The New L&D Operating Model
Typical of the emerging hybrid delivery model for L&D is a global financial services firm that created a project to explore which learning services were best delivered at the business unit level and which were best shared across the enterprise – and the organizational changes that were required to achieve this.
At this historically decentralized firm, both training staff and line managers believed that a great strength of training was its decentralization, its “closeness to the business.” At the same time, they found that such an embedded structure, without enterprise level vision, strategy, or planning, resulted in unacceptable duplication of effort, redundancy, and, therefore, cost inefficiency. They discovered innovative best practices existing in the business units, but no mechanism or structure to ensure that they were shared or leveraged across the company. They found virtually no enterprise level programs, services, or strategy to drive a unified employment brand or talent management approach that would help them meet their goal of becoming one of the “100 Best Companies to Work For.” As a result, they designed a new operating model with four key elements.
Business Unit Learning Services. Learning generalists, sourced from the business, were responsible for consulting with local business unit management, underswtanding human performance requirements, and translating those performance requirements into learning solutions.
Content Center of Excellence. A shared content center was responsible for design and development of customized learning solutions across the enterprise, organized by content portfolio (management development, sales, operations, etc.).
Shared Learning Services. A shared service center provided scale-driven administrative and infrastructure support services to the businesses (learner support, logistics, facilities, print/fulfillment, LMS support etc.).
Corporate Learning. A corporate center was responsible for providing learning strategies, frameworks, and programs that cut across the organization (e.g. leadership development, competency frameworks, etc.) and was also responsible for integration of learning with the HR and talent management functions and processes.
The client found that it could fund the establishment of the coprorate learning center with savings generated through shared services, and that additional dollars could be saved -- or reinvested -- by consolidating and reengineering training at the business unit level.
Comments
Interesting blog. Your points are quite valid. I am interested in understanding your views on how the Web 2.0 is changing the learning paradigm.
There might be different ways individuals might be approaching learning, and hence different ways that companies need to approach it too. For instance, I sometimes go to wikipedia first to understand latest concepts before I go to my internal company knowledge management site. This helps because the collective and latest wisdom of many global experts with many different points of view is available quickly. Of course, that information is not always the most accurate or detailed but it is a good introduction. And then the company's internal knowledge management assets and learning mechanisms can kick in to provide the more accurate and detailed learning.
Thoughts welcome.
Posted by: Aditya Mittal | September 21, 2009 05:46 PM
What I like about Web 2.0 and what that technology represents is the recognition of the importance of informal learning and learning from others. Many clients are adopting the 10-20-70 percent rule…10 percent formal training, 20 percent learning from others, and 70 percent learning by doing.
I think this paradigm is fine for building employee competence – for delivering the knowledge and skills employees need to do their jobs – but the higher order value of L&D is to move the needle on mission-critical initiatives, and I believe a more prescriptive (read: formal) approach is required here.
An interesting aspect of your comment is that your example deals with knowledge acquisition, which, frankly, is the lowest order of employee competence. This is not to say it is not critical – witness the huge interest in Web 2.0 tools to facilitate more effective knowledge management. But realize it is not a substitute for developing skill or changing behavior.
Posted by: Tom Starr | September 23, 2009 03:36 PM