Learning 2.0 - Take It To The Next Level

We are running a Learning 2.0 experiment to see if we can learn faster, retain more, and realize greater gains from what we have learned.

Why?

We have no criteria for how we decide what learning opportunities we should invest in. Further, when sharing what we have learned from book reviews, training courses, conferences, and even customer success days, the reviews can take too long, and they don’t have a clear purpose or goal to them. This is not to say that our attempts at learning have been a failure, on the contrary, they have been the source of incredible improvements and it is from this elevated understanding that I realize we can increase the velocity and impact of how we as an organization can learn. In other words we are now at the point where we can experiment with taking our collective learning to the next level.

But, before I jump to how, I want to first make one clarification. I am talking about our collective education as it pertains to our shared interest in the continuing improvement of our company. This is not about how we as individuals should be continually educating ourselves on a wide variety of topics. I do think that is a pursuit that all of us should be taking and it is worthy of debate and improvement, but that isn’t the topic that I am focussed on here.

With this clarification in mind. We learn and share what we have learned with all of our coworkers to improve how we work together to deliver products and services to our customers. For our learning to be a success we have to realize an improvement is defined as; a problem to be solved, or a job to be done, that we deem important enough to act on, and by acting upon it we achieve a measure of success as defined by the key performance indicators (KPI’s) that we use to measure our results by.

This is not to say that attempting to learn is a failure if we can’t realize some action that results in KPI improvements from that learning. On the contrary, pursuing new knowledge that we hypothesize will benefit us, is what we should be doing, what we shouldn’t be doing is wasting time summarizing and sharing the results of that education if we find that there is nothing that we can act upon from it. In other words the hypothesize didn’t pan out.

My learning 2.0 experiment can be summarized using our typical structure for analyzing problems as follows:

Problem To Be Solved

Our investments of time and money into learning are ad hoc with no clear criteria for how we make those decisions, and our general sharing of everything we have learned in an often protracted way has created learning bottlenecks and learning fatigue with the process. Further we have no formal method by which to realize the benefits of what we have learned.

How We Measure Success

Within three months of adopting our learning 2.0 process we are reviewing and acting upon at least one learning opportunity at every weekly share and learn.

Job To Be Done

As the person who wants to learn about something that requires my time, possibly company funding, and the time of my coworkers to consider what I have learned, I present the hypothesis for the problem that I believe this education can solve and the key performance indicator results that it could achieve, for review and approval of at least one coworker. Once agreed to this learning investment becomes a card on the applicable team board, with points, that moves to validation once closed.

As the person sharing what I have learned I focus my summary on my key insights, and for each insight the problem that we have that the insight can solve, and by solving it my hypothesis for the measure of success it can achieve. And I include any related jobs to be done to recognize the benefit. For greater certainty we limit our education sharing to insights, and for each insight the problem to be solved, it’s measure of success, and if applicable job to be done. If we have no insights from the learning that we should act upon we close our learning card and move to our next learning opportunity.

As the person making the case for an action to be taken to realize the benefits of an insight that I have made I present my rationale to my coworkers to hopefully have them back my suggestion and queue the work to be done, failing that, my improvement goes nowhere for now.

Interesting add on job to be done that we can do once we become good at this; We publish everything we have learned publicly so that our community can benefit from our education and by so doing they become stronger, more involved, and the size and reach of our community grows.

Our Purpose? - Our People

I surveyed everyone in the company as to what they like best about working here and what they dislike most to see where we have gaps in our organization that we should address as part of our quarter end review. I was most interested in hearing the dislikes and initially completely ignored the likes. But then I started to stare at the likes and ponder the comments. There are some fantastic thoughts in here and when I contrasted them with one of the dislikes about the company needing a higher purpose I started to realize that we had completely missed why we exist. We don’t exist for some lofty marketing tag line about saving the planet, organizing all of the world's information, not being evil, or some other catchy slogan, we exist to make our people, our co-workers, happy. All of the points about the best thing about working here kept repeating that it was our transparency, honesty, continuous learning, and the lifestyles that we have because we work from anywhere. And this is when it dawned on me. We aren’t missing a higher goal, we are already working towards it.  And the one dislike that came up several times was that we can’t work anytime. We are missing the anytime part as we all work from 9 to 5 eastern standard time to maximize our communication.

