Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Four Funerals & a wedding ASTD 2009
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Four Funerals & a wedding ASTD 2009

587
views

Published on

Human Performance Improvement, informal learning and social media in a Dutch case study with demonstrated ROI. …

Human Performance Improvement, informal learning and social media in a Dutch case study with demonstrated ROI.

Jos Arets & Vivian Heijnen
www.tulser.com

Published in: Business, Education

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
587
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. 1.  Informal
learning
 Funeral I & II 2.  HPI
 Funeral III 3.  Social
so6ware
/
Web
2.0
 Funeral IV 4.  The
Wedding?
 

©
2009
|

Jos
Arets
|

Vivian
Heijnen
|
Lei
Ortmans
|
TU220

  • 2. The
most
important
contribu?on
 management
needs
to
make
in
the
 21st
century
is
to
increase
the
 produc?vity
of
knowledge
work
and
 knowledge
workers.
It
is
on
their
 produc?vity,
above
all,
that
the
future
 prosperity
and
indeed
the
future
 survival
of
the
developed
economies
 will
increasingly
depend.

 Peter
Drucker
 

©
2009
|

Jos
Arets
|

Vivian
Heijnen
|
Lei
Ortmans
|
TU220

  • 3. ‘A
smart
enterprise
is
a
high‐performing
organizaGon
that
 allows
knowledge
and
capabiliGes,
enabled
by
technology,
 to
grow
and
flow
freely
across
departmental,
geographical,
 or
hierarchical
boundaries,
where
it
is
shared
and
made
 acGonable
for
the
use
and
benefit
of
all.
‘

 –  Focus
on
knowledge
and
applicaGon
 –  EffecGve
use
of
technology
 –  SystemaGc
and
dynamic
approach
 –  An
emphasis
on
both
individuals
and
teams
 –  A
performance
foundaGon
 Marc
Rosenberg
(2006)
 

©
2009
|

Jos
Arets
|

Vivian
Heijnen
|
Lei
Ortmans
|
TU220

  • 4. Sharing
 Searching
 Collabora?ng
 Referencing
 Feedback
 Conversa?ons
 Modeling
 

©
2009
|

Jos
Arets
|

Vivian
Heijnen
|
Lei
Ortmans
|
TU220

  • 5. 

©
2009
|

Jos
Arets
|

Vivian
Heijnen
|
Lei
Ortmans
|
TU220

  • 6. 

©
2009
|

Jos
Arets
|

Vivian
Heijnen
|
Lei
Ortmans
|
TU220

  • 7. 

©
2009
|

Jos
Arets
|

Vivian
Heijnen
|
Lei
Ortmans
|
TU220

  • 8. 

©
2009
|

Jos
Arets
|

Vivian
Heijnen
|
Lei
Ortmans
|
TU220

  • 9. 24/7/365
 Formal
 learning
 Performance
 support
 Informal
learning
 In
context
learning
 

©
2009
|

Jos
Arets
|

Vivian
Heijnen
|
Lei
Ortmans
|
TU220

  • 10. However,
there
is
no
research
to
back
up
the
amount
of
money
spent
on
informal
and
formal
learning
 in
the
above
chart.
The
numbers
were
simply
pulled
out
of
thin
air
(Cross,
2007).
 

©
2009
|

Jos
Arets
|

Vivian
Heijnen
|
Lei
Ortmans
|
TU220

  • 11. ©
2009
|

Jos
Arets
|

Vivian
Heijnen
|
Lei
Ortmans
|
TU220

  • 12. learning
 work
 work
 work
 work
 work
 work
 train
 train
 searching
 referencing
 collabora?ng
 Lance
Dublin,
2007
 

©
2009
|

Jos
Arets
|

Vivian
Heijnen
|
Lei
Ortmans
|
TU220

  • 13. "ExecuGves
don’t
want
learning;
they
want
execuGon.”

