Is there any ROI in ‘learning’ technology?

Share

How times have changed – or maybe not? Having just spoken at the CIPD’s ‘HRD 2011’ on the topic of ‘How accurate and necessary is ROI for L&D?’ (based on my CIPD book) I was trying to compare it to my last big CIPD conference session (Scottish 2006), entitled “The ROI from Human Capital”, when I suddenly realised I had been typecast.

So what has changed?  Well obviously not the subject matter – no I was thinking more along the lines of the application of technology to individual and organisational learning.  For a start, this was the first conference I have ever spoken at where apparently my every utterance was being tweeted, every couple of minutes, such as -

“The purpose of evaluation is to establish evidence that your organisation is creating value by learning.” (11.41 precisely)

- and I ask myself, is this where the technology was meant to take us?  Is this what the great technological revolution was all about?  All the organisations I know, who have been relentlessly moving towards something they call ‘e-learning’, is this what they had in mind – twittering?  Is the great white hope of social media the answer to anything?

If you do follow tweeters what were you supposed to make of these disconnected, 140-character snippets?  If you look at Lesson 7 I will at least provide one practical lesson that you can take away and use.  Then when you get stuck – comment here, drop me a line, call, or email and I will offer a possible answer to your question.  Now, out of all of that activity, which bit did the technology help with?  It can certainly disseminate data faster to more people.  What it doesn’t seem able to do is offer an answer to the most difficult problems in individual and organisational learning – how we discriminate between what is worth knowing, and what isn’t, and then how we manage to apply what we have learned in a human organisation that doesn’t necessarily want to learn.

Of the 140+ people, who crammed themselves into the seminar room on Wednesday, I wonder what they learned from my session? More importantly, if they learned anything at all, how have they applied it?  What I hope they took away was this (my first slide – tweeted at 11.25 precisely) -

“ROI doesn’t have to be accurate and isn’t always necessary”

This was not only a straight answer to a straight question but one I could only offer, with absolute confidence and 20 years experience, because I know ROI isn’t the main issue here.  The main issue in learning is human relationships.  There are huge barriers to learning in the human condition, especially humans drawn together, willingly or otherwise, in organisations.

The IT industry have always told us that ‘information is power’ but they are wrong.  Partly because they usually provide data, not information (the data has to be processed by a human brain for it to be called information) but even if they do manage to get that far they should have realised that it is not information that is powerful but knowledge and wisdom.  Moreover, it is a reluctance to share knowledge, because it is so powerful, that stops organisations learning what they need to know: those with power are usually reluctant to let it go.  People play politics in preference to playing the learning game and trying to get someone to admit their ignorance, the first step towards enlightenment, usually means they fear losing face.  So you had better have superb skills in helping people to feel good about themselves while they are learning.

So where does ROI fit in with all of this – well you should have come to hear me speak instead of reading tweets or, failing that, you might learn something from reading Lesson 7, or even my book, but none of this beats developing a proper, warm blooded relationship where we can continuously learn from each other in a safe, constructive and mutually supportive environment – and if you already reside in such a place then you are truly blessed.

For personal development linked to this topic visit the Consummate Professional Series

Share

Sherlock Holmes and the Curious Case of the B&Q Customer Service Desk

Share

In the case of “The Adventure of Silver Blaze” Arthur Conan Doyle demonstrated how Sherlock Holmes used his uncanny powers of deductive reasoning to help the police solve a crime, often by approaching it from an entirely unexpected angle – otherwise known as the ‘dog that didn’t bark’: -

  • Inspector Gregory: “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
  • Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
  • Inspector Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
  • “That was the curious incident,” remarked Sherlock Holmes.

Fans of Sherlock Holmes and evidence based management have at least two characteristics in common –

  1. They regard evidence of what didn’t happen as just as important as what did
  2. They can often draw some very accurate inferences from minute specks of evidence

I use this approach when I am trying to teach managers the difference between single and double loop learning (a huge challenge for any teacher of organisational management) and usually resort to the tale of ‘The Curious Incident at the B&Q Customer Service Desk’ (B&Q is a very large, international, DIY retailer) that happened to me some years ago.

It was a cold and moonless night …… no it wasn’t, it was a sunny, Saturday afternoon and I went to purchase a wall-light fitting from my local B&Q Warehouse (at the time, the largest of their stores at nearly half a mile long). When I got the light fitting home it was only when I attempted to fit it to the wall that I found only one screw hole for the 2 screws provided. So I returned it to the store.

I arrived at the Customer Service Desk and pointed out the problem.  The girl behind the desk was very pleasant and said straight away that I could swap it for another or receive a full refund (Inference? She was well trained in the company’s policies and procedures and had been selected for her pleasant attitude to customers).  What she did not offer though was any compensation for my time, trouble or travel costs.  From this I would infer that B&Q had a policy of not minding if their customers were out of pocket because of something that was B&Q’s fault. Sherlock would have enjoyed pointing this out to them, as he did to Inspector George, and would once again have demonstrated his superiority in all matters analytical – but hey, we all make mistakes don’t we?

Anyway, back to the Tale – I chose to accept a replacement because I liked the design of the fitting (assuming the next one would have the 2 holes required) and so walked (about a quarter of a mile!) to pick another one off the shelf.

When I returned to the desk the girl smiled and was just about to do the necessary paperwork when I suddenly decided to ask – shouldn’t we just check this one is OK first? The girl had not suggested this (Inference?) but said ‘Sure’ and we opened the box, only to discover – dadaaaa – that this also only had one screw hole.

Now, if you fancy yourself as a bit of a Sherlock Holmes, on discovering the same fault, what would you expect the girl’s next reaction to be? Did she say -

  1. ‘Oh my god – they are probably all faulty what are we going to do – we are all doomed I tell you, doomed!’
  2. ‘This is extremely unusual sir, I would reassure you that we have well tried-and-tested quality assurance systems throughout our organisation, including the whole of our seamless international supply chain, and this sort of thing only happens once in every 1,345,064 transactions according to our latest figures, which we monitor on a daily basis. I will make sure this is noted and submitted to our continuous learning process which will guarantee that we never make the same mistake twice and the offending goods will be removed from the shelves within the next 5 minutes, in all of our stores, to ensure that no customer suffers the same inconvenience as you.  We will also, of course, check the entire supply chain to ascertain whether it might possibly contain any other weak links. Please sit down and have a cup of coffee while we arrange a full refund and a £20 voucher for your next shopping trip to compensate you for your time and trouble and would you also like a head massage while you are waiting to relieve the stress you have experienced?’
  3. ‘Oh, – OK would you like to get another one of the shelf?’

Give yourself full marks if you chose ‘3’ (assuming it wasn’t a guess – Sherlock never guesses).

I accepted the full refund and I am still wondering today whether that was the end of the Curious Case of the B&Q Customer Service Desk. Only one other mysterious fact remains – that particular B&Q store has since shrunk to half its size (cameras fade to the haunting sound effect of howling wolves in the distance.)

For personal development linked to this topic visit the Consummate Professional Series

Share