A Discussion with William L. Solomonson, PhD, CPT – Part 1
After October 2011’s GDASTD meeting about Building Trust with Professor William L. Solomonson, Assistant Professor at the School of Education & Human Services at Oakland University, I had the chance to have a continuing back and forth discussion on the topic. This is the first email that I had sent to Professor Solomonson regarding the Building Trust topic.
1. It looks as if the EVI model graphic was created as a hypothesis image, with all 3 sectors being the same size on the outside, however at the end of the presentation you said that Sharing of Information was the most important, or at least the most valued by the individuals you are consulting. Knowing this information, shouldn't the model graphic then display "Information" as a larger portion of the graphic. (The graphic being the EVI circle)
2. When you are evaluating a client's values, wants (knowledge from you) and needs (skills from you); this requires a lot of interpretation and presumptions based on what you think they value, want and need versus actually asking them and getting involved that way. Do you find that having them help complete or walk through a worksheet like you had given us, as almost a needs assessment, helps create a better bond in the relationship than just completing it without them?
Would that help create a better environment because instead of just trying to go straight to business, you're taking the professional steps to make sure everything is aligned ahead of time before any work has been put forward? I mean, if we take the idea that Sharing of Information is the most important element in the EVI model, shouldn't that be the default setting for the start of the relationship, and then you would be forced to include them in anything, including a strategic plan for developing/maintaining the most successful relationship.
3. This is a little off the topic, but in terms of any consulting relationship (external versus internal, new client versus previous client), isn't history always an element for any relationship, to the point that it may be a variable ring inside the EVI, surrounding the Trust/Relationship?
The "History Ring" would then increase or decrease based on historical events including: previous work done by the consultant (has the consultant been able to accomplish tasks similar to what we are requiring), previous work done by the company hiring the consultant (have we been able to replicate the consultants work before with success), past experiences with the consultant, past experiences with other consultants, and word of mouth.
This isn't to say that having no history is a bad thing. I think the reason companies like external consultants is that they have no history or background bias towards the consultant that could skew their perception of the work. In a really off-topic example, it would be kind of like why people like bottled water versus tap water. Typically there are no real advantages (outside the few locations where tap water has a foul taste due to being over-chlorinated or well water) but people perceive that if you have to spend more money on something, then it has to be better.
A Discussion with William L. Solomonson, PhD, CPT – Part 2
After October 2011’s GDASTD meeting about Building Trust with Professor William L. Solomonson, Assistant Professor at the School of Education & Human Services at Oakland University, I had the chance to have a continuing back and forth discussion on the topic. This is the second email that Professor Solomonson sent regarding the Building Trust topic.
1) You make an interesting point about the graphical representations of each factor more appropriately showing their relative impact in the EVI model. My initial response is that above all I want to keep it simple. They are all important, some slightly more or less so, but it can be easy to get bogged down in the details and that is something I wanted to avoid by offering a simple model. It would stand to argue, if they were different sizes, that all things would then be sized exactly and appropriately to its affect, and if you visualize that in your mind you can see how complicated that visual would look. Also, another angle on all this is that some of these factors actually affect other factors, and not just trust. I have a full mediated model of all the correlations of these things and it does indeed get complicated. I think the Pareto Principle (the 80/20 rule) offers some good guidance in this case for a practical model.
2) This is an interesting approach. I hadn't considered, nor has the literature suggested, that knowledge aligns to "wants" and skills align to "needs". My initial reaction is that may offer a way to conceptualize things but reality isn't quite so clean as that. Really, both consultative knowledge and skills should support some client "need", as formally I'd argue from a performance improvement perspective, needs are all that matter. It is then a performance consultant's primary responsibility to differentiate to a client the difference between his or her "wants" and "needs", and that needs are what matters, as defined by what is required to achieve organizational goals. This is a big thing, and often not addressed by training consultants as in our field we're often presented with ready-made solutions to develop or deliver based on what our clients perceive as "needs" (but are really "wants").