 They
want
performance.
Companies
use
it
to:
 ‐
Improve
knowledge
worker
producGvity
20%
‐
30%
 ‐
Increase
sales
by
Google‐izing
product
knowledge
 ‐
Generate
fresh
ideas
and
increase
innovaGon
 ‐
Reduce
stress,
absenteeism,
and
healthcare
costs
 ‐
Increase
professionalism
and
professional
growth
 ‐
Cut
costs
and
improve
responsiveness
with
self‐service
 learning“ 
 
Jay
Cross,
informal
learning
2006 

©
2009
|

Jos
Arets
|

Vivian
Heijnen
|
Lei
Ortmans
|
TU220

  • 14. 

©
2009
|

Jos
Arets
|

Vivian
Heijnen
|
Lei
Ortmans
|
TU220

  • 15. 

©
2009
|

Jos
Arets
|

Vivian
Heijnen
|
Lei
Ortmans
|
TU220

  • 16. Business
Analysis
 Performance
 Cause
 IntervenGon
 Analysis
 Analysis
 SelecGon
 • 
Determine
 Desired
 • 
Knowledge
 • 
Type
of
root
cause
 

business
goals
 performance
 • 
Mo?ves
 • 
Match
interven?ons
 • 
Ar?culate
 state
 • 
Physical
Resources
 • 
Recommenda?ons
 

rela?onship
 • 
Structure/Process
 

to
human
 • 
Informa?on
 

performance
 Gap
 • 
Wellness
 Actual
 performance
 IntervenGon
 EvaluaGon
 state
 ImplementaGon
 of
Results
 • 
Manage
the
project
 • 
Forma?ve
evalua?on
 • 
Help
the
organiza?on
to
adapt
to
the
 

changes
 • 
Summa?ve
evalua?on
 • 
Gather
forma?ve
evalua?on
data
 

©
2009
|

Jos
Arets
|

Vivian
Heijnen
|
Lei
Ortmans
|
TU220

  • 17. Financial Objectives Business Results Voice of the Vision & Internal Customer Strategy Processes Change & • Measurements
current
situa?on

 Growth • Management:
desired
situa?on
 customer
service
on
team
/
performer
level
 • Performance
gap
 ConGnuing
performance
improvement

 • Root
cause
analyses
(performance
barriers)
 • 
Ac?on
plan
(solu?ons) • In
small
teams
implementa?on
ac?on
plans
 • 
Support
management
and
external
coach
 • 
Learning
on
the
job
 • 
Addi?onal
skills

 • Evalua?on
 • 
Measurements

‐
best
and
bad
prac?ces
 • 
Gap
closed?
 • 
Addi?onal
ac?ons
required
 • 
Recommenda?ons
 • Addi?onal
ac?ons
taken
 • From
project
to
rou?ne
 ©
2009
|

Jos
Arets
|

Vivian
Heijnen
|
Lei
Ortmans
|
TU220

  • 18. results
 design
 management
 organiza?on
  Strategy
 
  
 func?onali?es/structure
 
 Performance
management
system
 process
 
 Process
results
aligned
   
to
client
demands
 Design
process
(steps)
 Managing
white
spaces
 performer
 
 Outputs
performer
clear
 
 Standards,
ergonomics
  Knowledge,
feedback
 

©
2009
|

Jos
Arets
|

Vivian
Heijnen
|
Lei
Ortmans
|
TU220

  • 19. checklist A Operational management Vision
and
goals
customer
service

communicated
in
team?
 
 
 Customer
service
values
determined
by
team?
 
 
 SWOT

customer
service
team
level?
 
 
 Barriers
customer
service
known
by
professionals
and
project
organiza?on?
 
 
 Best
prac?ces
customer
service
known
by
professionals
and

project
organiza?on?
 
 
 Bad
prac?ces

customer
service
known
by
professionals
and
project
organiza?on?
 
 
 Best
performers
known
by
professionals?
 
 
 Job
criteria
customer
service
known
by
and
visible
for
professionals?
 
