by Karen Merriman

Learning Management Systems (LMS) faced a crossroads. The LMS was intended as a place where facilitators, learners, managers, and courseware developers could track, update, dispense, and assess advanced and up-to-the-minute professional development experiences.

But, today—even after millions of dollars in technology and content development and years of pain and suffering—many corporate LMS are little more than “parking lots” for courseware, schedules, and test results.

What if these systems could be more? What if an LMS could be employee-driven rather than company-driven? Empowering rather than “mothering?” Flexible rather than constraining? They can—provided you are willing to track real competency rather than simply “completion.”

Suppose you are responsible for a group of 1,000 adult learners scattered throughout North America. Your task: make sure they all know how to make a Boston Cream Pie. You have several tools at your disposal. Your company (Pies in the Sky, Inc.) maintains one of the world’s foremost teaching and test kitchens, staffed by award-winning instructors. You are also eager to deploy a recently completed online self-study course, sporting eight 90-minute modules covering everything from crust preparation to sauce making and the history of confections. Finally, you have several excellent cookbooks.

How to meet your objective? The answer lies in the question. Remember, you are charged with making sure everyone knows how to make a Boston Cream Pie—not with teaching everyone to make a Boston Cream Pie. In those few words lies the difference between competency and completion.

Too often as trainers, we are tempted to treat all learners more or less as equals. Result: 1,000 people go to cooking school—or take the eight-module self-study course—or get a cookbook.

But, on closer inspection, you realize that 23 of your charges work in bakeries—they can handle a Boston Cream Pie; just check the “certified” box and send them on their way. Fifteen used to work in bakeries—hand ‘em a cookbook. More than 200 are full- or part-time homemakers—they have got the basics of baking pretty much knocked; why not have their managers observe them baking the prescribed pie to make sure it meets “Pie in the Sky standards” and let them go? That leaves approximately 762 learners with various degrees of competency. Even then, you find that about half can demonstrate (via a short assessment test) a solid understanding of food preparation. Perhaps just a few of the eight online modules will bring them up to speed. That leaves less than 400 in need of real help. Of these, about half are tactile learners—people who need to see, taste, touch, and hear in order to absorb new information. Send them to class with your blessing. The rest can probably benefit from the entire online experience.

So, we haven’t killed classroom training—but the students who are there actually want to be there and will benefit from it. We have also migrated to an online learning environment—but only where it makes the most sense. We haven’t created special cases or “let the old-timers off the hook,” because they have demonstrated their abilities, and we haven’t wasted their time. Most importantly, we have made certain that 1,000 people know how to make a Boston Cream Pie to company standards. And, we have done it while saving perhaps hundreds of plane tickets, thousands of hours of training, and a good deal of frustration.

Making a competency management approach work takes a few key things. First, we must treat grown-ups like grown-ups and not “students” in the classic sense. Second, we must trust our people—especially frontline managers—to assess who is and is not competent. And third, the systems we build must support the people who will use them.

At my company, we have been building our Competency Management System for several years, and we are only beginning to “get it right.” “Right” requires a flexibility that is not currently built into many Learning Management Systems. It also requires humans—and their ability to provide reliable information. But, done properly, it could mean the difference between an LMS that costs money and one that actually delivers measurable business results.

And, that’s not pie in the sky!

Karen Merriman, Retailer Training & Development Manager for Volvo Cars of North America, helps more than 14,000 retail employees meet the high standards of the Volvo brand and its customers. She has held field, management, and training-related positions within the automotive/automotive finance industries and has designed, developed, delivered, and managed training programs through classroom, Satellite IDL, and web-based methods. Karen may be reached at kmerrima@volvocars.com.

Advertisement  Would you like to advertise in this space? Contact marketing@ispi.org

by Carol Haig, CPT and Roger Addison, CPT

Vince Patton, a long-time ISPIer, is best known to us as the Master Chief of the Coast Guard, recently retired. Expecting his days to be less frenetic, Vince is discovering that while retirement is filled with opportunities to pursue new interests, few take him far from his HPT roots. Vince, who may be reached at vwpatton@msn.com, took time from his responsibilities as adjunct faculty at the University of California at Berkeley, consultant to the Joint Military Intelligence College, and church board member, to make a few Future Watch observations.

