2016 Segment 12 - Georgia LEARNS 2017 Planning

[Paul Terlemezian]

The purpose of this session will be provide input for Georgia LEARNS 2017 that will help us find achieve our vision. We will apply "Blue Ocean" thinking -

1. What will we stop doing?
2. What will we diminish doing?
3. What will we significantly increase doing?
4. What will we do that has never been done before?

Will these questions help us get answers that will help us achieve our vision?

What other questions do you suggest be asked?

What input can you provide - whether or not related to these questions?

[Paul Terlemezian]

Our vision is stated on the home page http://georgialearnsnow.ning.com/ of this site and labelled as "A Different Plan." Please feel free to comment on its worthiness in addition for ideas for how to achieve it (or change it.)

[Paul Terlemezian]

During the months of November and December all attendees are encouraged to describe the "crowd-design" process and solutions to others. Please share what you learn from doing so in the relevant discussion group.

We are also planning a series of public debates  in 2017 that will leverage our relationship with the Glenn Pelham Foundation. The topics for the debates will relate to the solutions we have "crowd-designed" for the "impossible problems.

What are your thoughts on these two ideas? What other ideas would lead to tangible outcomes for you, our community and Georgia LEARNS?

[Paul Terlemezian]

As you read and comment here - please consider:

1. Describing the value you wish to receive from participating in the conference
2. Marilyn Bloom described the following words that she heard repeatedly during the conference and which she hoped would continue in the future - Change, Leadership, Trust, Transparency.
3. Stephanie Crowe urged us to "stop thinking" that "Georgia is not great" and to build on the great things we are doing
4. Eric Blumthal suggested that we focus on one topic (vs. the 10 disparate topics we had this year) and "wrestle it to the ground" - really turn it into something
5. Brent Darnell suggested we collaborate with Safehouse.
6. Kelly Vandever suggested we collaborate with Per Scholas
7. Several suggested we support new internship models
8. Several discussed the interests of millennials regarding social entrepreneurship
9. Daniel Shorr suggested we develop a platform from which we could launch social entrepreneurs

[Douglas Dell]

Paul, great 2016 session.  For 2017 I think adding a question about What is Georgia Learn's value proposition and impact to the state?  Defining a value statement that mixes, academics with industry and open collaboration of GL participants would be a great start to showcase why others should get involved.

[Paul Terlemezian]

Doug - thank you - here is a link to our homepage http://georgialearnsnow.ning.com/ where our vision/mission is expressed. Our goal for 2017 as you have stated clearly and succinctly is to live up to what we have expressed! Thank you!!

[Kellie Huff]

Paul,  

I'm enjoying watching the evolution of Georgia Learns and I greatly appreciated the 2016 format.  When I think "Georgia Learns", I automatically think public-private partnership solving problems (both current and future) in Georgia.  Thus, I would like to see greater representation of local and state government decision makers as participants in the conference.  I think it benefits those of us who aren't in government positions (and sometimes wish we were because "If I was in charge, by golly....') and I think it can be highly beneficial to those in government to find support from their counterparts in the private sector. 

Thank you for your vision!  

Kellie

[Paul Terlemezian]

Kellie - I am now building an advisory board that will include Ken Stewart https://www.linkedin.com/in/ken-stewart-07136b. Erick Allen continues to be an active part of our work too - https://www.linkedin.com/in/erickallen.

I agree with your premise and have been thinking that we need a bit more momentum in terms of tangible outcomes before we get the government engaged.

I'll be back in touch soon!

Paul

[Brent Darnell]

1. Choosing too many different topics.

2. Thinking that we can't revolutionize learning.

3. Leveraging the talents of membership to create amazing change.

4. Challenge the very core of learning and come up with an entirely different learning model and methodology that works everywhere with every subject.

It comes down to resources.  If we can get one giant money generator to do everything we want to do, that would be pretty amazing.  

[Hal Schlenger]

To be a good team member or employee, how much does experience matter in comparison to being able to use a tool or technology?  Should a person be promoted or hired without knowing the tools currently being used?   For Georgia LEARNS 2017, can you shortcut gaining the judgement that comes from experience?

[Paul Terlemezian]

Hal - great question! I am exploring two potential ways of addressing this question.

One is to focus on leadership. How does a leader lead - when the use of technology (e.g. Twitter, mobile devices, IoT) may be integral to the effectiveness of leadership? Do they master it? Trust others to master it? Create an environment where business intentionally stays current by challenging itself? What is the role of leadership in assuring technology relevance - and what is the tole of the corporate learning function is assuring that leadership is prepared to do so. This will be the topic of the TAG Workplace Learning Society event on February 16, 2017.

Second - what new thinking/decision models can we create/adopt that assure we remain open to innovative approaches. How will these models deal with the inherent challenges between process focus vs. outcome focus? Can a model be self-correcting? The Georgia LEARNS 2017 focus on the ALO(sm) - Accountable Learning Organization is guiding my thinking.

[Brent Darnell]

In the end, it's about performance.  Performance solves a lot of issues.  You have to be able to know enough about technology and the people side and be seen as competent in order to be an effective leader.  If you have the people stuff with out proficiency in the technology or other processes, you aren't effective.  If you have the processes and technology without the people stuff, you set yourself up for failure. In my experience, in technical fields, most people are proficient in the technical stuff.  It's the people stuff that they need.