Trainer’s Notebook

Two years ago people were agog at Seattle’s “The Future of Training” conference when Dick Carlson showed some examples of user-generated learning: short, narrated PowerPoint, podcasts, blog-posts, and searchable chat. This might have been a bit upsetting to the top-down training managers present. I can understand their feelings. If the users are generating the learning content, why do they need us?

This month I did a close comparison between the number one user-generated learning site: YouTube, and the upstart Learnandsave.com. A recent article in the New York Times found that a lot of 12-year-olds will start “search” with YouTube videos, and then go to Google only if they can’t find what they want in video form. So?

Learnandsave.com is definitely oriented toward consumers at this point. Still, if your new hires start putting together tutorials on how to do their jobs and posting them, don’t be surprised. In the meantime, here’s a great place to find out about waxing skis and home improvement. VidTeams did a fun video where we handed-out camcorders at a presentation, asked the audience to record the presentation, and then produced a video on “Making Short Learning Videos” using the footage.

Employee-Generated Content:
2 years ago Deloitte decided to encourage their entire employee base to do that. Search for Deloitte Green Dot on YouTube and see how many excellent, spirited, engaging videos you find!

The learning is going to percolate up, regardless of whether the people at the top make it happen or not.

Many trees have been transformed into paper to publish the many, many analyses of the coming “Skills Gap.”

Could they have more productively been processed into Presto-Logs?

Predicting organizational distress is a small industry in itself. Yes, everyone knows the boomers are going to retire. Yes, they have skills, experience, knowledge of value. What we don’t know is whether organizations can become adept at capturing the value through knowledge-management programs, and conveying it to the surviving employee base. Gurus began pointing to Wikis, talent management processes, and a variety of other tools. Who’s paying attention?

Remember the Y2K Crisis?

My friend Robert Cenek forwarded me the recent survey by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College found that, among 450 employers surveyed, fully 60% expected employees in the post-50 age group to stay 2 years longer than the current median retirement age of 65. Most decision-making on retirement age was in the employees hands. The survey explored what effects the delayed retirements would have on 1) the knowledge base of the organization, 2) promotion ladders, 2) labor costs, etc.
A careful perusal of the survey questions and results, triggers several questions:
1) If more older workers are going to stay in the workforce, is there an effect on the way learning/performance programs are deployed?
2) How does an organization identify key knowledge/skills to capture?
3) What are some examples of knowledge irretriveably lost?
4) How does an organization know if they’re on the right path?

I finally got into Edward R Tufte’s new booklet “The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint: Pitching Out Corrupts Within.”
If you use visual aids and want to reach the visual learners in your audience, it’s well worth reading - it’s only 30 pages.
It would also be valuable for people who do financial presentations, use visuals in the courtroom, pitching to Wall Street, or in the boardroom.
I’d been ignoring Tufte’s rants about PowerPoint in recent years. A lot of bad visual aids are created out of ignorance and laziness. But someone recommended it to me, and I must admit I think that he’s onto something.

First, for the faint-of-heart, I’ll warn you that Tufte shows the actual PowerPoint slides that led to the Space Shuttle Columbia’s disasterous re-entry from orbit in 2003. Was the risk analysis botched, then obscured by faulty PowerPoint slides? You can judge.

Tufte has taken his criticism beyond ignorance and laziness. He says that PowerPoint is as disasterously flawed as the Ford Pinto gas tank. It is built to mis-manage decisions, fluff-up faulty ideas and make them appear palatable, to lie convincingly. He says PowerPoint is a child of the software industry, and implies that it’s design is warped by the need to sell vaporware, persuade customers that bugs and security problems don’t exist, and inflate features and profits.

Putting aside these arguments, he nails the inherent incompatibility of meeting rooms, projection screens, and the human field of vision. If you’re 30 feet away from a 5′ X 5′ screen you can’t see much unless the type is VERY LARGE. That means you can’t put much on the screen if you want people in the back to read it.

Now, having said that, I had a GIANT EPIPHANY this week. I was laughing so hard I actually did cry while reading the 2nd half of Tufte’s book. It is full of zany, awful visuals. It all became clear how valuable a 2 or 3 projector system is for leveraging visual aids and learning. One of Tufte’s contentions is that the linear nature of PowerPoint makes it difficult for the audience to compare, contrast, go back, suggest different perspectives, or ask “What if…?” or “What else…?”
A very wide projection surface not only makes it easier for people in the back, it is ideal for these side-by-side comparisons.
For more info on multiple-projector presentations go to www.trizenter.com.
I have one of these 3 projector systems and love to show it off to people. And NO, projectors don’t cost half what they used to.