Significant Observations
Vince is reminded that HPT principles are sound, and that they are effective across disciplines. In his teaching affiliation, he observes that systemic thinking, starting with the end in mind, and other HPT basics are generating interest among university faculty members in various disciplines. This is evidence of the expanding circle of influence of HPT.

Since retiring from the Coast Guard, Vince finds that HPT principles and tools have widespread application in unexpected arenas. For example, a local television station invited him to help them structure news stories about the war in Iraq so that technical information about weaponry would be understandable to non-military viewers. Vince based his suggestions on HPT principles and was gratified to find how well a systemic approach helped the writers communicate clearly.

Reasons for These Observations
Over the years, instructional formats at colleges and universities have evolved from traditional, theory-based learning to increasingly application-based designs, as HPTers have long advocated. Institutional learning is now likely to be case-based, example driven, and focused on the how-to’s. This practical approach to learning helps shorten the students’ transition to the workplace and equips them with the basic problem-solving skills they will need on the job.

In light of our economic conditions, in both for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, senior leaders are being forced to look at the results they want to achieve. With this focus, they are taking the opportunity to view each prospective change as systemic and are considering how it will affect the total organizational system. As Geary Rummler has told us, organizations must “adapt or die,” and these leaders are choosing to adapt with a careful eye to the effect on the entire organization.

Predictions for the Future
As previous TrendSpotters have noted, the principles and practices of performance improvement will continue to migrate across disciplines and become valuable tools in the hands of our clients. From his new vantage point as a civilian, Vince agrees. He predicts that the next two to three years will open opportunities for HPT models and tools across disciplines; that organizations will increasingly find the advantages in starting with the end in mind; and that systemic thinking will guide change efforts.

If you have any predictions about the future of HPT that you feel would be of interest to the PerformanceXpress readership, please contact Carol Haig, CPT, at carolhaig@earthlink.net or Roger Addison, CPT, at roger@ispi.org.

by Alastair Rylatt

There is little point spending hours trying to improve performance if we do not evaluate our efforts. It is the cornerstone of personal and business growth.

Of course not all measurement and evaluation is good. In fact if we are not careful, what we produce can be inappropriate, meaningless, or inaccurate. Just because you are getting great scores, numbers on a balance sheet, or feel good does not necessarily mean you are discovering what you need to know. We have to have a discipline that stretches our boundaries of the known and unknown to reveal the truth.

The key to successful evaluation is not to burden people with excessive demands but to ensure the right measures are explored for the right reason. Then, your business will be in a better position to face the future with confidence.

Excellent evaluation must be backed up with careful planning, transparency, and consultation. Management must be prepared to deploy a range of measures without being guilty of producing bad or misleading information. Deploying the right spirit is vitally important. Treat the process of evaluation seriously, and you will discover the insights necessary to provide the services and products you desire in a smarter, faster, and better way.

Here are five essentials to help you get the best out of evaluation of knowledge, learning, and innovation:

1. Avoid measuring everything. Spend your evaluation efforts on the big projects or mission critical business processes. Carefully isolate the data and measures, which will give you the best and most accurate picture of the truth. This could include performance measures as well as contributing factors such as customer expectations, work environment, and the level of management support.

2. Be wary of accepting benchmarks or standards from other businesses without first studying their suitability and relevance. Just because someone else has reached a certain standard does not mean it is achievable or relevant in your business. Consider the constraints and idiosyncrasies of your business. Make sure you are clear about what you are trying to do and measure.

3. Be clear of your real needs and hot spots. Do your homework before venturing off elsewhere to find the answer. Make friends with financial whizzes and industry experts who can help you argue a business case based on facts and the right evidence. Then, be prepared to back up your discoveries with testimonials, unsolicited kudos, or stories that build up your picture of success, progress, or failure.

4. Dig below the surface and question assumptions, beliefs, and taboos. Be prepared to ask different questions to map out the next practical step. Your evaluation may tell you where you are going, but it may not tell you what to do next. Ask only those evaluation questions that you are prepared to answer yourself. Encourage the sharing of important knowledge and unbiased feedback. Be ethical and preserve confidentiality and trust.

