Harold Jarche pointed out that it would be nice were the learning/living model…
…to highlight the differences between learning, KM, OD, education, performance support, communities, and HPT.
That’s a tall order, given that people who practice in each of these areas often disagree on their definitions. I propose to tackle the challenge by rising to a sufficiently high level that minor differences fall away, leaving only broad patterns.
I began by simplifying the environment to this:
The learner receives input from a variety of sources. If we were closer to the ground, we’d see that the learner gives as well as takes. The coffee filters represent the firewall around every human brain that simplifies each of our views of the world by excluding most sensory input and force-fitting what does get through into existing patterns. Think of the file cabinet as a repository of content and ideas.
Learning, KM, OD, etc. all deal with every piece of this puzzle but each of them focuses on a particular set of connections. For example, OD looks to groups, KM to information flow, learning to individuals, education to delivery of old knowledge, and community to the development of new knowledge.
Here’s my map of the primary connections for each discipline. (Click the map for a more legible version.)
I offer this as one perspective among many in hopes that it will help us create a less parochial view of helping people excel.
RSS Feed
Follow Jay on Twitter
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Hi Jay,
I believe the framework is a good start at a useful one as far as the components and their potential relationships. Unfortunately, I’m getting lost in the lines — even after increasing the drawing size, these older than I’d like eyes are really challenged to follow the various similar colors — so I’m unable to comment on the connections.
Ray
Elegant “content map” (i.e. map of content, NOT of “mind). Some IPIs for author’s consideration:
No. elements for easier comment and note-making:
1-Learner, Doer
2-Bias filters (useful concept, too often overlooked by “teachers and trainers”).
3-Rest of organization (i.e. “Co-workers in own work group; members of other work-groups)
4-Suggest re-naming “Ideas and other working knowledge,” (sometimes stored in company’s KM system).
5-Re-name “Individual’s content,” [i.e. her or his "Ideas for Process Improvement–IPIs"].
6-Rename “Individual’s experience, knowledge, thinking and choosing to present IPIs.”
7–(Colleagues–now covered in #3, delete); Customers; [add Suppliers]. C’s. and S’s. are, with each individual worker, the key pieces of “Knowledge Work Process Model™: for ALL work, EVERY job:
Resources supplied; Work done to transform resources; Resources delivered to Customers–inside or outside the company. (Examples of work that does not fit this KWPModel are most welcome!)
These seven content map elements can now be more easily discussed, debated, developed and put to work.
As for “Performance Improvement Disciplines:” Useful concept for individual and organizational learning–the keys to continual improvement and constructive change:
“Community”–a stakeholder in the company (or any other organization–organization, etc. Not a discipline, delete here, place elsewhere, e.g. at #7?
Ed=Education, OK (abbreviations and alpha order help. Many bodies-of-knowledge (BOKs) for any by “educators!”
HPT–ISPI would want this “discipline” included. Has a BOK its proponents say. At least a model at
KM–working on becoming a discipline and BOK, leave in.
L-Learning: add “Individual and Organizational, all modalities (e.g. Formal and Informal, face-to-face, eBased). Many BOKs!
Ldr=Leadership. Every organization concerned with “L. development” and “succession planning.” Add to list. “Leadership preparation” is defacto activity in colleges. Can easily be made more visible and actionable as service to college’s customers: companies hiring their graduates! R&D project on this underway, info. readily available.
OD–”OD Network” would likely make same claim as ISPI makes for HPT. Is there an actionable BOK for OD? A kazillion techniques, a BOK?
Per=Performance: is there a BOK for this? Not yet a discipline.
Prc=Process – add to list. Note that “All knowledge work, every job is a process. Every process can be improved. The people doing the work know how.” Not yet a BOK. Many process software suppliers working on this, also Business Process Management Institute (BPMI) and Business Process Trends organization.
Pro=Projects. PMI and its BOK need to be added.
Q=Quality: add. Must admit many BOKs developed by ASQ .
T=Talent, current successor (says “Talent Mangagement” magazine) to “Personnel, Human Resources (HR), and Human Performance.” Six pillars of TM seem to cover all the bases, including learning.
… Probably other disciplines and BOKs I’ve overlooked. What would you add? Can a PDF be created with updated Content Map and no./alpha lists of content elements?
Great start, thanks – DW, 10/13/07
-end-
Dick, it would be more engaging to respond had you left a legitimate return address. You’d have to draw your concept for me to fully get it, but I’ll make a few clarifications on mine.
I separated colleagues from “rest of the organization” to differentiate people I know or interact with (the colleagues) from those I do not know.
I’ve numbered the map as you did in order to discuss this. See http://tinyurl.com/25opoy
And here are focus areas I map to the areas of individual performance improvement: http://tinyurl.com/2qj9j6
——————————–
As for community, I am referring to community-building. All of the focus areas are generalized schools of thought, not the specific application to the individual.
I used “HPI” instead of “HPC,” but what I mean is the ISPI approach. (I don’t think they give sufficient weight to the impact of the filters, but that’s behaviorism for you.)
Learning as I think of it includes all manner of adaptations to one’s environment, formal, informal, accidental, books, etc.
Well of course there’s a body of knowledge for OD. This is the term I apply to matching an organization’s structure to its strategy, to realigning organizational elements for greater efficiency, and to taking Peter Drucker’s advice.
I wasn’t clear on what I meant by Performance. I was specifically thinking of putting the smarts into the job rather than the worker’s head; it’s short for Performance Support.
Just about everything is either process or project, isn’t it? One man’s process is another man’s content. I consider these what the individual is improving the performance for rather than a means of performance itself. This is simply a matter of our level of generality.
Quality may have a large body of knowledge but that’s not a defining factor for me. Not to mention that some bodies of knowledge contain more fluff than others.
“Talent” is an overlay that incorporates the elements we’ve talked about and throwing in the fact that you have to acquire the individual and keep her at work to get any performance at all.
My initial objective was to keep things to a minimum in order to demonstrate some of the differences between KM and Learning and whatever. This is more a thought doodle than anything else.
I don’t see much value to producing a pdf. If anyone really wants to play with this scheme, drop me a note and I’ll post a PowerPoint you can mess with.
Thanks for your interest.
jay