Month: June 2008

Here I am in the back of the opening session, and they just told us to take our seats. Then they turned off the lights. Nobody can see, except by the bight light of my screen.

Tony Bingham, ASTD President and CEO was just introduced. He is a rather engaging speaker. “There has never been a better time to be in learning.” Sounds positive. Hopeful. Yet also with its own challenge by being involved in a field that is the first to be cut as non-revenue generating. Of course, the possibilities are also limitless for demonstrating strategic value.

Tony is speaking about the BEST winners.

Tony stated that Talent Management is now the hottest area in organizational workplace learning and performance. People are the strategic advantage.

Evident that there is not a unified vision of talent management. Talent management was not even easily defined, so they defined it in a five-line definition. I wonder if it is really that complicated that it can not be simpler. Talent management, as a definition, looks like it was developed via committee.

There were just a few short videos on people discussing talent management and development. Senior executives seem, in those firms, to identify those with high potential and then track / support / engage them.

Tony asked two questions, “How many know your organization’s key strategies?” “How many people know your organization’s key metrics?” He then spoke about linking the two. Link learning with what is most important with our organizations. Sounds like good advice to me. How can budgets get cut

Tony’s recommendations:

1. Create a learning brand. A culture of learning. Leverage it to help recruit, develop, and retain staff
2. Leverage learning to manage talent.
3. Take action on the skills gap. There will always be a skills gap. Fill it with training that follows #4.
4. Be a business partner. We must deserve to be at the leadership table.

There are tremendous prospects in learning, as training effects the greatest resource in organizations–their people.

Bryan Chapman is about to do what appears to be an interesting session, one that is very much needed at one of my organizations (VNSNY) that I represent here. The main project on which I am working is Clinical Orientation Redesign Project, and we are planning to move a lot of our training into rapid eLearning development.

Bryan started his session with a Family Feud interactive game, listing a number of reasons why people do not use interactivity during rapid development (cost, skill set, technology, time, etc.).

He then explained how much time his research (though I am not sure if it is via his own company or through Brandon Hall, where he said he used to work. BTW, another use and set of references for research without any explanation of sample size, methods, etc.) demonstrated it takes to create various sorts of learning.

Did I hear him correctly? He just said:

• It takes 34 hours to create every one hour of instructor-led training
• It takes 33 hours to create every one hour of PowerPoint to rapid-developed eLearning
• It takes 220 hours to create every one hour of standard eLearning (simulation, etc.)

I wish Bryan would have discussed his research around this. He did list some of the references on his handout, but the reference was to the Brandon Hall materials, and not the research process or methodology by which the process was created.

The IBM Learning Model is an interesting concept–60% of the learning is basic content, and can be done individually with eLearning. The next 20% is scenario-based eLearning, and the final 20% is instructor-led and reinforcement. In this model, the 60% would take 33 hours for each content-based eLearning, while the next 20% would take 220 hours each, and the final 20% would take 34 hours for each 1 hour.

Bryan is a really engaging speaker.

He just linked Bloom’s Taxonomy with the IBM Model-knowledge and comprehension are the out layer of eLearning content; application is the simulation component; and analysis (the why), synthesis (new and better improved methods), and evaluation (is this a good way to do this?) are all in the instructor-led components.

Bryan finally offered some software demonstrations of some tools, from the pricey but interesting Raptivity (full interactive version is over 8k, to the free Hot Potatoes and Quandry. Lots of great programs, and I can just hear the same initial objections during the Family Feud still being loud and present in the reasons for why these programs should not be used.

I am looking forward to seeing Maude DiVittis present at this session. I have known and studied with Maude while at Columbia, but have never seen her present in this sort of forum. It will be nice to see what she has been doing with her work, now that she is an independent consultant.

The session is scheduled to begin now, but neither of them are here right now. Not a good sign.

I just spoke with a fellow behind me, and he said the last session in this room was the same thing–nobody showed up and somebody came and announced the session was canceled.

OK, now we are 5 minutes into the session, and still nobody is here / no laptop. Definitely not a good sign.

Somebody just announced the speakers are a little lost and the volunteer office is looking for the speaker. I am concluding they are not showing up; people are leaving. Too bad.