5. Finally, review how well you are conducting the evaluation process itself. Explore how successful you have been in communicating the intention and purpose of your study or review. Remember the process of measurement must sound both interesting and important, otherwise people will not help you out.

   Alastair Rylatt, Director of Alastair Rylatt Consulting, is one of Australia’s leading speakers on smarter, better business. He is an international award-winning author and consultant. His latest book Winning the Knowledge Game: Smarter Learning for Business Excellence was published in May 2003 by Butterworth Heinemann. Alastair may be reached at www.alastairrylatt.com.

Advertisement  Would you like to advertise in this space? Contact marketing@ispi.org

“I am just trying to save the world, one company at a time.”    —Darin

As well as this more logical exposition:

“You know, Mom, I’ve been a trainer for a long time. I have been teaching new managers how to be better managers, and while they learned everything I taught them, they could not use the new skills on the job. You see, these managers’ managers did not support them. The company pay system gave bonuses to managers who did the exact opposite of what I taught them. So I decided that training is not enough and I should get management support for the new skills. Also, people should get paid more for using their new skills. At first, I had to do these things sneakily. Now because more and more people recognize you need to blend training with management support and pay raises and better office furniture, my job has become easier. Performance technology is blending different ideas so people can work better and produce more on the job.”

One interesting observation: No Certified Performance Technologist (CPT) has responded to the question (except me—under a pseudonym—but I don’t count). So, you are not competing with any “certified” person. It is not too late for you to respond. The deadline has been extended to September 15, 2003.

Performance Support
Here are a couple of strategies to improve your performance:

• Continuous Improvement: If you have already sent your entry, you can still send in additional entries. In fact, you can respond as many times as you want. After all, HPT is such a complex concept that you may need more than one short note to your mother.

• Modeling: You can review the entries submitted by other people before you send in your own. Learning through review and analysis of other people’s performances is an important feature of the OQ strategy. You can do this by clicking the Peer Answers button on the question page.

So go ahead. Make your mother proud. Respond today by visiting the OQ: Your Mother.

by James A. Pershing, ISPI Director

A significant portion of the work of our Society is carried out by volunteers that serve on an array of committees. Recently, there have been discussions among Board members and formal as well as informal leaders of ISPI concerning the inclusiveness, or what some see as the exclusiveness, of the membership of committees. Such observations are made when the membership of a committee is homogeneous in terms of experience, professional responsibilities, gender, ethnicity, and so on. Others have observed that at times, a small group of people crop up repeatedly as committee chairs and members.

Given the history and nature of our field and the Society, there are a number of reasonable explanations for homogeneous committee membership and repetition in committee leaders and members. Early on, academics were a force and now that has shifted to independent consultants. Most significantly, ISPI has a score or two of people that over the past two or three decades have been very successful professionally and are devoted to the Society. Their devotion has been actualized by generous gifts of time and expertise to the Society as it has evolved and grown. Understandably, these individuals have learned the ways of one another and have come to rely on their personal and professional networks for consultation and support in their professional endeavors. Naturally, these networks carry over in their work for ISPI.

What the Society needs is a way to preserve and to continue to benefit from the expertise and energy of the leadership core that has served us so well, and at the same time reach out and cast a wider net to involve others in the work of ISPI. In order to overcome the complacency and comfort levels associated with working with those we know well and through existing networks, elected leaders and committee chairs should be assertive.

If ISPI’s goal is to grow its membership and to have a greater influence in the field of performance technology, the Society must broaden its demographic base. In order to appeal to those new to the profession, minorities, academics, corporate trainers, human resource developers, organizational developers, and so on, it is important that each individual is able to look at the leadership and active participants in the Society and see someone with whom they can professionally and personally identify. Another benefit of diversity is that the products and services ISPI produces via its committee work will improve as multiple and more diverse perspectives influence their design, development, and implementation. Finally, diversity will benefit the Society’s membership retention and growth as individuals see through actions and not words, no barriers to their potential involvement and professional growth in ISPI.

