The concept of Just in Time training has been around for a long time. It makes sense, the idea of getting trained on a subject just before you need it. The Just in Time moniker was borrowed from Lean Manufacturing, and specifically draws on the Kanban principle for optimizing inventory.

When it comes to learning, though, an idea that’s just as useful – and maybe more – is what I call At the Time training. My favorite example, from a great discussion thread on the Edward Tufte website:

A lot of learning industry experts talk about this all the time, but they don’t really give it a name. For example, Dennis Coxe wrote recently in a post about the importance of timeliness in good instructional design:

It has to be made available when the learner needs it, not when the LMS says he or she can attend … [It should be] chunked appropriately so that it can be digested in little bits and can be easily searched to locate the critical learning bit when it is needed.

It seems to me that At the Time training should be the holy grail of training objectives. Which is why I got awfully excited when I came across the Tufte discussion thread mentioned above (the first post in this thread, by the way, was in March 2004, and has remained active ever since – with a new post as recently as June 29th of this year).

In the corporate world, we see more companies setting up sophisticated Electronic Performance Support Systems (EPSS) every year. For some reason, though, this topic doesn’t seem very buzz-friendly among the eLearning cognoscenti. In fact, a Technorati search on ‘EPSS’ turns up just one blog (The Learned Man) containing the term.

I plan to dig a bit more around who’s using EPSS systems and for what. For a bit more background on EPSS systems, click here. In the meantime, I’d love to hear from anyone who has experience with these systems, good or bad. Because learning At the Time is where it’s at.

Check out this handy collection of learning-related sites, assembled by by Karl Kapp and Steve Woodruff. It’s sorted into categories like Training and Education, eLearning, Corporate Blogs, and more. This Pageflakes site seems like it could be especially useful for those new to the industry or considering a career in one of the learning-related disciplines.

Technology adoption on the web is starting to sound like an Einstein thought experiment. Remember how he said that if you exceed the speed of light, time slows down and even goes backward? A baffling paradox, but Einstein convinced us it’s true.

Well, I have discovered a similar, albeit converse, relationship between me and Web 2.0:

If I stop trying to stay ahead of “the curve” (and even resist it), I will eventually find myself ahead of it.

Witness this Primer-like timeline:

May: I read something about Facebook for the first time.
June: I read a LOT about Facebook, because everybody’s raving about it.
July: Figure I’d better create a Facebook profile, since LinkedIn is starting to sound downright retro by comparison (see gapingvoid.com headline if there’s any question).
July: Lo and behold, I discover that my slow Facebook-trigger-finger has actually put me ahead of the curve, since Kottke tells me Facebook is cool, but its limitations mean that it is clearly the “next AOL.”

Suddenly, I can strut around confidently again. “Facebook? Who needs it?,” I say. “It’s the next AOL. Too closed, and all that. Kottke said so.”

Isn’t technology great? Well, gotta run – better put up a Facebook profile – just in case.

Finally, a decent explanation for the uneasy feeling I get when I hear the phrase, “It’s not about the technology.” Put simply, it’s an oversimplification.

This feeling was articulated in a recent article by Andrew McAfee about the frequently over-used phrase, It’s Not About the Technology. He says,

Searching for this exact phrase yields about 1800 results on Google Blog Search, 17,700 on Google Web Search, and at least one book title. I’m sure I’ve said it myself a few times, although I try not to.

People usually mean one of two things when they say INATT; one of them is correct but somewhat uninformative, and the other conveys a lot of information, but is incorrect and even dangerous. The correct-but-bland meaning is “It’s not about the technology alone.”

I too have said INATT, because it’s a lot more provocative than what McAfee points out is the “correct-but-bland” meaning. For those of us in the fields of user acceptance, training, and change management, it’s an easy way to draw attention to – and puff up – our otherwise under-appreciated disciplines.

So, I started thinking: what’s a more interesting – and provocative – way to say It’s Not About the Technology alone?

Some completely inappropriate ideas:
All technology and no people makes Jack a dull boy.
Ask not what your technology can do for you …
It’s not about the technology, it’s about time for lunch (yikes)

Enough, already.

Let’s hear some real ideas.

A concise explanation for why large-scale software projects frequently fail, from Michael Krigsman:

Why do projects fail? Very often, the roots of failure lie in non-technical areas related to project management, organizational politics, and lack of consensus across stakeholders. In plain English, failures often occur when people with conflicting agendas can’t put aside their own narrow concerns and agree on a course of action that is best for the project as a whole.

