Experiencing User Developed Content

I had the opportunity to attend the ASTD TechKnowledge Conference in San Jose a couple of weeks ago and one of the topics that came up in several discussions was user-developed content. I ran across this in a personal way and upon some reflection came to understand I'd been participating in it for a couple of years. How do you miss something like that?

First the experiencing part. As with most conferences, there was a trade floor with a variety of vendors of both products and services. Several of them were giving away IPads or other fairly expensive prizes in drawings for those who visited their booths. I was surprised a week or so after the conference to find a nice new IPad in a box on my desk.  Pretty cool. After my initial happiness, it dawned on me that my company has some pretty strict gift rules as part of its ethics program and sure enough, the IPad would have to go back.

Having seen a number of the conference attendees using tablet computers I decided to investigate more after my near miss with the IPad. I did some research on some of my favorite tech sites to include CNET as well as some Google searches on the topic. To make this already long story shorter, I decided that a tablet was in my future. This is where the user-developed content come into play.

I found a tech developers online forum that had sections on many of the popular models.  They were filled with posts from satisfied and dissatisfied users. Since it was a tech forum, the posts were also filled with the ins and outs of maximizing performance through software "hacks" and other techniques. There were also a number of "help me" threads addressing issues both common and unique. After hours of research I settled on a likely candidate and spent still more hours in detailed reading of the pros and cons of this particular model. One post linked to YouTube and low and behold there were dozens of user-developed videos ranging in length from a minute to nearly 20 minutes. These videos discussed and displayed such things a general overviews to in-depth instructions on how to flash the ROM to replace the provided software with "improved" versions done within the user community.

It dawned on me that I, too, had been a content developer though I had thought of it more as "sharing" at the time. In my hobby interest of flying model airplanes, I had contributed to similar threads on large user community sites including a what is called a build log where I had described the assembly of one of my new models complete with photos. I also have a handful of YouTube videos I've posted -- mostly of flying events I've attended. All of it is user-developed content.

This disintermediation allowing users to speak directly to other users is both extremely helpful and a little risky. One doesn't have the implied assurance that following the advice of a recognized expert as vetted by some recognized publisher.  Caveat Emptor.  On the other hand, you can get a wider variety of opinion and topic coverage than an "official" source would likely tolerate. The manufacturer of my new tablet doesn't include the directions on how to bypass it's software as described in the tech forum for example.

One of the significant issues that training professionals will have to address is control. Will we embrace the sometime chaotic environment of user developed content with an understanding that the community will become self-correcting ala Wikipedia or will our intolerance for ambiguity or the reality of government regulations in some industry sectors prevent us from taking advantage of the knowledge stored in the brains of those around us?

Meta tagging and vastly improved search algorithms can help with the cataloging of large collections of user-developed content. Rating schemes of both articles and authors can also help indicate a community's validation. Both of these can add to the quality of a collection. For those who express concern over the accuracy of the information during the community vetting process, I simply point to the lack of "inventory control" applied to "official" documents provided to the workforce. It needs to be asked, "What is worse, wrong info provided by an ill informed source or wrong information due to source documents being out of date?" It is likely that a robust user community will provide the self-editing that keeps user content current. Governance?  Sure.  Control? I'm not so sure.

More on "On Demand."

I'm still spending some time thinking about "on demand" as it might apply in a large organization and in a job skill training setting.  I've also been thinking about the ideas in my November post below regarding the need to be a heretic if innovation is what you seek. Those who subscribe to the doctrine of whatever it is they are working with are not likely to lead a breakthrough.

What are the training truths about skills-based training that we all know to be true that, in fact, might be holding us back? The ones related to on demand training include some of these...

·         Skill training is best done in groups. You gain economies of scale and interactions within a group are more meaningful and add to the training experience.

·         One-on-one training is too expensive to be feasible.

·         The social experience of the learner is critical to the development of the learner as a new employee.

·         A trained instructor or trainer is critical to the effective transference of skills.

Well, that is a start. How does the heretic respond? Let's look at each one for a moment. 

Is a group necessary? Is the reason we use groups because it is the most effective training venue or is it because it is what we're used to and what we believe we understand?  Do we really gain efficiencies by having a class member who comes to us with some experience "throttle back" to allow the total newbie to catch up?  What are the opportunity costs lost for the one who could be producing but isn't because the group can't keep up? Are the conversations and instructor interactions so important that they can't happen in some other way?  Can pod casts on various topics or recorded interactions or session snippets not accomplish much of the same thing?  Are there really that many unique questions that come up class after class or are they simply variations on a theme that can be captured? Do we like to rely on the instructor as a crutch to cove "the unknowns" regarding the training, only to discover the unknowns are really just the "I'm too busy to plan fors?"  Do we insist on groups because it is most effective or because we have to justify the expensive training facilities we've invested in?

Is training an individual too expensive or is it too expensive when we try to train individuals the same way we train groups? Is the expense inherent in the concept or simply in the way we chose to execute it. Does focus on the content prevent focus on the learning thus blinding us to other alternatives? Does the need to control the experience drive processes or procedures that unnecessarily drive up cost?

What is the real value of the social component of group-based learning. Do we know?  Can we accomplish that goal some other way?  Does the group have to be other students?  Do the social components have to occur within the context of the curriculum?  Can planned interactions with incumbent employee groups meet that need.  Are we fearful of those because we might "lose control."  Do the single learners get bored because they are working alone or because we have boring instruction? Do we know how to design individual learning activities?  Would we have to learn how to do something differently?

Is a trained instructor really critical to the transference of skills?  Is the answer "yes" because we are or manage trained instructors? Was your dad or mom a trained instructor when you learned to ride a bike or drive the family car? Is the best place for the learning professional in the front of the class or involved some other way in the learning process?

Blasphemy!  Blasphemy!  Heretic! Heretic!  Or, maybe just crackpot.  Hmmmm....