You ask an interesting question in terms of a mutually-attended assessment in terms of the worksheet. Part of my consulting does include the question, "when where done, what does success look like?", or similar, so that we can specically measure whether or not we've achieved it, and to work towards a goal. I guess it depends on the elegance of the consultant; having a sense of what to ask what client and when, without having a negative effect should be paramount. I do believe there is room for a document that assists in this. The danger is I think in presenting it as a "I'm going to build your trust in me" approach as it can sound manipulative.
3) Yes, there are in fact many factors, I only shared the Big Three. In a new relationship, the ones I talked about are really the most impactful. History as a factor is huge with pre-existing relationships, for obvious reasons. There is an interesting branch of literature that explores stages of the relationship, which looks at some different factors and at what hypothesized stages they occur.
In your thoughts I'd recommend keeping a clear distinction between "history", as a factor that affects the relationship, from the "internal/external consultant" concept. What you are talking about in internal/external in terms of "history" really has more to do with objectivity and broad experience based on multiple projects with multiple clients and how those contribute to a different type of and perception of expertise.
But, to your point, I think there is room in this discussion to create a different model, or a transformative one, that adjusts throughout a relationship as certain variables become more or less latent. This model could include history, transaction costs, and other factors.
A Discussion with William L. Solomonson, PhD, CPT – Part 3
After October 2011’s GDASTD meeting about Building Trust with Professor William L. Solomonson, Assistant Professor at the School of Education & Human Services at Oakland University, I had the chance to have a continuing back and forth discussion on the topic. This is the third email that Professor Solomonson sent regarding the Building Trust topic. Any additional emails will be posted in future postings.
1. I can certainly understand and respect the thought process behind keeping the graphic simple. Certainly one could say that the old food pyramid model was easier to understand than the new, complicated food pyramid model that was unveiled a few years ago. The goal is to create an easy graphic representation, not require a PHD in the topic to begin to decipher the material.
2. I've never liked the idea of an "out of the box" product that is used to solve any or all of a client's needs. Out of the box processes really only work for things that will almost always be standard, like making hamburger helper, but from my experience, no corporation is identical, nor are most individual franchises. They all need at the very least a little fine tuning, if not a complete overhaul of a program, to match their business values, employee values and current state of their corporation.
But going forward with that, I can see that it is a double-edged sword that a consultant can have when going with that mutual assessment process. Most people turn to the outside consultant because they are looking for that fast solution, not for an individual to come in and appear to be unsure of the problem. With the right approach, in terms of showing the client what you are attempting to do prior to actually doing it, you can present your solution as a real opportunity to rebuild versus just puttying over the cracks. (Think rebuilding a dam versus just putting some sealant over the cracks. Sure both can accomplish the task and rebuilding will create a better, safer product, but that requires time and patience. Puttying gets the job done fast, even if the results are temporary. [Long term goals versus short term goals] I would like to generally assume that most companies who hire consultants need long-term results versus just puttying up their problems.)
3. I like the idea of an additional element that includes the idea of objectivity, where that is defined by multiple factors including personal history, past experiences, and other external circumstances. I was trying to think of a new model image that incorporated this sort of framework. The first image that came to my mind was an almost hourglass image; where the top layer goes > Information to Values to Expertise, then has to go through a filter of Objectivity into the bottom half the glass where it is Trust then Relationship Commitment. I'm not exactly sold on this image, but it was the first one I could think that would be rather easy for someone to process through, as hour glasses are common knowledge and it goes through a sort of filter process. (I'm going with an hour-glass filter metaphor, because in my mind, I think of any issues or obstacles that exist, slow down the process from flowing faster to the trust and relationship commitment region. There can be some large obstacles in the way, but trust can potentially still flow down. However if there are a lot of large obstacles along with a few minor issues, you're going to have a very hard time getting all the way to the bottom of the hour glass quickly.)