In our business, we encounter a lot of people who specialize in Change Management, Organizational Development, Leadership Alignment, and similar fine pursuits. Few of them, however, can capture software implementation dynamics as succinctly as someone (Krigsman) who has clearly lived through these projects on the front lines.

A great post the other day from Harold Jarche, in which he observes, “Learning Management Systems (LMS) are the ERPs of the education and training world.”

While some organizations strive to automate and structure the learning process, Jarche points out the ultimate futility of this endeavor since, he says, “Learning is not a business process.” Learning management systems:

… try to take into account all of the factors necessary to control the experience, whether it be the “right” content or the most “appropriate” evaluation. Automating teaching and learning in order to be like ERP’s is the holy grail in some edtech business circles.

The best LMS is the Web, because it allows any message to be received by anyone, without adding a pre-defined learning wrapper. In a world of ever expanding information and knowledge, the key to “managing” learning then, is helping individuals to develop their own message interpretation processes and skills.

As learning becomes less event-driven and more integrated with work, and even informal, it will be instructive to see how LMS systems evolve in the years ahead.

Stop the virtual presses! The IBM CIO Leadership Forum, in a recent survey of 170 CIOs from around the world, discovered that, “In order to ensure organizations growth and business innovation, there should be a cordial relationship between the CIO and the CEO.”

So that’s the missing piece; if only we could be more cordial with one another, imagine what we could accomplish.

This astounding finding is further supported by another breakthrough discovery, this time in IBM’s 2006 Global CEO study:

The IBM 2006 Global CEO study indicated that CEOs who incorporated business and technology reported greater customer satisfaction, speed, and flexibility than their less integrated peers. According to the latest IBM Global CEO study conducted among 750 CEOs, 80% of the CEOs considered business and technology integration to be important.

It is possible, I suppose, that the CXO Today article’s, author (the always insightful Mr. CXO Staff) unintentionally watered down the survey’s results with his characterization of this essential relationship.

On the other hand, it could be that the author inadvertently submitted his summary of the 1976 Global CEO study (since that’s the last time a story like this should have qualified as news).

This stuff seems especially amusing to those of us in the custom training business, since we frequently find ourselves bridging the gap between IT and business. To us, it’s kind of like “discovering” that the engine in your garage should be attached to the car if you want to get to the store.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve known some fine IBMers, and even developed thoroughly cordial relationships with some of them. This kind of research, though, doesn’t do much to boost IT consultants’ credibility.

Finally, anyone who bought either of these surveys, please let me know so I can change into my white pants and put the results in better context.

Suddenly, synchronous e-learning seems to be everywhere. Not that it ever went away, of course. Its apparent surge is surely just because I’ve started to pay attention. In the past few weeks:

• A potential client turned me on to a blog by Brent Schlenker that frequently extolls the virtues of synchronous learning systems (makes sense, since Brent works for the e-Learning Guild).
• One of our major clients has dramatically increased the number of LiveMeeting events they will use to roll-out several new enterprise-wide software systems.
• Finally, I came across an excellent summary of an SLS presentation put on by the e-Learning Guild. Thanks to Cammy Bean.

If you’re like me, and thought synchronous learning meant sleep-inducing Powerpoint death-marches, think again.  Apparently a lot of others are doing the same.

A great post the other day from Michael Krigsman at his blog, Rearranging the Deck Chairs. He excerpts a white paper sponsored by SearchCIO called As the World Turns: CIOs and their ERP Dramas. A particularly insightful bit:

It’s not ERP systems per se that present the stumbling block; the trouble arises from the internal state of the enterprise, the way IT is conducted and how decisions are made. The ERP project ends up being a kind of IT CAT scan, revealing everything that is broken or out of alignment.

So getting full value from an ERP investment requires the organization to examine what’s out of alignment and fundamentally change how it works. The question is one of readiness: Is your company braced for this level of change?

I like the image of big-project-as-CAT-scan. It’s not until times of stress that we usually see what’s really not working in our organizations. I am encouraged, however, that more companies seem to be paying attention to change management before (or at least during) their large-scale software implemementations.

Good article in Chief Learning Officer magazine about the return on investment in training:

Contrary to what the “learning ROI” movement has said in recent years, C-level managers are less concerned about learning investments’ financial outcomes and more preoccupied in obtaining nonfinancial performance outcomes. In more direct terms, they want to see how learning and development delivers results in relation to organizational objectives. (Link to article here).

Unfortunately, some companies still try to justify training from a purely financial perspective.

It’s true that training – especially when it’s related to large software projects – can be expensive. But, as the old saying goes, how much do you suppose it costs to employ people who haven’t been trained?