One might question, will ISPI’s present leadership core be diminished? I think not. First, as ISPI grows, more, not less participation will be needed to accomplish the work of the Society. In essence, as the membership pie grows, more people can get larger slices of the action. Second, as “old guard” and “new guard” mix and mesh, new and exciting networks will develop. Also, the danger of “group think” will diminish, and new and exciting ideas will evolve. And, if there is one thing that characterizes the “old guard” of ISPI, it is their love of new and exciting ideas.

So, I am advocating that all elected and committee leaders in ISPI begin to think about the benefits of diversity as they seek volunteers for the work of the Society. It will take a bit more work to identify and seek out others that are not in our personal and professional networks, but the effort will have great payoffs. To those that would be asked to serve, accept. Do not view yourself as not ready, not connected, or as token appointees. Your views and life experiences are valued and needed in order for ISPI to grow and better meet the professional development needs of you and your contemporaries. If we act aggressively and seek diversity in the membership of our working ISPI committees, we will grow our membership, enhance our influence in the field of performance technology, and assure that we have a viable group of diverse young people to move into leadership positions in ISPI. Can you think of a better way to secure a legacy for those that have already given so much to ISPI?

For more information on volunteering, visit: www.ispi.org. Go to committees (under members services in the menu bar on the left side of the screen) to review the committee and task force charters and current chairpersons. Get involved!

The Certified Performance Technologist (CPT) designation is awarded by ISPI to experienced practitioners in the field of performance improvement and related fields such as instructional design and organizational development whose work meets the 10 Standards of Performance Technology and other application requirements.

Until October 31, 2003, performance improvement professionals with more than six years of experience can apply under the Grandparenting application provision for the CPT designation. After that date, anyone seeking the designation will have to apply under the more rigorous Regular application provision. For more information on the CPT designation and to download the application forms, visit www.certifiedpt.org.

In this column, your colleagues discuss their “tools of the trade.” The focus is on providing interesting and useful job aids that help you be a more effective practitioner of performance technology. For additional job aids and other useful information, visit ISPI’s 99 Seconds Online.

This month I talked to John Amarant (JA). John is a resident of the San Francisco Bay Area. As a Certified Performance Technologist (CPT) he specializes in the areas of organizational alignment and leadership. His clients span the industrial spectrum: hardware manufacturers, software developers, telecoms, transportation (rail, metro, and air), banking, insurance, and automobile sales/distribution. John may be reached at jamarant@aol.com.

MM: What is the DILO—Day In the Life Of?

JA: It is an observation tool that’s been around for, as far as I know, 20 years. I use it when observing work performed by a critical position—typically a supervisor or manager—anyone with oversight of people and processes.

MM: Who might be interested in using this tool?

JA: People looking at the performance of people in critical positions. It can be used by managers, but is best used by someone outside the company. At a minimum, the observer should be someone outside the line of authority.

MM: When do you use the DILO?

JA: I use it during my second data sweep, when it is evident that there is some deficiency in performance. I use it when I have observed situations indicating that productivity may not be what is should be. Typically, I would not use this tool during my first data scan. It gives me an opportunity to look at the performer in situ (in the system).

MM: How do you use it?

JA: When I want to see what people do, and how they do it. It gives you an opportunity to learn what they are reacting to and compare that with what they should be proactively managing. I identify what is pulling on them in terms of measures; things going on in the environment; pressures they are subjected to; and what they have and don’t have control over.

I will set an appointment with the person to be observed. Before I do this, I have researched the position by studying documentation and talking to the person’s boss. I want to understand the outputs the person is responsible for managing—the critical components of the job. This creates the context for my observation. The conversation with the boss also sets the stage about what kind of information is being gathered, and how the information is to be used.

I always ask permission of the manager in charge of the area—usually a couple of levels up from the position to be observed. I also make it clear that this is not a time and motion study. I do look at what time is being spent on different kinds of activities, but I am not looking for efficiencies so much as the alignment between what the worker believes are the priorities and the purpose of the position in the overall system of the organization. When I introduce myself to the performers, I tell them that my purpose is look at what kinds of things come at them in the job. I don’t make a big thing about the notes I’m taking. My findings are always anonymous. The results are always published as “trends” within the position across the organization, and I often tell this to the performers before the start of the shift. To categorize the performer’s behavior, I develop a set of definitions to describe the categories and a code that corresponds to the behavior being observed. I typically use time as a measure of the behavior—i.e. how much time does the performer devote to the performance of the behavior. I don’t use a stopwatch, a wristwatch is sufficient. I refrain from talking to the perfomers because it tends to distract them and me.

