A few weeks ago my local newspaper published a piece on Lifelong Learning that expressed concerns about the lack of support the Dutch Government is giving to it. The argument is that there are good intentions, but action is missing. “No one is against Lifelong Learning, but we need more people promoting it actively”, according to Theo Bovens of the Dutch Open University. His institute is facing a decrease in new students year after year. You can argue if this is an indication of a lack of interest in lifelong learning or it is pointing at a different problem.

But anyway, more concerns are raised. The article points at the fact that it is not possible in the Netherlands to get a Government sponsored scholarship for picking up a study beyond your thirties. Also the cancellation of attractive tax deductions and the limiting of subsidies is doing Lifelong Learning no good according to the journalist. The government should take its responsibility in financing Lifelong Learning instead of leaving it to organizations and individual employees. In my opinion the government is already betting on a new horse called Innovation. The article continues with the scary perspective that this behavior will lead us to disaster. The Netherlands will not reach their goal of having 20% of the workforce following a part-time course or studying besides work . Is this alarming? Well, when you look at the fact that the Netherlands are at 16.6% and above average in the EU, there is nothing to worry about. But when you consider the Netherlands having knowledge economy and innovation high on its priority list, it might be alarming that Slovenia has passed us and also Sweden and Finland score significantly higher.

But there is hope. Research into Lifelong Learning is in general only focused on formal education (Education Permanente). It is about quantity in money spend on and students that go through education and training programs. Although it provides some information on the bias for learning in a country, there is much more than just the formal side of learning. Lifelong learning is as human as eating and sleeping. It is a natural thing, that occurs regardless of classrooms and instructors (in some cases even more effective in the absence of these). Especially in times of rapid change in knowledge, technology and methodologies formal approaches are too slow anyway. So, let us be the best in informal learning. It won’t help us make us reach our Lisbon goals, but it will help us forward.

From time to time the field of Corporate Learning is subject to discussions on the labeling of the discipline. We have come all the way from Training and Personnel Development. Currently we are in the Human Capital Development era. Just another try to pimp the discipline? Clive Shepherd wrote an interesting comment on this development. He states: “I do know what capital is, and it isn’t people … People are not capital because they cannot be employed in place of money to purchase assets or to cover expenses … If anything, the concept of human beings as assets is even less credible than it used to be, because, with increased mobility of labour and severe skills shortages“.

I think his statement is spot on and Human Capital Development is just a way of stating: “Look we are doing some strategic things here, we are adding value to the business!” This probably is an attempt to counter the criticism HR professionals constantly having to deal with. In my opinion re-labeling the discipline isn’t the answer. More fundamental changes are needed for HR(D) to become business partner:

• Increase business understanding and general business acumen.
• Don’t talk jargon and develop professionalize the ways of working.
• Leave the administration and operations to services centers or outsource.
• Get out of you ivory towers in Corporate HQ and start listening to your clients.
• Forget about ROI and deliver services the business is asking for.

If the fundament is right, the labeling is just about internal marketing. And I must say Human Capital Development sure sounds trendy and appealing. I can imagine that it looks impressive in internal Powerpoint presentation for executives. So, what should we do? Should we use a label that is appealing, but not correct from a theoretical standpoint. Or, should we be true to our profession and use a label that is authentic.  

Please help me out on this one and join my poll (see sidebar)! What is your preferred label for the field of corporate learning and development?

On the weblog of Mindleaders I read a post by Beth Griese . She stated that one of the popular topics at the ASTD conference 2007 was International learning and diversity. This is no big surprise with the increased globalisation in mind (25% of ASTD’s audience from outside the US). So far I haven’t been able to find much research into this specific area. Strange, since it is a subject that seems to interest a lot of people, including me.

Questions like: “How to manage learning on a global scale (e.g. sourcing, delivery, reporting)? What is the impact of local culture on preferred learning styles? And, what didactical approaches fit these different cultures?” are absolutely relevant for enterprise organisations operating on a global scale. On this subject I want to write an article. Specific issues that interest me are the following:

• Linking learning styles to the attributes of National cultures as defined by Hofstede.
• Management issues that International HRD and training departments or Corporate Universities are facing.
• Balancing of centralisation and decentralisation in global learning (and the rollout of learning programs).

If you have any suggested readings, links or other references, please e-mail them to me or comment on this post. Your help is much appreciated. When I have finished my article this, of course, is the first place where you will find it!

A trend in outsourcing is one-on-one outsourcing of services. This is nothing new of course, since when you hire a painter to paint your house, you are already in an outsourcing relationship. New is the fact that internet technology paves the path for new kinds of outsourced services. One-on-one tutoring via the web is such an example. You can hire a tutor to explain different concepts and subject matters. Sometimes with an Indian accent according to CNet News.

One example of these tutoring services is TutorVista.com. This website offers 24-hour online tutoring services for students in all grades through high school. The programs cover a wide variety of regular school subjects and also provides standard tests. I wonder if there also are free peer-to-peer tutoring websites besides these commercial offerings. The main challenge will be the indication of the quality of the tutoring, since you don’t know what you don’t know!

As a part of the eLearning 2.0 toolset Wiki’s are often mentioned as a powerful instrument for collaborative learning. Until now limited information has become available on the pedagogical potential of Wiki’s. One of the first articles I have come across is by Renee Fountain. It is quite interesting how he lists the pedagogical power of this tool. In wiki format of course!