 
 Competencies
customer
service
used
for
improvement
and
monitoring?
 
 
 |

©
2008
|

Jos
Arets
|

Vivian
Heijnen
|
June
3rd

2008
|

  • 20. Checklist B Operational management Measurement
system
in
use
to
monitor
customer
service
improvements?
   Monitoring
individual
improvement
via
HRM
cycle?
   Peer
review

customer
service
in
use?
   Customer
service

on
agenda
team
mee?ngs?
   Current
versus
–
performance
customer
service
determined?
   Root
causes
determined?
   Ac?on
plan
customer
service
known
professionals
and
project
organiza?on
   (commitment)?
 Ac?on
plan
customer
service
in
ac?on?
   |

©
2008
|

Jos
Arets
|

Vivian
Heijnen
|
June
3rd

2008
|

  • 21. Performance
gap
 Performance
barrier
 Solu?on
 • 
Mistakes
(2‐3
?mes
a
week)
 • Unclear
standards
 • 
Complains
customers
 • 
Learning
in
de
workplace
 • 
No
formal
standard

 

about
standards
care

 • 
Job
aid
produced
and
 

in
documents
 

(2‐3
?mes
a
week)


 


introduced
 • 
Diversity
materials
 • Responsibili?es
unknown
 • 

Responsibili?es
renewed
 • 
Unanswered

 • Job
descrip?on
unclear
 


and
communicated
 


phone
calls

 • 
Infrastructure
 • 
New
secretarial
support

 

10‐15
?mes
a
day

 • Understaffed
recep?on

 


hired
 

in
the
morning
 • Insufficient
volunteers

 • 
Wheelchairs
sponsored
by
 

available
 


community
 • 
Customer
unsa?sfied:

 • 
Insufficient
resources
 • 
Recruit
campaign
for
 


outside
ac?vity
–
10‐10
 

(wheelchairs)
 

Volunteers
 

Informa?on
 

Procedure
informa?on
 

©
2009
|

Jos
Arets
|

Vivian
Heijnen
|
Lei
Ortmans
|
TU220

  • 22. Solu?on
 Ac?on
plan
 • 
Prepara?on
workgroup
prototype
 Who:
 • 
Job
aid
produced
and
 3
team
 • 
Test
and
commitment
team
and

 When
 


management
 


introduced
 members

 1‐5‐2008
 • 
Write
job
aid
 subject
maier

 • 
Learning
in
workplace
 experts
 • 
Introduc?on
team/learning
workplace
 • 
Evalua?on
3
weeks
 • 
Responsibili?es
renewed
 Who
 • 
Task
analyses
and
observa?on
 • 
Job
descrip?ons
renewed
 


and
communicated
 • Management
 When:
 01‐04
 • 
Job
descrip?ons
communicated
 • 
New
secretarial
support
 • 
Team
 


members
 • 
Infrastructural
redesign
(copier)
 


hired
 • 
New
secretarial
support
hired
 Who
 • 
Wheelchairs
sponsored
by
 • 
Management
 • 
brainstorm
team
resources
wheelchairs
 • 
wheelchairs
sponsored
by
community
 


community
 • 
Community

 When
 • 
Team
 01‐5
 • Recruit
campaign
for
volunteers
(
newspaper,

 • 
Recruit
campaign
for
 


members
 

family)
 


volunteers
 • 
Procedure
informa?on
during
morning
care
 

©
2009
|

Jos
Arets
|

Vivian
Heijnen
|
Lei
Ortmans
|
TU220

  • 23. Training
Environment
 Level
1:

 Level
2:
 Learning
Event
 ReacGons
 Learning
 • 
Learner
 • 
Learner
 • 
Client
 • 
OrganizaGon
 Work
Environment
 Level
5:
 Level
4:
 Level
3:
 Results
 Results
 Behavior
 • 

ROI

 • 
Performance
 • 
Learner
 Dr.
Phillips
 • 
Financial
 • 
OrganizaGon
 Adapted
from
Donald
Kirkpatrick.
Evalua6ng
Training
Programs:
The
Four
Levels.

Berrei‐Koehler,
1996.
 