MM: What is the benefit of using this tool to you and the client?

JA: From the client’s perspective, it gives them measurable illustrations of my observations—some clients think this is real important. For me, it helps document my first-hand observations, the obstacles I’ve noticed, and opportunities for improvement. I am able to document observations not typically discussed in reports. I can look at the processes, tools, and validate documentation provided to me by the client. I can document status of initiatives—are they being lived or are they just words on a wall somewhere. A lot of information that I gather using this tool is peripheral or secondary to the discussion at hand. It helps me facilitate a discussion with a client about those things that are really working.

MM: Why do you like this tool?

JA: It is easy to use and easy to understand. The results are straightforward and clear. The next steps are clear and the implications—connections to other parts of the system are obvious because you’ve seen the work performed. The outputs of the observation put everyone on a common footing. It illuminates what is happening at the front end of the organization by illustrating in a graphic way the situation or system in which employees work.

MM: Finally, why is there air?

JA: Yeah? Because the plants make it. It’s all part of THE great plan—the super, Super-System.

Click here to download an excel file of the DILO discussed above by John and Mark.

Mark Munley, CPT, is an associate partner with Performance Design Lab. He brings management and consulting experience in the analysis, design, and implementation of organization performance systems. He may be reached at MarkMunleyOnLine@attbi.com.

by Bob Bodine, 2004 Conference Chair

by Todd Packer

I-Spy, our monthly column that takes readers to off-the-beaten-path websites to help them find similar thinkers, resources, work, new ideas, and sometimes just plain old fun, is taking a hiatus in September but will return in the October issue of PerformanceXpress. Please continue to send your ideas and suggestions for interesting and useful websites to Todd Packer at tp@toddpacker.com.

Do people really have different learning preferences? Do they gain more if the learning opportunity is engineered to different styles? Can these various learning preferences be identified…even specified for each individual? Is anyone really trying to use learning preferences?

AmeriCredit has an answer to each of these questions. It is a resounding, Yes. In fact, this company of nearly 4,000 employees is concurrently utilizing learning preferences in engineering both instructor-led sessions and e-learning applications. We also are constantly exploring understanding and uses of how people process information, and how they learn optimally through learning preferences. AmeriCredit is into its fourth year of applying the Input-Output Processing Template (I-OPT), developed by Professional Communications Incorporated, a research and development firm. With every application, the company finds benefits to learners, to our various operations, to our customers, and to AmeriCredit’s award-winning Learning & Performance Department (Training magazine named AmeriCredit as one of its top five training functions in the United States for 2002 and 2003). Participants are engaging in e-learning sessions with over 70% completion rates, while instructor-led learning opportunities find participants rating the sessions higher than ever before.

The approach for identifying individual learning preferences includes a one-page survey of 24 multiple-choice questions that examine our team members’ preferences for learning. Connecting through AmeriCredit’s web-based learning management system, anyone in our more than 90 locations can submit the survey in approximately five minutes. The results are processed instantaneously and are immediately available in a back-end database.

The I-OPT provides each person with an information template that identifies four information processing and learning preferences. These four primary styles are:

• Reactive Stimulators (RS): Highly task/action-oriented; preference for trying a new idea rather than hearing about it.
• Logical Processors (LP): Process/task-oriented; prefer structure, sequence, and context.
• Hypothetical Analyzers (HA): Prefer to think in great detail about the learning; like macro understanding to mentally process how information fits.
• Relational Innovators (RI): Enjoy making relationship connections; creative and like to relate new things to something familiar.

Almost everyone has a primary style, or preference. Team members whose preference is RS learn best when they are engaged with an activity on the topic, while LPs gain the most when they can follow an orderly sequence to their learning. At AmeriCredit, this primary style is called someone’s “sweet spot.” Most people have the ability to also connect to varying degrees with any of the other three preferences. AmeriCredit’s instructional designers are utilizing this information to better engineer learning opportunities.