Training - Event or Process
A few months ago during a Greater Detroit ASTD meeting, the following question was asked to the audience: Is training an event or process? After a few moments, the general consensus of the audience and presenter was that, training, is in fact, an process. This viewpoint, however, does not resonate well with me. Well developed training is an event, not a process.
Events are memorable experiences or activities that individuals not only connect with, but can recall at a later date. Training should be an event, that encompasses training and information on multiple activities or processes. If you are not developing your training as an event, you are not actively engaging or preparing enough to reach the needs, interest or wants of your learners.
Processes are defined by linear steps or directions. Training isn't a linear process, as much as we may try. There are objectives or milestones for training, but the path to those objectives or milestones is not always going to be the same on a regular basis. Focusing training as an event allows the trainers and learning developers the ability to treat the event as a living, actively improving training program instead of a stationary, isolated process. Processes are generally considered to be short term while an event is considered a longer length period. Would you say that college was a major process in your life or an event in your life? Most would declare that college was an event, the preparation for a professional career versus the process of graduation.
Using this viewpoint, we can create a hypothetical training for creating a cupcake. When creating this training, there would be multiple processes (creating the cake from scratch, making the frosting, decorating the cupcake). Each of those activities or processes would then be blended together to for an event. The important thing to recognize is that events are just not series of processes, but the entire environment leading up to the training, including the theme of the event (not just the topic but the environment and general style of the event), invitations (creating interest), actual presentation and post-event followup(evaluations, practice, discussion). All of these elements help transform training from a boring process to a must-see spectacle.
By focusing on the training as an event, you then look at the entire training scenario and the impacts beyond just the singular day or training period. While processes and events may be similar in nature, training is an event. Creating every training program as an event will help develop more meaningful and lasting connections for the learners.
10 Tips for Developing ELearning
After attending last week’s Detroit ASTD presentation sponsored by Innovative Learning Group, you’ve finally found the confidence and encouragement to begin developing eLearning and possibly mobile learning for your business. Great, and early congratulations on taking the first steps towards moving your learning to the digital age. Before going gung-ho and diving head-first into developing your training programs, here are 10 tips towards developing successful eLearning.
1. Develop Scripts – Any great training program, from online or in person, first starts off with scripts and extensive planning. Writing with scripts allows you to storyboard and plan out the training. This is a great time-saving step that should be done at the start of the eLearning rather than as the eLearning is being developed. Effective script writing and planning allows you to focus on the learner, structuring your eLearning lessons as well as identifying the necessities of the training program.
2. Use Existing Resources – Before you started developing or attempting to develop your eLearning program, you were already training employees. Use that information as a head-start; don’t waste time re-inventing the wheel. Review your previous content and determine what elements are still currently valid while identifying any material that needs to be updated or has been altered.
3. Develop Consistency – For any training to be successful, the learners need to have a consistent approach to obtaining the knowledge. This is especially important when developing eLearning programs. This consistent first starts with the tone and approach first outlined in the script but it also extends to the eLearning lessons themselves. Learners should experience a consistent process when going through the lessons, including consistent approaches to navigation, interaction, and onscreen guides. Consistency also requires that these tasks be completed all of the time, throughout every training module. This helps develop a straight-forward learning environment for the learner, without the need to relearn or finagle with several different styles of eLearning. If the eLearning is being developed through a program such as Captivate, develop a standardized template that should be used throughout the training by the developers that includes consistent transitions, locations of text and background images.
4. Web First – While the development of mobile training is a very interesting and current topic, it is also expensive. Moving from a standard training program to a web-based training program is more effective than a pure mobile-training program. Using Microsoft Word, you can create PDF files that will be downloadable for your learners on their mobile devices, including iPads, iPhones, Android phones and any other smart phone, tablet or computer. PDFs ensure that the user will be able to view the file in the exact format that was intended, without the risk of the page being displayed differently due to page margins. PDFs can also contain links, allowing quick navigation throughout the file for all devices. For more intensive online help documents, a web help authoring tool can create an online user-guide that users can access from any device with an internet connection.