With all of the above in mind, I think our purpose is really clear. To work from anywhere, anytime, to build a transparent and authentic, continuously learning organization that creates products and services for our customers that matter. This is our higher goal. We have no other purpose other than looking after our people and if we look after people they will look after our customers in extraordinary ways. I have to believe that the two are strongly correlated.

And with regards to that big dislike of not being able to embrace working anytime. Have we reached the point where our processes and systems are sophisticated enough that we can embrace flex time without hurting out velocity? I don’t know. And like any good learning organization if we don’t know we should run an experiment to see what happens. If one team wants to experiment with flex time for three months with the measure of success being that their velocity increases, doesn’t decrease, and no other team is blocked at any point due to their flex time, I am all for running that experiment. And of course this is a card on the board with points. All work is visible!

Compensation 2.0 - A New Way Of Doing It

The way we currently set compensation is ad hoc and arbitrary and not transparent at all. Why? We have just always done it this way. What a wrong answer.

What if instead of this random ad hoc way we have everyone define the roles that we need to run the company and for each role they set what the minimum skills required to have that role are, and on the other end of the spectrum what skills and abilities the grand master of that role would have. In other words everyone defines what you need to get a start in a role, and what the master of the role should be capable of. This includes roles that are part-time and that can rotate between people. And we also define what the minimum interpersonal and leadership skills(soft skills) are that we need to join the company and what the ninja of soft skills would have. Because let’s face it, if you are fantastic at your role but your soft skills are marginal that means your influence is greatly reduced and as such your value to the company and your peers is less. Especially in a company that has profit sharing for all.

So what if everyone in the company defines this matrix and then we call in an expert in compensation and they help us refine our role and soft skill definitions and then they research what our min and max competitive compensation levels, for both salary and hourly, should be, and what impact the soft skills scale has on those numbers. And we also get them to help us set what the incremental scale between the min and max numbers for a role should be. What are the increments in compensation for that role.

And then we have the problem of who decides if someone has the skills to hold a role and if they do, where they are on that scale, and same for the the soft skills.

Is it up to the team lead, the CEO, a compensation committee? Or do we go completely off the farm and what if the person who holds a role, or wants a role, makes their case to their peers and they state where they believe they fall within our scales. The peers either unanimously agree or not. If they disagree, the person doesn’t get what they want. No arbitrary management ad hoc decisions. Completely open and transparent compensation. And what happens if we find we are overpaying certain people? What do we do then? Many open questions that I think we need to collate and get the advice of everyone on, and, like any good learning company, we run an experiment or two and see how it works out.

The Next Billion

I attended Quartz’s Next Billion Conference and came away from it with the following summary of trends that we could take advantage of within the next year:

Disintermediation and job losses will leave gaps in the fulfillment cycles that will create opportunities for software as a service providers to layer on actual services to their products.

Digital signage provides the opportunity to deploy sensors wherever displays are installed and these displays can serve as collection, collation and presentation vehicles for the data collected.

Very shortly every person on this planet will have a smartphone and bandwidth will not be a barrier. 5G and ubiquitous satellite connectivity will solve it.

Warehousing of data and the interpretation of it with machine learning is entering the commodity phase. Small companies like us, don’t need to build, we simply “use” for pennies per month. We can stand on the backs of the giants to create value adds on to the products that we already have using big data and the interpretation of that data with machine learning (AI).

Computing is commoditized. Cost of digital signage deployment is not now a barrier, and it will continue to become even less so. There is opportunity to create media players and displays that are first sensors, and second media players, for no noticeable incremental computing cost.

Learning design is not usually included within user experience design and it typically targets the layers between the creators and consumers of the creation. With disintermediation there is an opportunity to embed learning design into applications to replace the disintermediated layer in between in such a way that the training is predictive, validated and gamified, all the while being continuously deployed and A/B tested while calculating the ROI on the services in almost real time. Something the learning design industry has never really done before. Digital signage is complicated and it has many moving parts, by embedding learning design we can greatly increase the success rates of our users.

Emerging markets are huge. There is no need to go up vertically in markets when software as a service can easily go horizontally geographically to attain growth for higher return on investment.

Anger Accomplishes Nothing

Anger is a sign that something isn’t right. Something is wrong. But anger doesn’t fix anything. It usually makes it worse. Replace anger with candidness, no verbosity, drop the adjectives, be specific, focussed and factual. If your mind is rehearsing every angry line that you are going to unleash, you are about to blow it. Be candid, state your case, and listen.  

Edit; Oleg (a coworker) just pointed out to me "only ego can be angry, which is not your true self". Couldn't agree more.