©
2009
|

Jos
Arets
|

Vivian
Heijnen
|
Lei
Ortmans
|
TU220

  • 24. Solu?ons
 Level
1
 Level
2
 Level
3
 Level
4
 Level 5 Participant Focus
groups

 Management

 satisfaction performers,

 checklist
 Management satisfaction
 management
 Costs – benefits Organiza?onal
 Workplace

 financial control Results
 measurements
 and management Par?cipant

 Coach,
problem
 At
Workplace:

 Focus
groups

 customer

 Costs – benefits Solu?ons
Ac?on
 sa?sfac?on

 solving
skills
 responsibility,

 performers,

 sa?sfac?on,

 financial control Plan
 Management

 organiza?on
level

 and management asser?veness,
 management
 sa?sfac?on
 measurements
 Increased

 Management
,

 Project
 Member

 communica?on
 structurend
 Management
 sa?sfac?on
 
projects


 skills
 

©
2009
|

Jos
Arets
|

Vivian
Heijnen
|
Lei
Ortmans
|
TU220

  • 25. Return-On-Investment percentage (ROI) = (Total Benefits - Total Costs) …………………… - ………………. -------------------------------------- x 100 % = ………..... Total Costs ……………… 

©
2009
|

Jos
Arets
|

Vivian
Heijnen
|
Lei
Ortmans
|
TU220

  • 26. “Economic Value Added,” EVA for short, is a measure of ROI that takes the cost of funds into account. Unlike ROI, EVA is an amount, not a ratio. This keeps you focused on overall value. You won’t trade off a project with a 2000% ROI that only yields $10,000 in returns against a project with 30% ROI that nets $850,000. EVA is not difficult to calculate. Assume you’re making the case for a new program that you expect to return $32,000 for your $200,000 investment in its first year. Your ROI would be 32,000/200,000 = 16%. The EVA for this project deducts the cost of using the $200,000 ( x 10% = $20,000). Your EVA is based on your return less what you must pay for tying up the company’s capital, $32,000 - $20,000 = $12,000. Your EVA ratio is 12,000/200,000 = 6%. EVA recognizes that there’s no free ride. Projects don’t get funded because they have a hefty ROI. They get funded when they are the best use of funds available. No company can afford to pursue all its upside opportunities. EVA gets everyone thinking like owners. The carrying cost of excess inventory gripes the manager who’d like to use those funds for a new project. 

©
2009
|

Jos
Arets
|

Vivian
Heijnen
|
Lei
Ortmans
|
TU220

  • 27. Financial Objectives Vision Internal Voice of the & Customer Processes Strategy Change & Growth ©
2009
|

Jos
Arets
|

Vivian
Heijnen
|
Lei
Ortmans
|
TU220

  • 28. 

©
2009
|

Jos
Arets
|

Vivian
Heijnen
|
Lei
Ortmans
|
TU220

  • 29. 

©
2009
|

Jos
Arets
|

Vivian
Heijnen
|
Lei
Ortmans
|
TU220

  • 30. RSS
 Tags
 Blogs
 Vlogs
 Podcast
 Vodcast
 Youtube
 Networking
 Best
pracGces
/
 Theory
 Google
 performers
 Wikis
 Blikis
 Social
networks
 ReflecGon
 Peer
Teaching

/
 PracGce
 Screencast
 reviewing
 Mash
ups
 Twiger
 E‐learning
 Wikipedia
 EPSS
 Games
 E‐mail
 

©
2009
|

Jos
Arets
|

Vivian
Heijnen
|
Lei
Ortmans
|
TU220

  • 31. 

©
2009
|

Jos
Arets
|

Vivian
Heijnen
|
Lei
Ortmans
|
TU220

  • 32. They
don’t
separate
formal
and
Informal
learning
 They
don’t
separate
work
and
training
 They
focus
on
performance
instead
of
training

 They
don’t
confuse
e‐learning
with
web
2.0
/
social
sonware
 

©
2009
|

Jos
Arets
|

Vivian
Heijnen
|
Lei
Ortmans
|
TU220

  • 33. 

©
2009
|

Jos
Arets
|

Vivian
Heijnen
|
Lei
Ortmans
|
TU220