In the latest issue of Campus Technology, Bennett Voyles writes about the recent trend among campus IT departments in using open source business intelligence applications.  I especially like this quote:

“If you’ve got lots of smart young people working for peanuts, in that environment open source BI probably becomes very attractive.”

If that doesn’t set off alarm bells then consider this:  how do you maintain business continuity when you have at least 25% turnover in the staff that is supporting the open source business intelligence system?  You also have very bright accounting students but you still also have a CFO and professional support staff because you want continuity and people with an institutional memory.

I love open-source and I especially dislike being locked into a proprietary solution (think PeopleSoft) that discourages fine-tuning the application for my unique circumstances.  But realize that there are costs to open-source such as a learning curve, support, and integration that can end up costing you more in the long run.  I think open-source BI does have a good future but go into this new frontier with your eyes open.

It’s an exciting time to be in training and education but it is also bewildering. So many theories, so many methods, so many “disruptive” technologies to choose from. What works and what is just marketing? How do you tell what training method to choose and which education technology consultant do you use to install your course management software?

Here are my tips:

1. Beware of consultants who offer the silver bullet solution. There is no such thing as one-size-fits-all in training or education.

2. Cost should be a factor but not the only factor. Training and education is an investment and not an expense. Ask what the ROI is on the training or education offering.

3. Never trust a consultant who has bad listening skills. If they can’t repeat back to you what you just said, they don’t understand or care about your concerns.

4. Don’t hire a consultant to help you find ideas or your problems. It will be the most expensive fishing trip you will ever take.

5. If a consultant can’t explain a technology in terms you can understand, he or she doesn’t understand it either.

I wrote earlier about my ideas for creating a training method based on the Theory of Constraints. Well, this weekend, I had a great conversation with a friend who asked me what else could TOC bring to training besides dealing with resistance to change. After some discussion, I brought up the point that the various TOC “trees” can be a great way to organize a training session. For example, the instructor can start off with the Current Reality Tree (CRT) to describe the need for training and how the training will solve the current issues.  As the students undergo the training, they can collaboratively build a Future Reality Tree (FRT) to demonstrate how the training will impact their future work.  Then, they can create a Transition Tree (TT) so that they can begin to immediately implement the solutions offered in training.  The great value of the Trees is that they are an excellent way to diagram current mental models and build the mental models that will replace the current mental models.

My resolution for 2007 was to write every day in my blog.  I had to bend that resolution yesterday because of an emergency call from a friend to come fix his computer.  Some tips:

1.  Secure your wireless connection - you never know which of your neighbors might be doing some bad stuff on your connection.

2.  Always check to see what sites your teenagers visit - Better yet, tell them you are checking up on their browsing habits.

3.  Do not assume your kids can handle the power of being computer administrators - Make their accounts limited so you save yourself the heartbreak of having to reinstall everything after they downloaded “something” from “some site.”

I spent the weekend finishing up the presentation for the APSA Teaching and Learning Conference. I’ve written a bit on blended learning but I haven’t written about the second part of the course design which is integrative thinking. This is an educational model created by the Rotman School of Business at the University of Toronto. The premise of the model is that successful decision makers think holistically when solving problems and that functional categories are meaningless when searching for solutions. I think this is also a good model for training public administration managers.

I’ve written about this before, but as I was preparing a paper for the APSA Teaching and Learning conference, I was struck by how the blended learning design for teaching the new public administration course is similar to the significant learning model proposed by Fink.  Recently, I’ve become intrigued by the movement for informal learning which I feel is the bridge between education and training.  It’s a fascinating time to be in education and training right now!

1999 article describing the need for ROK.

Don Cohen - What’s Your Return on Knowledge? - 12/2006 issue of the Harvard Business Review - advocates soft indicators like anecdotes and surveys.

Some consider the “Learning and Growth” part of the Balanced Scorecard to be a way to measure ROK.

The Skandia Navigator is another method like the Balanced Scorecard.

As you can tell, there is not that much out there about ROK which seems as compelling as ROI to the C-Level executives.  I personally like Balanced Scorecard but it doesn’t come close enough to what I would use to sell a training program.  Establishing a valid ROK measurement system would help immensely in selling training programs.

