Comments (3)

By Dan Pontefract, 09/06/2010 9:49 AM

When I read recent news that Taleo had purchased Learn.com, to be honest, I was pleasantly surprised. (and not just for my buddy Dave Wilkins)

No, not because I’ve been yapping about the need for the Standalone LMS to go the way of the dinosaur and thus feeling a sense of vindication, but for a new reason.

There is a new showdown upon us.

Talent Management versus Collaboration Systems.

Now that the Standalone LMS domino is falling, we can now turn our attention to the looming next battle which, in my opinion, will be between Talent Management Systems and Collaboration Systems. (links are to Wikipedia entries)

Maybe I’m off my nearly 40 year-old rocker, but to have separate Talent Management and Collaboration Systems in an organization seems as silly as a standalone LMS. As silly as England ever winning another World Cup.

Think about the example of Rypple for a moment. Albeit a SaaS model, Rypple demonstrates how concepts of Talent Management and Collaboration are already merging, in this case, as a form of feedback and/or performance development for your employee base.

Collaboration tools, applications and systems are inherently better ways in which to drive a flatter and more connected culture within your organization. But, to truly gain traction, the ‘human capital’ processes found within the ‘talent management’ space (such as performance reviews, learning management, onboarding/induction, succession planning, retention and attraction practices, compensation protocols, etc.) really need to have collaboration practices built into it.

In summary, now that the learning management system is being woven into talent management systems (or in some cases with collaboration systems), is it time for players such as Atlassian, Jive, Liferay, SocialText, etc. to begin merging with the likes of SuccessFactors, Taleo, Halogen, etc.

Or, how do the likes of Microsoft, Google, Cisco, SAP, Oracle etc. play a part in what arguably could be labeled as the ‘Talent & Collaboration Convergence’? (see Oliver Marks recent entry as well)

We shall see.

Comments (0)

By Dan Pontefract, 09/01/2010 1:12 AM

As the big three refine, revise and retool their television platforms (Google TV, Apple TV and Microsoft MediaRoom) it got me thinking about the death of TV.

Not necessarily as Warren Ellis describes in his laugh out loud Wired UK piece out next month entitled “The Death Of TV As We Know It”, rather, the TV as an albatross to the learning space.

If I were any of the aforementioned big three, here is what I’d be contemplating in the opportunity:

• Like the TV, learning itself is becoming more and more unscripted; informal and social is finally taking its rightful place on the gold and silver podium, shifting formal learning to bronze status. Although I don’t personally watch them, is there a coincidence in seeing reality based television at the top of the viewing charts?
• Like TV viewers, learners want choice, variety, and a Personal Learning Environment (or PVR in TV-speak). Must-See-TV on Thursday nights is a thing of the past, and the 5-day course that comes around once every quarter really is antiquated thinking at its best.
• Like the TV industry, the learning vertical is undergoing a radical change; the industrial revolution model of ‘bums in seats’ is analogous to family time around the wood encased floor model television. It’s changing, whether the networks or the learning executives like it (or see it) or not

What does this mean for the big three?

Although it’s early days, thus far, what I’ve seen from each of the companies is actually far superior to that of normal cable company software packages … if they even have a software package with their service. There is the ability not only to record multiple ‘shows’ at the same time, there are mobile recording options, web-based interaction with ‘picture in picture’ television viewing at the same time, amongst other 2.0-esque features.

But what’s missing is the learning opportunity; the Learning 2.0 opportunity.

Yes, we will continue to see a proliferation of laptops and mobile devices entering the home. This is good. I still believe, however, that as more and more families become dissatisfied with the ‘sage on the stage’ approach to K-12 learning that the combination of a web-based or IPTV-based learning ecosystem model around a television (with laptop/mobile device access as well) will conquer.

The big three, if thinking about this opportunity, will use this as a catalyst to get disenfranchised parents to subscribe to their particular product, if it comes with the 2.0 ability to combine classic educational shows, with collaborative-based learning experiences, with webcam/tele-presence-like features, with specific content that is indexed, searchable, useable and modifiable.

A learning ecosystem as described above with specific content options for K-12 (and perhaps higher education) takes iTunesU to a whole new level. It becomes the basis to (once again) unite the family and create opportunities to enrich the learning experience that is, for the most part, lacking in the traditional K-12 and higher education environment today.

So, Google, Microsoft and Apple, the challenge for you is to create the new Dewey Decimal system for 2010 and beyond. I’m up for that challenge.

