Social Media, KM and Training Development #learning #social-media


Don Kildebeck
 

I’ve been a member of this forum for several years now. My main profession is training & development, but I’ve always integrated KM concepts and strategies into my work (recognizing the direct and indirect relationships between the two). I recently purchased a new book called “The New Social Learning” by Tony Bingham and Marcia Conner, and noticed that Stan Garfield was listed among the credits. I am curious as to what Stan’s contribution was to this book? I am extremely interested in the use of Social Media for learning and development, and long before SM was even a term , was involved in this integration. Chief to my pursuits was the foundation I received in KM (from the likes of yourself and the other experts in the field). However, there are many newbies to the SM field that believe KM is NOT the foundation for this new injection of collaboration/informal learning into formalized learning and development; believing instead that modern SM has created this integration with its new tools and techniques. I disagree with this notion and believe that the ties between SM, KM, and T&D are all intimately intertwined. Anyone have any thoughts, research or experiences on this?

Thanks,

Don Kildebeck

Co-founder, Managing Partner

Training Curve Solutions, LLC

http://www.trainingcurvesolutions.com

,_._,___


Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...>
 

Don –

 

Thoughts – absolutely! 

 

I quite agree that, like the Sufi legend of the blind men and the elephant, we’re struggling to understand something with ancient roots but with a lot of new perspectives.  I see it as all one connected space with many sub-spaces (might as well add IT and IM as well).  Like the 3 generations of KM, the discipline is still inventing itself, with more new twists and turns being added, such as SM. 

 

Frankly, like IT, social media is an enabling tool that enables us to do new and exciting things, but it is far from sufficient for collaboration and peer production; in fact, technology is the easy part.  We need all the other elements of a knowledge infrastructure (people, governance, work processes, and content as well as technology) to make collaboration work.  However, I don’t expect to change the views of SM specialists any more than we have changed those of IT specialists, but we’ll know.

 

Al Simard


From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Don Kildebeck
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 11:43 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] Social Media, KM and Training Development

 

 

I’ve been a member of this forum for several years now. My main profession is training & development, but I’ve always integrated KM concepts and strategies into my work (recognizing the direct and indirect relationships between the two). I recently purchased a new book called “The New Social Learning” by Tony Bingham and Marcia Conner, and noticed that Stan Garfield was listed among the credits. I am curious as to what Stan’s contribution was to this book? I am extremely interested in the use of Social Media for learning and development, and long before SM was even a term , was involved in this integration. Chief to my pursuits was the foundation I received in KM (from the likes of yourself and the other experts in the field). However, there are many newbies to the SM field that believe KM is NOT the foundation for this new injection of collaboration/informal learning into formalized learning and development; believing instead that modern SM has created this integration with its new tools and techniques. I disagree with this notion and believe that the ties between SM, KM, and T&D are all intimately intertwined. Anyone have any thoughts, research or experiences on this?

Thanks,

Don Kildebeck

Co-founder, Managing Partner

Training Curve Solutions, LLC

http://www.trainingcurvesolutions.com

,_._,___


Stan Garfield
 

There have always been new tools introduced, and some are adopted and some disappear.  I don't believe that social media created integration, but it can help support it.

Some so-called "new" tools are really not new at all.  For example, communities and threaded discussion boards are perceived by some people as part of Web 2.0 or social media, but they have been around for a very long time.  Cloud computing is hot, but it is similar to timesharing, which is old.

Rather than try to define a hierarchy or precedence for terminology (social media, social learning, Enterprise 2.0, knowledge management, knowledge sharing, etc.), I believe that we should try to understand as much as possible about each topic and the benefits claimed by its promoters.  Knowledge management provides one way of viewing and integrating such topics, but so do learning, library science, etc.

Matt Moore has written and spoken about this topic.  From http://innotecture.com.au/ebook/ 

Performance Enhancing is an e-book that examines the links between training & development, knowledge management, organizational learning and performance improvement from a practical perspective.

There are many other members who can offer their valuable perspectives, experiences, and research.  Please join the discussion by replying.

Regards,
Stan

--- In sikmleaders@..., "Don Kildebeck" wrote:
> there are many newbies to the SM field that believe KM is NOT the foundation
> for this new injection of collaboration/informal learning into formalized
> learning and development; believing instead that modern SM has created this
> integration with its new tools and techniques. I disagree with this notion
> and believe that the ties between SM, KM, and T&D are all intimately
> intertwined. Anyone have any thoughts, research or experiences on this?


John David Smith <john.smith@...>
 

We took a stab at characterizing tools from a community of practice perspective in Digital Habitats (which came out more than a year ago now!): http://technologyforcommunities.com/

 

There are a couple of diagrams that try to do some of the work of thinking about tools and activities and useful ways to think about them: http://technologyforcommunities.com/2010/07/putting-our-diagrams-to-work/ 

 

Like Stan says, we thought that “new” was going to change and was not as relevant as some view of “useful.”  So we used “community orientations” as a first cut on “useful”… and then the “polarities” as something that communities, activities and tools are always negotiating.   That may seem round-about and take too much effort, but a lot of people report that it does help them think through these issues.

 

There have been a couple of people who’ve written to us (Etienne Wenger, Nancy White, and me) recently saying, “Hey, Why didn’t you write about Facebook and social networking tools?”  (You can insert your favorite new tools in that question…)   Well our answer was, “We decided several years ago that we had to have some strategy for thinking about tools that would continue to be useful even as unexpected tools were introduced.  Obviously that kind of strategy is not perfect.  Over the long term, those community orientations and polarities might change… but we tried to ground them as much as we could in fundamentals of human learning (as we understood them).”

 

John

* John David Smith ~ Voice: 503.963.8229 ~ Skype & Twitter: smithjd

* Portland, Oregon, USA http://www.learningAlliances.net

* “The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place.” GB Shaw

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of StanGarfield
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 1:16 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Social Media, KM and Training Development

 




There have always been new tools introduced, and some are adopted and some disappear.  I don't believe that social media created integration, but it can help support it.

Some so-called "new" tools are really not new at all.  For example, communities and threaded discussion boards are perceived by some people as part of Web 2.0 or social media, but they have been around for a very long time.  Cloud computing is hot, but it is similar to timesharing, which is old.

Rather than try to define a hierarchy or precedence for terminology (social media, social learning, Enterprise 2.0, knowledge management, knowledge sharing, etc.), I believe that we should try to understand as much as possible about each topic and the benefits claimed by its promoters.  Knowledge management provides one way of viewing and integrating such topics, but so do learning, library science, etc.

Matt Moore has written and spoken about this topic.  From http://innotecture.com.au/ebook/ 

Performance Enhancing is an e-book that examines the links between training & development, knowledge management, organizational learning and performance improvement from a practical perspective.

There are many other members who can offer their valuable perspectives, experiences, and research.  Please join the discussion by replying.

Regards,
Stan

--- In sikmleaders@..., "Don Kildebeck" wrote:
> there are many newbies to the SM field that believe KM is NOT the foundation
> for this new injection of collaboration/informal learning into formalized
> learning and development; believing instead that modern SM has created this
> integration with its new tools and techniques. I disagree with this notion
> and believe that the ties between SM, KM, and T&D are all intimately
> intertwined. Anyone have any thoughts, research or experiences on this?