5. Be Aware of Limitations – Before investing significant money and time in developing eLearning, be aware of the advantages and disadvantages of eLearning. ELearning is a great way to deliver information to learners across a wide distance. It can provide a new interactive experience for the learners that previous distance methods lacked. These programs can be tied into Learning Management Systems to track scores and develop training programs based on the learners. Mobile learning is a great tool to send learners information on-demand, including job aids, podcasts or short instructional videos. While these are advantages, eLearning still does not successfully manage all change management applications within an organization without a blended learning approach. Learners can feel distant or uninvolved in the development of the company. Additionally, programs such as Captivate or Camtasia can develop great eLearning content but the interactivity of those training programs requires Adobe Flash, a product not supported by iPhones or iPads. (Adobe does allow packaging of some Adobe Captivate products onto Adobe Air that can be viewed on iPads, but that’s another topic.)
6. Video Versus Interaction – Trainers love incorporating games into training. It breaks up the sometimes monotonous tone of training as well as provides the learners with the ability to apply their skills. However, eLearning needs a healthy mix between interactive games or videos as well as simple how-to videos. As a training developer, be aware of the activity that is being completed and focus on what is going to be the best approach to presenting the learner with the knowledge for the task. If the video is supposed to help a mechanic identify a broken widget while on the job, an interactive video may be a poor choice, as they may be using the video while under the car. Videos can help provide a quick visual solution to a problem, without the need to view text or decipher text. Additionally, be aware of the environment that the learner will be using the video. If they will be using the video in a noisy garage, make sure the video can be understood without audio. If necessary, use callouts, highlights or on-screen animations to illustrate points.
7. File Size – The biggest issue with eLearning and mobile learning is about getting the information to the user when it is needed. While applications on a phone and pre-downloaded files provide near instant access to the information, developers must be aware of file size for the training material. Even in locations with high-speed internet or 4G mobile speeds, poorly managed file sizes for training materials will delay the learner from instant access to the information. Be aware of any pre-load settings for all video or graphic documents. If you are creating PDFs for users, compress every image to provide learners with the best quality to file size ratio possible. If developing documentation in a web help authoring tool, be aware of the screen size the learner is using, the learner's ability to understand the training and view the text for any images. Additionally, YouTube offers the ability to upload private videos, enabling your learners the ability to view the videos on the go without having to worry about file hosting for your business.
8. Focus on Graphics – Most effort into training goes into developing great content with lessons that over-lap and support learner retention. In an elearning product, the goal of learner retention can be jeopardized when training materials are created without incorporating basic graphic design elements. When developing eLearning, focus on clean, straight-forward design elements for the learner to view. Keep in mind image context, including helpful background images that help the user identify the location of the object. Additionally, focus on using easy web-fonts, as they allow the user to read the information without unnecessary eye strain. (Sample fonts include Verdana and Trebuchet MS) Keep all pages and videos free of flashing backgrounds, or unnecessary images. Using an alternative color or a line can help break up large blocks of text or separate content. Finally, maintain consistency in image placement and spacing, including vertical and horizontal lining. (The best example would be to think of a great menu at a restaurant. It’s not distracting but helps you make a decision. This is ideal for a training document)
9. Google Analytics – After deploying the eLearning materials, including eLearning lessons, web help or PDF files, attach Google Analytics code to the pages. Google Analytics is a free program from Google that helps identify additional information about the user of the eLearning content that you have developed. Using Google Analytics, you can identify the most commonly used items, the most commonly used screen resolutions, operating systems (Windows, Macintosh, Android, etc), and load times for each page. All of this information allows you to fine tune and tailor the eLearning experience for the user, adapting the eLearning program to suit your audience. This is a great way to determine the best screen size to make videos or eLearning programs as well as can help identify the best strategy if your company would be turning to developing an application for a mobile device. (You may think you want an Apple Application but may have a greater base of learners using Android phones.)
