Can we apply lean methodology to learning?
I came across this post on lean learning by Stephen Glaveski a while back, and some of it re-affirms things that I have gleamed from my work over the last few years. But I have problems with some of the lean methodology, so I wanted to properly look over the article and digest the learning properly.
The good
We’re learning for the wrong reasons
Virtue signalling and extrinsic motivation don’t work. People who choose their learning activities in relation to their own learning goals are much more likely to take the learning on board. This is supported by Edwin Locke’s Theory of Motivation.
We’re learning at the wrong time
If our learning takes place when we don’t need it, it doesn’t sink in. So attending an event that may be useful in the future doesn’t help. That’s why methods such as Action Learning Sets are helpful, because people share and reflect on issues as they’re taking place.
We forget what we learn if we don’t put learning into action quickly. Hermann Ebbinghaus’ Forgetting Curve shows that we forget about 75% of our learning after 6 days if we don’t put it into practice.
We learn the wrong things
This won’t be a surprise to anyone who has been made to go to a corporate event. This point reminded me of Paul Taylor’s post on corporate hoarding, which can also be applied to learning. If what we’re learning isn’t aligned to our purpose, it’s not of much use:
“Simplicity means saying no to things and doing less. Many of an organisation’s activities are misaligned from, or have poorly defined, strategic objectives. We often anchor around the wrong thing. That’s why some big institutions have no chance — they are hit by random plans and transformations rather than anchoring around purpose.”
The bad
Lean methodology cuts waste by removing inefficient process that doesn’t produce value. This is all well and good if we can identify the value within the system, but this is difficult in complex environments where we can’t predict what’s going to happen or what value will look like to different people.
You can see the problems with this in poorly planned procurement processeses. Meals on Wheels has closed in many areas. People thought that the value was in the meals themselves, but the value was actually in the social interaction. Costs were cut by reducing the time spent on each delivery and the true value of the service was lost.
Learning activities should never be run for their own ends, but seeing everything in linear terms means that lots of value can be lost. Many events offer the opportunity for peers to share their learning and to develop their networks. Social capital is often discussed in terms of community development, but a well-planned event can work in a similar way — we have the opportunity to develop interpersonal relationships, shared understanding and a shared identity. There’s lots of value outside the direct learning. This Decentered Media podcast on social capital with Russell Todd and Andy Green of Grow Capital CIC delves deeper it.
The challenge is to ensure that we do what lean learning suggests (learn what we need when we need it) whilst also ensuring that we have opportunities for serendipitous and informal learning, both within and in-between organisations. It can be easier to create the space for learning within our organisations. Platforms like Twitter can create a space for the networking and learning outside our organisations, but we also need the opportunity to share learning from failure, and we need to develop trust in person to do that. And if we’re going full lean, will there be space for this?
The underwhelming wrap up
So the unsuprising conclusion of all this is that there is some good and some bad here. There is a lot to learn about how we can improve our formal learning interactions, and even alternative gatherings like unconferences.
The learning we get from formal learning events are a drop in the ocean compared to what we learn from doing what we do. Human Learning Systems looks at improvement in the context of complex human systems — the exact environment in which public services like social care operate. It takes account of complexity in a way that lean learning doesn’t.
“Learning comes from many sources — from measurement and analysis, and also from reflection on the sense-making and judgements we make every day in situations of uncertainty. This new paradigm views learning as a feedback loop which drives adaptation and improvement in a system. Understanding which methods create the effective feedback loops that drive adaptation is important too. How do we best create learning cultures, processes and systems?”
We’ve got to stop thinking about learning as a one-off activity and think about how we can make it part of what we do. If we can make our working environments safe to fail, then we’re much more likely to learn from our mistakes. And if we can do that on an ongoing basis, we’ll be providing good quality services that cut waste by learning about what works, not because of a pre-conceived idea about method.
