable are (see table four):

1. Percentage of operational managers and staff qualified in value-network thinking;

2. Percentage of regular meetings where value-network principles are a regular part of the agenda;

3. Percentage of learning engagements that include operational projects as learning tools.

The following detailed indicators are recommended:

1. Percentage of operational managers and staff qualified in value-network thinking:

a. Growth: Percentage qualified (desired trend: increasing);

b. Renewal: Age of qualification (desired trend: decreasing);

c. Efficiency: Regular assessment of perceived usefulness (desired trend: increasing);

d. Stability/risk: Regular assessment of perceived value (desired trend: increasing).

2. Percentage of regular meetings where value network principles are a regular part of the agenda:

a. Growth: Percentage using (desired trend: increasing);

b. Renewal: Improvement suggestions (desired trend: increasing);

c. Efficiency: Regular assessment of perceived usefulness (desired trend: increasing);

d. Stability/risk: Regular assessment of perceived value (desired trend: increasing).

3. Percentage of learning engagements that include operational projects as learning tools:

a. Growth: Increase in percentage (desired trend: increasing);

b. Renewal: Improvement suggestions (desired trend: increasing);

c. Efficiency: Regular assessment of perceived usefulness (desired trend: increasing);

d. Stability/risk: Regular assessment of perceived value (desired trend: increasing).

Interestingly enough it could be argued that even the small scenario explored in this specific article represents the value constellation of the whole with reasonable accuracy, as the pieces of a shattered hologram will each carry an image of the whole.

Finally, then, it will be necessary to set performance thresholds that define what ‘score’ is perhaps satisfactory or not. In many cases, however, a need emerges to first define the relevant tools and gather base data, since this information is not commonly available.

The above is only a small part of the complete value network that was presented as the space where high-performance e-learning takes place. The same process must be completed for all the role relationships evident in the overall system and then consolidated in a similar manner as above.

Summary

At the beginning of this masterclass it was stated that, “E-learning performance metrics today must be defined based upon the impact on business systems”. This statement was further defined through the following questions:

1. How can virtual learning costs be minimised?

2. How can the value generated for the learner through virtual learning be maximised?

3. How can the value generated for the business through virtual learning be maximised?

4. How can resistance to virtual learning measures be managed more successfully?

Reflecting on the journey of reflection undertaken the following answers to those questions are suggested:

1. How can virtual learning costs be minimised?

The most significant learning costs are involved with the creation and delivery of content. Underlying this is the assumption that learning involves content consumption. The moment we understand that knowledge is inherently tacit and cannot be ‘consumed’, we begin to understand learning to be a process of content ‘creation’ as an indicator of ‘knowledge’ creation. With good collaboration tools, passionate knowledge creation enablers and engaged knowledge beneficiaries, virtual learning costs can be effectively minimised. Simply put, a clear performance goal, a caring facilitator, phone and e-mail, and a supportive manager is all that is needed.

2. How can the value generated for the learner through virtual learning be maximised?

Remembering our scenarios, this value corresponds to the benefits received by the knowledge creator from the knowledge beneficiary. Although presented as a tangible deliverable in this scenario, it can be expanded to include a plethora of intangibles the knowledge creator has an interest in. The moment the knowledge beneficiary understands the personal needs and desires of the knowledge creator, these can be positioned as benefits to be achieved and, hence, maximise the value generated.

3. How can the value generated for the business through virtual learning be maximised?

Assuming a clear definition of the value that the value network for virtual learning is intended to deliver, this can only be achieved of the value network as a whole functions in a healthy manner.

4. How can resistance to virtual learning measures be managed more successfully?

People do not mind change, they object to being changed. The more virtual-learning offerings are invitations versus commands, co-created and delivered in a natural manner focused on whole versus the parts, the less resistance becomes an issue.

The impact on business systems can only be achieved if we understand the system. E-learning is a specific form of space where education and learning take place. Only when this space is managed and ‘lived’ in accordance with the same principles as the desired state of the business system itself, can such an impact be assured.

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 2,400 students annually.

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