10. Explore – The best experience you can gain in developing eLearning will be from actually trying to create eLearning. It’s a hands-on activity that requires you to apply your own skills and techniques in developing the content. Using a researched perspective along with the knowledge of the learners and any limitations, great content can be created for any circumstance. Don’t be afraid to fail or make mistakes. They will be your best learning experiences.
Four Myths of eLearning
The summer recess has passed and everyone is now gearing up for the long haul into the fall months. At our September 21st meeting, Innovative Learning Group is presenting “Mobile or Not: Here it Comes!” an introduction into mobile learning as a new training mechanism.
While mobile learning is being discussed at this month’s general meeting, Detroit ASTD
figured it would be a good time to discuss and review four common myths of eLearning.
1. Myth: eLearning is the future of training.
The general consensus is that eLearning and electronic based training, including mobile, internet based, web conferences, online classes, is the future of training and that all training will be going in that direction. While eLearning is surely exciting innovation in the field, it remains only as a new tool for training. As Trainers and Learning Development Specialists, we are taught to conduct a thorough analysis of
the learners and the content being taught. This analysis includes the content, the method of training, a detailed analysis of the learners and their available equipment, and any potential barriers or foreseeable programs with implementing the training. While eLearning helps reduce several barriers of training, such as location, time and new information, it still has a variety of other new obstacles including development platforms, hosting providers, standardized evaluation metrics, and barriers of technology. These are all important elements to keep in mind before anyone decides that eLearning is going to be their only way to train.
2. Myth: eLearning is appropriate for all types of training.
Training can generally fall into two basic categories, new or updated processes to the learner (How to build a widget) and mandatory training for compliance reasons (Sexual harassment training). However, there is a third underlying element to training that is often not considered when selecting methods of training or change management. Change management involves not only a new process to all of the learners, but requires a complete shift from the way the process was done before to the way the process is done now. Current eLearning, while great at describing and training new processes, has a hard time incorporating change management. Effective change management requires both knowledge behind the changes being made as well as the emotional aspect of others helping or assisting in questions regarding the change. ELearning misses significantly on building that relationship between the developers and the learners. For change management to be effective, learners need that ability to connect with an individual on the knowledge and skill level as well as the emotional bond over asking questions and having guidance through the change.
Elearning does excel at distributing information for on-demand or just-in-time learning, including videos, walkthroughs, or digital text formats of training documentation. In addition to the ability to provide the most up-to-date information through digital distribution without the fear that outdated print material is being used, eLearning is also easier to sort and locate information, view short interactive videos for help topics, and can help reduce the need to print training materials on paper.
3. Myth: eLearning is more cost effective for training than any other training method.
While eLearning certainly can be more effective in the short-term view of training, there
are several viewpoints to consider before evaluating the cost effectiveness of any
training program. ELearning requires an investment in software (computer programs such as Adobe Captivate, Camtasia, etc), hardware (eLearning hosting, computers, and
internet connections) as well as development costs in creating, maintaining, updating
and evaluating the training. Cost effectiveness also needs to incorporate the actual outcomes of the training program on the learners. While creating a great eLearning training program may save the company $500,000 in the short term, companies must also focus on the long-term goals of the program, including the employee’s knowledge retention, overall feeling of the change management and long-term development goals of the training. Companies must focus on both the short-term financial requirements for any training program as well as the long-term financial requirements for any training program.
4. Myth: eLearning requires a stable topic.
One of the best features of eLearning is the ability to rapid prototype and develop training at an accelerated pace. ELearning allows developers to ability to consistently fine tune and improve the training after each training session. With a majority of eLearning training being hosted on a server or cloud-based system, developers can instantly change or upload new files to the server. This approach is increasingly important when developing eLearning for website products or additional products that are updated or improved on a regular basis. The ADDIE model (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation) is sped up, reducing the time between Evaluation and Development.
While eLearning certainly is a new and developing training topic, it does not replace traditional methods of training. However, with the proper learner analysis, knowledge of the advantages and limitations of eLearning and correct implementation, eLearning can become a great learning tool for any organization looking to enhance their training programs.