The Blended Learner

Teamwork in the Himalayas

Failure is not the worst thing, success may not be the best.

Recent tragic events near the summit of K2, the world's second tallest mountain and probably the most terrible and beautiful, symbolized (for at least one observer) the loss of team spirit that haunts our era. As we become more "extreme" in our search for accomplishment, we also become more trivial, selfish, foolish. The same often applies to a quest for wealth and power.

Visitors to beckermultimedia.com have seen one of my favorite quotes on the topic of teamwork. It's from an essay called "Out From The Mountain," by George Bell. This is what a failed first summit attempt on K2 taught Bell:

When men climb on a great mountain together, the rope between them is more than a mere physical aid to the ascent; it is a symbol of the spirit of the enterprise. It is a symbol of men banded together in a common effort of will and strength--not against this or that imagined foeman of the instant, but against their only true enemies: inertia, cowardice, greed, ignorance, and all weaknesses of the spirit.

Bell's essay was appended to K2, The Savage Mountain, by Charles Houston. Just the other day, after the notorious calamities on K2, I found another pearl on the subject of teamwork. This one is by Charles Houston himself, in the introduction he wrote for Eric Shipton's Nanda Devi:

It was but a short three months that we had met, many of us as strangers, but inspired by a single hope and bound by a common purpose. This purpose was only achieved by teamwork. Where each man pulled his weight each must share the credit; for though it is natural for each man to have his own aspirations, it is in mountaineering more than in most things, that we try to believe: 'The game is more than the players of the game, and the ship is more than the crew.'

Learning Management

Learning management is a force. Millions of hours and dollars are spent developing, marketing, selecting, configuring and running learning management systems (LMS) in organizations large and small. What is this thing that ravenously consumes scarce corporate resources? What does LMS produce?

What it is. Put (maybe too) simply, LMS is software that administers the delivery of instruction. When I joined the profession a few eons ago, LMS was called CMI: computer-managed instruction. It is lately metastasizing into ITM: integrated talent management. LMS is beginning to remind me of the plant in Little Shop of Horrors. "Feed me!"

What it produces. LMS produces records. Not the fun kind played on iPods. The quantitative kind that gets pumped into reports. Mostly statistics showing who learned how much, when, and what still needs to be learned. The functional cores of LMS have tangible outputs:

1. Registration (user accounts)
2. Delivery (managed instruction keyed to each account)
3. Assessment (level 1-2 training evaluation)
4. Compliance (conformance with standards)
5. Competency (measures of organizational effectiveness)
6. Skills-Gap Analysis (training needs analysis)

I would like to believe that this kind of information has surpassing value, worth millions. But I'm not sure. I suspect that much of it is over priced for an organization that is already focused on operational excellence and results. And among those that are not, LMS may only provide cover.

It's okay to question the economic value of LMS, but doing so makes you a contrarian. After all, over 150 LMS brands are on the market today. Organizations large and small spend grand sums (into the mid six figures) to acquire LMS and many thousands more annually to keep it running. Knowing how scarce resources are for training and development, I am tempted to park my doubts, grab an oar and go with the flow.

But reported satisfaction among LMS customers is very low: around 40% as I understand the numbers. At least three out of five LMS customers have not had (are not having) an exceptional customer experience. More customers are telling "horror stories" about LMS than anything since the Chevy Corvair.

 

There are reasons for this:

High cost. While initial licensing fees can be high; the greatest heat comes from unanticipated costs related to installation, configuration, and just running the thing. I learned the "3X" rule when I renovated an older home: everything I "fixed" was three times larger, took three times longer, and cost three times more than planned. Something like that happens with LMS. The total cost of ownership may be way higher than anticipated, and sometimes you can't spend your way out of the problems. "Feed me!"

Unattainable ROI. It's hard to predict return on investment when initial costs bleed (hemorrhage) into significant ongoing expenses. Even harder when your investment is in something as intangible as learning. Though every learning pro tips a proverbial hat to "training evaluation," in my experience hardly anybody does it well or cares. "No time." So you may wind up in a situation where you've spent a lot of money to administer the delivery of instruction, but you have nothing to show for it. In many cases, your training results are exactly what they were before LMS: you have not moved the needle.

Kludgey software. It's worth mentioning that the most popular LMS software (by far) is free. Zero dollars. It's supported by a community of ethical developers who discover and share best practices, and help each other solve problems. This Linux-like model of application development may be superior, but most of the LMS market is based on the Redmond model of I-Me-Mine. When you license the brand, the brand acquires you. This is how Microsoft successfully markets software that doesn't work so well, and binds you to "certified" consultants who propose to assist in getting what you already paid for (maybe) for about $150 an hour. "Feed me!"

Indifference and resistance of users. Resistance to change is common. Since LMS may drive so many changes in the way instruction is delivered, it is tempting to blame resistance on users. They just want what they're used to, right? I'm not so sure. What they're used to is decentralized, loosely structured, capable of flexing to many situations and growing organically. LMS for the most part is centralized, rigid, cookie cutter; and practically indifferent to the most vital way that learning occurs: not in the classroom, not at the computer, not in front of the TV, but through collegial interaction. Most of what we learn, we learn just by doing; and none of that is on LMS radar.

These may be valid concerns for some. For me the main concern is that LMS is rather like Mr. Blandings' dream house. According to the experience of users, many of its features and functions are not needed; may not be used even if they are needed, may not work when rolled out; and may not add value even when they work perfectly.

Stepping back just a bit for perspective, we may posit that learning management is a specialized form of process improvement, but seems to have little in common with Edwards and Deming. LMS is a specialized form of ERP, but is not an integrated tool for Six Sigma, Lean, or any other engine of growth and profitability. It promises to automate something (the delivery of instruction) that probably doesn't require much automation in most organizations.

If LMS were simpler, smaller and less costly than than it is for many users today, it would make lots more sense. The good news is that it can be.