This segment will be a workshop that will provide an overview of the ALO Adaptable Framework. Workshop attendees will have the ability to submit a project idea (in advance if they wish) and have the ALO applied to it during the workshop.
This half-day workshop will focus on the following aspects of the ALO:
We will emphasize Business Models during the workshop on November 6, 2019.
“Accountability” is a mindset – supported with a toolset – and realized by applying a skillset.
The mindset, toolset and skillset may not be the same ones we have typically used in the training industry. So – we are being precise in using the ALO(sm) to define them.
We are committed to help business people assure successful outcomes -every time – leveraged by the ALO(sm.)
Today we facilitated the first "public" offering of the Accountable Learning Organization Adaptable Framework Workshop. These are the people who are now considered to be the first ALO(sm) Acknowledged Professionals.
I'm currently stuck on the Culture piece. I know it's popular to warn performance improvement practitioners to mind organizational culture first and foremost, but "fitting" a culture suggests constraining growth to existing allowances. It seems to me that an accountable learning organization should commit to changing the culture to allow full growth opportunities.
The very purpose of a performance consultant is to find stinky things across the full range of performance variables (Knowledge, Skill, Attitude, Policies, Processes, Systems, Hiring, Assignment, Laws, Equipment), then fix them without regard to responsibility silo or restrictive culture. Constraining a performance consultant to a single silo is a certain recipe for failure. For instance, a training program alone rarely fixes anything, but a training program aligned with process & assignment changes could be highly effective. Similarly, a process change without training & assignment change could easily fail.
Culture can protect the stinkiest things including assignments. When the performance problem is caused by a manager who is kept in place by culture, then training, process changes, and virtually every other performance improvement intervention could easily be a waste of time and money.
Bill - thank you for addressing the topic of culture. My thinking is the following:
The framework is adaptable - this allows the practitioner to decide how, when and if to mind culture. The framework is iterative, parallel and complex as well as complicated - it is not sequential - hence culture need not be first.
The framework also offers these four "concepts" related to culture.
It is possble that the ALO(sm) process results in being accountable for a change in culture.
Georgia LEARNS also offers a specific culture framework (without mandating its use) that is designed to understand culture in business terms. As we "mind" culture we may need to integrate or adapt with the following business evidence of culture:
One may conclude that a company may have cultures that vary by department and within a department. Designing a solution that embraces the best aspects of a culture and improves a culture where it needs improvement can be a powerful component of the "performance assurance" that is the intended outcome of an ALO(sm) project.