Training Industry Quarterly - Spring 2008 - (Page 29)

views represented across a learning lifecycle. Let’s now take a closer look at the governance lifecycle framework and see how it works. A learning lifecycle model can represent many different phases for planning, designing, developing, testing, deploying, managing, facilitating and evaluating the outcomes of learning. A simplified framework consisting of five phases is represented here. (See Figure 1.) The framework identifies core tasks to be completed during each phase. It then addresses the risks that can occur as programs move from phase to phase and other stakeholders enter or exit the model. The transitions are where most of the problems come up. Hence, the in-between stages are identified as areas of risk. Using this model, process gaps are uncovered; roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders are clarified; supporting tools, guidelines and checklists are established; and best practices are designed to manage the flows across all phases for the overall benefit of the organization. While the framework is simplified, the same model can expand — to address roles, responsibilities and related issues around LCMS implementation for example — or extend — to address issues around administrative readiness, learner experience, reporting governance and even staff support. Importantly, the framework creates a “customer lifecycle experience” perspective that helps align governance processes that go beyond the view of any one person, team or stakeholder group. People whose primary work may be more “upstream” in the model e.g., program planning, content development or procurement, etc. may not have a full appreciation for some of the dependencies “downstream” — e.g., testing and validating content interoperability, maintaining systems, managing resources or capturing reports, and vice versa, yet actions or decisions are frequently made by either party that adversely impact upstream or downstream roles. These upstream and downstream gaps are common, as illustrated by recent comments from other industry colleagues. One states, “In our current configuration, the most frustrating aspect is the disconnect between designers and the training staff that delivers our programs.” And another states, “My group has limited insight into how other teams are spending their resources.” In reality, people frequently aren’t provided enough visibility in various areas of the organization. The governance process is designed to help expand this capability by incorporating the par- ticipation of divergent stakeholder perspectives and defining more complete engagement processes. Without such visibility, there’s less ability to realize true cost savings or achieve organizational scale. Additionally, many things “break” or can go wrong in the hand-offs between these lifecycle phases despite people’s best intentions, further exacerbating cost pressures and/or causing programs delays. The result is that learning activities remain largely fragmented, subject to “turf wars,” instead of better integrated. This is not a picture in which executives like to invest. The Promise of Process There are many risk elements, and they come up differently in different organizations. The Learning Governance Lifecycle methodology is very efficient in uncovering areas of potential risks. Resolving these risks then becomes the foundation for establishing new best practices to govern learning on a more expanded basis. Creating effective processes requires bringing together diverse stakeholders as active participants. Without broad stakeholder participation, key issues and risks may be overlooked, and further exposure to the learning team can result. A more formal approach to governance can finalize critical processes, clarify roles and responsibilities and provide tools and guidelines for how these processes can be conducted. One such output can be the organization’s Learning Governance Management Guide which then becomes an ongoing “living” document to share with others. Having stakeholders participate in the creation process also increases the sense of ownership and commitment, greatly increasing chances of adoption and success for a more broadly defined learning charter. These benefits, coupled with overall cost reductions and efficiencies, and fewer disruptions, will put learning teams on the path to gaining more executive visibility, building the case for greater investment and generating an environment that truly builds the learning organization of tomorrow. Grant Ricketts is the managing partner at LearningGovernance.com and for the previous 10 years was vice president and founding member at Saba Software, a global provider of strategic human capital management (HCM) software and services. Grant can be reached at grant@learninggovernance.com. Takeaways Improve alignment and build consensus among learning leaders and business units to increase adoption for a more broadly defined learning charter. Uncover and manage “risk” — quickly uncovering pitfalls, both known and unknown, and resolving conflict. Gain more executive visibility by demonstrating greater business impact and justifying further investment. Lead learning processes that integrate with talent and human capital management initiatives as well as leverage new Web 2.0 tools and capabilities. Training Industry Quarterly, Spring 2008 / A Training Industry, Inc. ezine / www.trainingindustry.com/TIQ 29 http://LearningGovernance.com 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.