NSW LearnScope Blog & Podcast

I’ve been struggling a little with how to respond to John Mitchell’s discussion with Sue Waters last week (that Alex has already made a post on), but a response it needs. It’s an important conversation worth pursuing (although unfortunately the episode appears to no longer be available).

We’ve come a long way since 1998/9 when LearnScope began and John conducted his initial research. It’s growth into the rich, influential project that it has become may be a response to John’s findings but more likely is a consequence of a young project finding it’s feet. It’s also likely to be the result of the dedication and inspiration provided by what John labels the ‘e-learning fanatics’.

I sense that some of my discomfort grew from an apparent disparity between John’s and my notion of what innovation means and who innovators are. But first let me say that LearnScope (and I can only speak for NSW) unashamedly focuses on innovative practice; on moving current e-learning practice forward. It also focuses on teaching and learning, not e-business. That has been our brief to date but I think I can speak for all the LearnScope family in saying that we are open to revised and extended models for the future, given appropriate funding.

Dave Pollard describes innovation as ‘the collection, assessment and implementation of ideas to transform an organization’s:

• Products: product attributes (what it consists of), product performance (how it works), or product platform (how it’s offered);
• Processes: internal or customer-facing processes, alliances, or technologies;
• Customer Experience: service, delivery channels, brand, or ‘wraparounds’ (the extras it offers customers, such as a connected and helpful community of passionate users); and
• Business Model: how it makes money (or at least covers its costs)

According to the ‘Understanding and applying your innovations style profile‘ utilised by the innovation research group with Marie Jasinski in 2006, ‘we all have the capacity to be innovative, we approach innovation and change in different ways’.

The profile does not measure your level of innovativeness but rather your tendency, disposition, and preference to use four different approaches to innovation and change:
-Visioning: to envision the ideal future
-Modifying: to refine and optimize what has come before
-Exploring: to discover new perspectives and novel possibilities
-Experimenting: to combine and test many unique combinations [p.18]

In any healthy innovative workplace ALL four types are vital; all have an important role as the following diagram from the profile illustrates.

[image from: Innovation Styles]

Most of an organisation’s energy is spent on maintaining itself and replacing lost capabilities.
Any remaining energy should be devoted to innovation in both grass roots and top down approaches.
If operations consume all of an organisations’ energy, it stops growing.
When it stops growing it becomes less resilient and begins to atrophy.
[Coffman, p.11]

Problems occur where that balance is not respected and maintained; when our ’shooting stars’ are disconnected from those with the skills and resources needed to embed new ways of working. As Dave Pollard suggests ‘It’s a question of priorities, of combining energies, and of collaborating in a focused, informed and urgent manner to fix the disconnects and make it happen.’

But without our ‘infatuated’ e-learning ‘fanatics’ (read visionaries and ground breakers) we’d be back in the dark ages. We need imaginers. We need our minds open to new possibilities, we need rule breakers, we need to allow a future that is fantastically different.

Of course innovation must focus on customer needs and interests! The starting point for all LearnScope projects is the learner/client. A top priority for teams is to capture their projects impact.

John suggests in the podcast that learners regard interaction with fellow students as unimportant. I find this very hard to believe. Of course if you are exposed to antiquated teacher-centred models of teaching and learning that focus on lecturing it would be hardly surprising; why would you need to connect? But I’d be interested to know more about the research John quotes. What was asked of the students? When? Who were they? Where were they?

Dave Pollard suggests that:
‘there are two opposing views on the role of the customer in innovation. One school holds that all innovations start with conversation, observation, and understanding of the customer (current or potential) with the goal of surfacing and then filling an unmet need. The other school says that customers don’t know what they need, at least until they see it, and sometimes a need doesn’t even exist until a solution is available to fill it. There are compelling arguments for both positions, and both have their advocates.Complexity theory would tend to favour the second view. This theory holds that a true understanding of a problem (such as a need) only emerges in parallel with, and co-dependently with, awareness of possible ’solutions’ or approaches. But it could also be argued that conversations with customers, to “think them ahead” and get them to imagine possibilities, and ‘cultural anthropology’ observation of customers, are approaches that do start with the customer, in order to “find a need and fill it”.

Most innovations he says are evolutionary (rather than revolutionary) yet discontinuous (making leaps in design, technology application and functionality) in response to evolving customer needs.

As John has said, much can be achieved by creating a climate conducive to risk-taking. ‘Innovation can be assisted if organisations remove rigid, bureaucratic hierarchies and develop cultures that value leadership, creativity, trial-and-error experimentation and thinking about the future and how it can be realized differently.’

I also agree with John that VET, like any business, requires effective customer related administrative systems but lets not confuse that with the business of teaching and learning. Unless we can offer quality, contemporary educational programs (ie. pedagogy) no-one will be knocking on our door. We’re already debating taking the “e” out of e-learning so let’s not confuse the matter by starting down the e-marketing, e-business, e-administration, e-enrolment, e-reporting, e-informing, e-documention, e-auditing track.

Meanwhile, it’s an exciting time for innovators and early adopters. Our pal Marie Jas. would suggest that the exploration of new ways of working in VET may require operating more towards the edge of chaos and avoiding forces that pull towards stability, while implemention may require the reverse. We need both. As Marie describes it, we ‘dance’ between the edge of chaos and the edge of stability in moving practices forward to best suit our clients’ needs .

Innovation and its implementation require different conditions and different types of management and support. Let’s celebrate our shooting stars not corral them. In this critical time of change and decision making for the future, let’s engage in conversation about innovation, e-learning and leadership and let’s encourage a multiplicity of viewpoints.