One of the areas where this is most evident is in developing e-learning. In order to engage all learners, online courses are now developed to continually cycle participants through all four styles. Online courses, in every 8 to 10 minutes of attention time, cycle AmeriCredit team members through something that hits their “sweet spot” for learning. They feel comfortable with their style being addressed at a frequency that keeps them engaged. This is AmeriCredit’s “Action e-Learning.” Learning & Performance instructional designers apply an experiential learning process based on the work of David A. Kolb, in which learning is achieved by progressing through four phases or processes:

• Stimulate: “Doing” something; reinforces the Reactive Stimulators’ style
• Process: Logically reflect on what was done and its possible impact; preferred by Logical Processors
• Analyze: Think conceptually about how this fits; appeals to Hypothetical Analyzers
• Innovate: Apply to new ways of acting, thinking, and being; engages Relational Innovators

AmeriCredit is also pursuing the development of e-learning courses that allow participants to experience a learning module tailored to their primary learning style.

Our web-based learning management system links to individual learning preferences, allowing learners to be presented with online courses engineered to their style. In this next phase of our application of learning preferences, courses being designed to individual preferences will become our “I-Styled Learning” modules.

Instructor-led classroom sessions are currently being designed using Kolb’s learning cycle and team member learning preferences. We now ask team members, prior to attending a course or workshop, about factors concerning their readiness and motivation. This information is processed and provided to facilitators. Based on the percentage of participants with each style, facilitators can then modify the way the session is conducted to maximize connection with attendee “sweet spots.” Pre-reading may be sent to Hypothetical Analyzers (who actually may read it), more “do” activities may be inserted into the session to reinforce Reactive Stimulators, time may be taken for “connecting the dots” for Logical Processors, or conceptual, fun application time may be added for the Relational Innovators. Of course, AmeriCredit sees instructor-led sessions that are specifically engineered for each primary learning preference as another step the company will be pursuing in the near future.

AmeriCredit is on the leading edge of understanding and applying learning preferences. We are gaining much from our applications in such areas as knowledge management, enhanced learning, increased return on investment, and improved operational results. From what we have experienced thus far, the future is going to be both exciting and highly rewarding for those exploring and effectively utilizing human learning preferences.

Tom Schafer, Vice President of Learning & Organization Effectiveness for AmeriCredit, is an international organizational design and development consultant recognized for helping to create world-class learning organizations and high-performance work systems. Tom’s track record extends to 21 industries. He facilitates numerous learning and OD workshops and has spoken at a variety of international conferences. Tom may be reached at Tom.Schafer@americredit.com.

Bill Thomson is Vice President of Performance for AmeriCredit in Fort Worth, Texas. Over the last 15 years, Bill has constructed and led three corporate learning and organizational effectiveness departments, as well as designing, developing, and facilitating many professional, managerial, and executive programs. His experience includes petroleum, manufacturing, utility, and financial industries. Bill may be reached at William.Thomson@americredit.com.

Since the author of this monthly column, Carl Binder, was on a personal “retreat” during most of August, there is no regular Measurement Counts! article this month. However, he would like you to take the time you usually spend reading his column and click here to the GOT RESULTS? section on the ISPI website. There, he would appreciate your reading a couple of the measurement-based cases that our HPT colleagues have submitted to the GOT RESULTS? archive. Also, download and review the Submission Form so you can keep an eye out for opportunities in your own work or that of your colleagues for directly measuring behavior, accomplishments, or business outcomes and submitting the results to the archive. The regular Measurement Counts! column will return in October issue of PerformanceXpress.

by David Miles

He had a horror of destroying documents, especially those which were connected with his past cases, and yet it was only once every year or two that he could muster the energy to docket and arrange them.
   —Sherlock Holmes

The Art of Managing Corporate Memory
Knowledge management (KM), as Sherlock Holmes reminds us, is the practice of keeping our files straight, the art of managing corporate memory. Managing knowledge means overseeing strategic intellectual capital and keeping information organized and instantly available. Through the dynamic archiving of e-learning pages, classroom binders, FAQs, industry reports, and best practices, managing your corporate past creates your corporate future, and thus lends you a competitive edge.

