Training Industry Quarterly - Spring 2008 - (Page 28)

So, the desire, will and technical capability agement functions should be introduced. Much of the discussion are there, but the inability to drive broader orhas been fruitful — though there has been an over-reliance on organizational change remains an inhibiting facganizational structural approaches, and relatively less on the busitor. What’s missing is a strategy, process and ness processes and best practices needed to support them. methodology to break out of the traditional hierarchiThe two abstractions — well represented stakeholder views cal framework and extend learning further across an exthat cover a lifecycle of learning processes — get us back to fotended enterprise. cusing on people, and propose an organized framework to imThis is where governance becomes crucial. It is the next learnplement a governance model in practice. The model’s strength ing gap to close. This article will address the challenge further by also recognizes that the resulting design may vary among organpresenting a change management model and methodology to izations, emulating the way each organization actually works in help implement learning governance. It’s called the Learning Govorder to assimilate necessary changes for learning. ernance Lifecycle model. Figure 1: Learning Governance Lifecycle model Five-Phase Learning Lifecycle Processes Closing the Gap A big part of capturing the impact and ROI of the promise outlined above is through governing learning more effectively, thereby increasing the impact of all kinds of learning on business goals and needs. A “managed learning” strategy needs to span the organization or extended enterprise, link more closely to business objectives and strategy, achieve new standards for efficiency, effectiveness and performance, and capture economies of scale in order to realize the full value of the vision set out many years ago. For this to happen, practitioners need to recognize that enterprise-wide learning is not just a technology challenge. It’s a people and process challenge: listening to people; managing people; motivating people; training and supporting people; designing processes that work for people. The business process and stakeholder alignment (i.e., people) issues are disciplines that come out of change management and organization design, where governance is rooted, which have not historically been part of the learning teams’ repertoire. The strengths learning teams have in program planning, curriculum design and adopting new tools need to be augmented with new skills in leading organizational change, determining best practices for improved business processes, and adopting new principles of personal and organizational change management. More focus on these important dynamics will expand the impact of learning on the organization. A Simple Proposition The model can be introduced with a simple proposition: 1. It doesn’t matter whether your organization is more centralized or decentralized, 2. You can establish effective Governance if you have: a) Well represented stakeholder views b) That cover a lifecycle of learning processes Potential Areas of Risk While there are a lot of functions in learning that can be organized as a “shared service,” a very decentralized, autonomous governance model for learning, which is seen in some healthcare organizations, can still effectively serve the enterprise if the processes are identified and supported accordingly. The lifecycle model places emphasis on business processes explicitly, where the most productive changes occur by managing real change through people who do the work This helps make operational teams the focal point for the organization’s knowledge and learning activities as well as assimilators of new technical capability. Fellow colleagues often refer to this as “managing the middle.” Done well, the processes become more organic, and will lead to greater executive visibility, budget authority and even professional responsibility. By working with stakeholder views — such as business unit leaders, program managers, content sponsors, learners and other recipients or sponsors of learning — across a lifecycle of learning processes, responsibilities become more clear and the process flows easier to design around them. Governance becomes more effectively rooted in process design, not just a concept to impose on organizational structure. As one industry colleague recently commented, “How we govern learning really matters! Engaging stakeholders, managing suppliers and building healthy and effective processes to plan and deliver learning may be the most important challenge for our field.” So, how do we adopt this governance challenge and put a plan into action? The Learning Governance Lifecycle Model The model started with two key abstractions — stakeholder There has been a lot of research and discussion the past couple of years about whether learning functions should be more centralized or decentralized and whether new roles and account man28 Training Industry Quarterly, Spring 2008 / A Training Industry, Inc. ezine / www.trainingindustry.com/TIQ http://www.trainingindustry.com/TIQ

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Training Industry Quarterly - Spring 2008

Training Industry Quarterly - Spring 2008 At the Editor’s Desk Contents Winning Organizations Through People Before You Buy… Learning Technologies Take Your ROI to Level 6 LCMS: A Critical Link to Learning Success Establishing Best Practices for Learning Governance Training’s Role in Continuous Improvement Meet Jim Mitnick Meet Karen Kocher Meet Christina Cernuch The Personal Side of Personnel Training Closing Arguments

Training Industry Quarterly - Spring 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.