Comments (1)

By Dan Pontefract, 08/22/2010 10:43 AM

The Learning Space at companies large and small is often caught between the fence posts of IT and HR. Sometimes, it’s a vortex. Regardless, I’ve come up with five personal opinions (without links to the thoughts or research of others) why I believe IT and HR could  merge in spite of any learning function’s prowess. This posting focuses on organizations that are revenue generating only.

They are, in no particular order:

• Internal Call Center & Support Duplication
• Capital Spend
• Enterprise 2.0 = Work 2.0 = Learning 2.0
• Collaborative Work Styles
• Revenue Supporting Simplicity

Internal Call Center & Support Duplication

Whether outsourced, in-house, or both, the HR and IT functions normally possess call center teams. Furthermore, through various wikis, intranet sites, job aids, videos, etc. there are myriad different general support tools and opportunities available to employees. If HR & IT were to merge, the employee does not have to distinguish whether they require technology related, process related, human related or job related questions answered. The function becomes united, and even more so, there becomes an osmotic blend such that support related inquiries are seamless to the employee. There would be obvious support related synergies as well, from the team structure through to processes and end-user support tools.

Capital Spend

IT and HR are in the business of supporting the company to increase revenue and profitability. Thus, most of their time should be spent developing ways in which to invest in people and technology practices to increase overall revenue and profitability. If such is the case, having HR and IT together now creates a power business unit that can singularly align capital investments based on the union of both people and technology practices. It’s no longer myopically about technology considerations solely, or the opposite in terms of people practices. Capital spend would now equally consider the short and long-term requirements of both technology and people to therefore increase company results.

Enterprise 2.0 = Work 2.0 = Learning 2.0

The heart of this blog often centers round the hypothesis that Enterprise 2.0 without Work 2.0 without Learning 2.0 type of thinking is fruitless. With a merged IT and HR super business unit, we now have an entity that can achieve this vision effortlessly. Learning is shifting towards a combined formal, informal and social structure but it requires Enterprise 2.0 technologies to be successful. Work 2.0 (the shift to a more collaborative business model, inclusive to mobile work styles) needs the premise of Learning 2.0 to be successful, as well as Enterprise 2.0 technologies and processes. Enterprise 2.0 itself, really isn’t going to be successful unless the people practices of Work 2.0 and Learning 2.0 are specifically embedded into the change plan. Therefore, merging IT and HR, in my opinion, may help both mitigate the rollout issues for any of the three dimensions, and it should allow for easier enhancements short and long-term.

Collaborative Work Styles (also Work 2.0 related)

Ironic that I suggest to merge IT and HR with one of the actual reasons entitled “Collaborative Work Styles”? Perhaps. Business units are in the ‘business’ of working together with one another. This should be a given. With a combined IT and HR business unit, however, there will still be a number of groups and teams working on their specific areas of expertise. Under the super business unit banner, this group can act as the enterprise-wide example of how collaborative work styles can actually prosper. Through mobile working arrangements, to cross-functional team makeup, to collective intelligence idea factories, the merged HR and IT business unit can kick-start an organization’s foray into a more collaborative enterprise itself. The pundits and naysayers may suggest that this should not require a merged business unit to occur. While I do agree with the argument, I think in order to really drive an organization to becoming even more collaborative across all business units, a demonstrable example needs to be showcased, and this ‘may’ be easier by merging HR and IT.

Revenue Supporting Simplicity

There are plenty of examples demonstrating that both HR and IT have capabilities within their group to generate revenue for the company. The general rule of thumb, however, is that HR and IT are costs to the organization, and are established to support the organization drive revenue, and thus profitability. A singular super group that combines the functions of HR and IT to support the business to drive revenue, to me, has a lot of merit. For those in R&D, Product Group, Sales, Pre-Sales, Consulting amongst others that simply are trying to do their jobs in a more efficient and effective manner, imagine having one less hurdle to overcome in terms of processes, queries, discussions, etc. If you can reduce in half the number of internal touch-points by the revenue generating business units into the supporting business units (ie. merging IT and HR) that should, in theory, free up the time of executives, directors, managers and individual contributors to focus on the core of their role; to generate revenue.

Final Thoughts

I’ll keep thinking about this, and follow up this post later on in 2010 or early 2011 with the thoughts of others. I purposely have not discussed Finance, Marketing or Legal as I believe they need to remain separate, or in the case of Marketing, embedded with Sales. I’ve never liked the terms HR or IT and therefore, would suggest renaming it. In the spirit of a more connected and collaborative super business unit, I’d likely have the combined entity come up with the name. If I had a suggestion to offer, however, it would be CPI: Collaboration, People & Information.