Four Easy Steps
How do you “do” KM? Knowledge management generally follows a basic four-step process:

• Gather existing information
• Organize the information
• Design an interface
• Continue to update the system on a daily basis

These steps are not always that easy. Here are two of the most important issues to address.

Warning 1: The Tricky Art of Capturing Tacit Knowledge (aka Folkore and Voodoo)
KM prides itself in capturing tacit knowledge, the “silent” knowledge that circulates by way of the water cooler and has never been written down. Tips and tricks, rules of thumb, and the private hallway talk known as tribal knowledge, voodoo, or folklore all fall into this category (Aeppel, 2002). The assumption is that if this valuable oral knowledge can be captured and properly indexed, a powerful new performance support system or job-aid engine will be created. But the challenge is that tacit knowledge is also the information that employees will withhold when they want to get ahead in a company, or when job security is topmost on their minds. If knowledge management is to solve this problem (and avoid the pitfalls of earlier ventures such as the expert systems of the 1980s), it needs to consider a system of rewards and recognitions that will support the capture of silent knowledge, for instance, “cash rewards for tacit knowledge captured dead or alive,” or similar such creative tactics.

Warning 2: KM Systems are High-Maintenance
When forecasting the cost of a knowledge management system, don’t overlook the high cost of maintenance. You’ll need more than a database administrator and a person in tech support. A permanent staff—to capture, update, and link new information on a daily basis, as well to solicit, encourage, and thank the “voodoo informants” and “friendly folklorists”—is vital to the success of KM.

20 Seconds into the Future: IT, HR, and HPT
The final step to successful KM will be the smooth partnering of two very different departments, those of HR and IT. As HR practitioners transform themselves into organizational developers and performance consultants and IT specialists reinvent themselves as information strategists and knowledge designers, HPT practitioners will have to become experts in a new domain—that of dynamic knowledge mapping and business strategy. This new terrain will combine the arts of information design, performance consulting, industry expertise, and systems design. As the new era dawns upon us, HPT practitioners will become the creators, consultants, and catalysts who will make the HR-IT partnership work, resulting in truly viable knowledge management systems.

Reference
Aeppel, T. (July 1, 2002). On factory floors, top workers hide secrets to success: Tight-lipped old hands and ‘voodoo accuracy’. Wall Street Journal.

This article has been adapted from David Miles’ 30-Second Encyclopedia of Learning and Performance, a compact reference book for trainers and performance consultants-on-the-go, just released by Amacom. David is an instructional design and knowledge management consultant to major corporations, and welcomes comments and replies to his ideas at Ldmiles@pacbell.net.

The best training and performance jobs are at located on the International Society for Performance Improvement’s CareerSite. Post your resume for free, and find your next career. Tired of sifting through hundreds of generic ads searching for specific jobs? ISPI provides candidates with reliable employment opportunities in the performance improvement industry. Premier companies consider ISPI their best source for talent. Job seekers—post your resume for free!

• Complete control over confidentiality of your information
• Customized Job Search Agents working 24 hours/day
• Store up to 3 unique profiles—FREE!
• Post your resume for prospective employers
• Application tracking features

• Short “I wish I had thought of that” Articles
• Practical Application Articles
• The Application of HPT
• Success Stories

In addition to the article, please include a short bio (2-3 lines) and a contact email address. All submissions should be sent to april@ispi.org. Each article will be reviewed by one of ISPI’s on-staff HPT experts, and the author will be contacted if it is accepted for publication. If you have any further questions, please contact april@ispi.org.

Go to printer-friendly version of this issue.

Feel free to forward ISPI’s PerformanceXpress newsletter to your colleagues or anyone you think may benefit from the information. If you are reading someone else’s PerformanceXpress, send your complete contact information to april@ispi.org, and you will be added to the PerformanceXpress emailing list.

PerformanceXpress is an ISPI member benefit designed to build community, stimulate discussion, and keep you informed of the Society’s activities and events. This newsletter is published monthly and will be emailed to you at the beginning of each month.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact April Davis, ISPI’s Senior Director of Publications, at april@ispi.org.

ISPI
1400 Spring Street, Suite 260
Silver Spring, MD 20910 USA
Phone: 1.301.587.8570
Fax: 1.301.587.8573
info@ispi.org
http://www.ispi.org