Segment 2(19) – Accountable Learning Organization Adaptable Framework Workshop

[Paul Terlemezian]

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.

Georgia LEARNS 2017 was focused on Accountable Learning. Segment 7 of this event featured the Announcement of the ALO Adaptable Framework.

This half-day workshop will focus on the following aspects of the ALO:

1. Developing the Mindset of an Accountable Learning Organization
2. An overview of the Toolset associated with designing Accountable Learning
3. Activities that will develop the Skillset of using these tools

We will emphasize Business Models during the workshop on November 6, 2019.

[Paul Terlemezian]

“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.

• The Mindset is that it is our responsibility to design and implement business projects – that produce the intended business outcomes – every time.
• The Toolset includes a preferred set of business tools (e.g. Blue Ocean Strategy, Business Model Canvas.)
• The Skillset involves being guided by the Framework to know which of the tools to use (or not), when to use them, how to use them and – most importantly – how to adapt the framework - intentionally.

We are committed to help business people assure successful outcomes -every time – leveraged by the ALO(^sm.)

1. These business people will “challenge” the ALO(^sm) for the purpose of enthusiastically embracing it.
2. They will be able to deliver ALO(^sm) workshops as a means of assuring they understand the preferred tools.
3. They will apply the ALO(^sm) to assure they have the skillset to adapt the framework to assure the mindset.

[Paul Terlemezian]

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.

1. John Adcox - https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnadcox/
2. Margot Bernstein - https://www.linkedin.com/in/margotbernstein/
3. Eric Bluestein - https://www.linkedin.com/in/eric-bluestein-3571484/
4. Bill Crose - https://www.linkedin.com/in/bcrose/
5. David Gates - https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidbgates/
6. Chris Kopp - https://www.linkedin.com/in/christiankopp/
7. Anthony Murph - https://www.linkedin.com/in/anthonymurph/
8. Barbara Nwahei - https://www.linkedin.com/in/barbara-nwaehi/
9. Jeff Thrutchley - https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffthrutchley/
10. Paul Stallings - https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-stallings-b119bab/

[Bill Crose]

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.

[Paul Terlemezian]

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.

1. Apply a culture framework
2. Understand the "intended" culture
3. Understand the "actual" culture
4. Understand the "external" culture - (which may vary by country, industry, season...)

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:

1. What are the important business processes of the company?
2. What systems support these processes?
3. What policies and procedures support these systems?
4. How do we fulfill the staffing needs?
5. How do we evolve assignments to roles?
6. How do we support people when they are performing?
7. How do we assure that people continue to learn what is needed from them?
8. How do we observe, manage and reward performance?

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.