Tony Karrer writes about a report on how many e-learning developers actually assess their programs.  The results demonstrate why many e-learning projects fail or are only partially-effective:

• 11% - No evaluation
• 26% - Level 1 evaluation (comments from learners)
• 48% - Level 2 evaluation (some follow-up)
• 15% - Level 3 evaluation (on-the-job performance)
• 0% - Level 4 evaluation (ROI)

No wonder the recent call from organizations for trainers to justify their programs.

The Theory of Constraints (TOC) is a management philosophy that uses disciplined steps in determining problems that prevent organizations from achieving their goal.  It is akin to Lean Manufacturing techniques and Six Sigma but, in my opinion, is more robust than these management philosophies.  Recently, I’ve been thinking about applying some of TOC’s concepts to training.  I think the most likely application is the Six Layers of Resistance to Change which details the common objections to change and how to answer these objections.  Using the six layer objections is a good way to focus the design of training and demonstrating the utility of the training.  This is because the core purpose of training is to induce a change in the person and a training design that addresses resistance to change will be more likely to succeed.

In the last couple of weeks, I have read several books on how design training that justifies the financial investment in the training program. This is important and I do agree that trainers need to link their programs into the strategic direction of the organization. Return on investment (ROI) should be a major part of any training program.
But I also wonder about the return on knowledge (ROK). In creating my college courses, I realize that I can’t teach everything about the subject and that most important part of the course is teaching students how to learn more about the subject on their own. This skill of learning more about learning doesn’t seem to be covered by most training methods. By using only ROI, training managers concentrate on the cost savings to an organization. But by pairing ROI with ROK, they can also talk about the increasing returns from new knowledge generated by innovations as learners build on their knowledge.

The challenge is developing good, robust measures of ROK that can sell just as well as ROI measures.

As I put together my talk for the Teaching and Learning conference, I have been considering various simulations which will serve as the heart of the beginning public administration class.  What I am looking for is a simulation (or two) that is rich enough to provide multiple lessons for all of the aspects of public administration.  I also want a simulation to be the foundation for other experiential activities both in and out of class.  Public administration is a perfect subject for blended learning because it touches on so many different topic areas.  That is also the problem because it makes it difficult to find the unifying scheme needed to link the topics together.

I’ve been advocating the use of myNoteIt.com which is an online notetaking system with many built-in social networking features. It allows the students to take notes, tag these notes, and share them with other students. They also have a to-do list, class calendar, and even a place to store contact information about their professor. A nice feature is the ability to set up a discussion forum based around a class. I’ve joined in and plan to share my lecture notes with my students. I’ve also set up discussion forums for each of my classes. Hopefully, this can become a valuable tool for students.

I will be presenting on using Web 2.0 technologies in teaching the introductory public administration class at the American Political Science Association meeting in Charlotte, NC next month. There is an interesting intersection between the social networking applications and the rise of network government. The Internet has radically reshaped American government and the challenge will be to capture these changes in the public administration class.

A cornerstone of the class will be a simulation. I am thinking of using Virtual-U because it touches on human resources management, customer management, strategic management which reflects the interdisciplinary nature of public administration.

As I spent the last few months redesigning my approach to teaching college courses, I was struck by how the new teaching methods (Fink’s significant learning experiences, problem-based learning, team-based learning, and incentive grading) are approaching the methods and ideas behind active training.  A lot of the new ideas advocated by the edubloggers sound similar to many new ideas from corporate trainers.  I don’t think this is an accident but part of the realization that lifelong learning is vital to knowledge workers today.  Learning has to be more active, just-in-time, and immediately applicable.  And I also believe that blended learning is the future direction of education and training.

Even though it is just the client-side software (the part that allows you access Second Life) this will have great ramifications for educators. An easier-to-use interface can be built or interfaces customized for specific areas of Second Life. This will also make possible interactions between Second Life and course management systems / training management systems. This decision by Linden Labs will have a profound effect on educators.

Original Story