Learning 2.0 Post-Mortem Abigail Elder Martha Flotten Mike Larsen June 4, 2008

Performance vs. Goals Program Objective #1 : Create a safe and encouraging environment for staff to explore web 2.0 technologies Objective Achieved : 78% of eligible employees participated

Program Objective #1 :

Create a safe and encouraging environment for staff to explore web 2.0 technologies

Objective Achieved :

78% of eligible employees participated

Performance vs. Goals Program Objective #2 : Provide staff with tools to support MCL Mission (diverse opportunities to read, learn, connect) Objective Achieved : 2.0 tools (blogs, wikis, online docs, etc.) already being used to help patrons

Program Objective #2 :

Provide staff with tools to support MCL Mission

(diverse opportunities to read, learn, connect)

Objective Achieved :

2.0 tools (blogs, wikis, online docs, etc.) already being used to help patrons

Performance vs. Goals Program Objective #3 : Prepare staff to meet public expectations regarding technical competency with web 2.0 tools Objective Achieved : Increased staff comfort level with web 2.0 technologies (74% “Yes”)

Program Objective #3 :

Prepare staff to meet public expectations regarding technical competency with web 2.0 tools

Objective Achieved :

Increased staff comfort level with web 2.0 technologies (74% “Yes”)

Performance vs. Goals Program Objective #4 : Reward staff for initiative in completing self-discovery exercises Objective Achieved : 172 flash drives and 66 MP3 players distributed

Program Objective #4 :

Reward staff for initiative in completing self-discovery exercises

Objective Achieved :

172 flash drives and 66 MP3 players distributed

Program Participation How Many? Who? How Much? Why / Why Not? Where? Enough Time? Ruth Allen, Donald Allgeier, Kassten Alonso, Rachel Altmann, Scott Anderson, Gloria Anger, Diana Armstrong, Carolyn Baer, Margaret Bagg, Renee Bashor, Shandra Bauer, Adam Bentley, Francie Berg, Nicole Bilyeu, Nancy Booher, Carey Boucher, Erika Bury, Mary Bush, Donna Cain, Cathy Camper, Lisa Canavan, Lee Catalano, Sharon Chalem, Kitty Chartier, Lori Chester, John Church, Wendy Clark, Jacob Coleman, Jason Colomby, Paul Connelly, Michelle Conrad, Michael Constan, Vickie Costello, William Coutant, Ben Craig, Constance Cramer, Chris Cuttone, Kristine Dale, Mary Davis, Emily-Jane Dawson, May Dea, Troy Deal, Jane Denunzio, Gail Des Granges, Sean Dixon, Jan Durant, Luci Dorocher, Karen Eichler, Dulsanna Eliason, Terri Elledge, Stephen Ellis, Angie Fisher, Helen Flack-Jacobs, Betsy Fontenot, Peter Ford, Natasha Forrester, Jennifer Fort, Mark Foster, Felicia Fulks, Alan Gabriell, Carolyn Garcia, Lee Garfiield, Beverly Gilbertson, Thia Gilpin, Deborah Gitlitz, Daryl Hardin, Peter Harrington, Ann Harrison, Kari Hauge, Leslie Hemstreet, Ken Hoesch, Heidi Hoogstra, Ross Huffmann-Kerr, Ross Betzer, Tara Hughes, Haley Isleib, Chris Jakel, Shelly Jarman, David Jensen, Alicia Jimenez, Nick Kalastro, Alison Kastner, Arlene Keller, John Keller, Katrina Kendrix, Sharon Kerns, Michael Kindley, Amy Know, Ann Knutson, Shannon Kraft, Bill Kramer, Nina Kramer, Aaron Kyle, Erin Lakin, Susan Larimer, Angie Larson, Marty Leisure, Jorden Leonard, Colleen Lester, Larry Lillvik, Vida Lohnes, Laura Lonac, Shanon Long, Stephan Mahoney, Darcee Maloney, Moira McAuliffe, Shauna McKain-Storey, Sarah Mead, Andrea Milano, Joanna Milner, Carson Mischel, Kristopher Newburg, Kiri Nielsen, Sean O’Brien, Katie O’Hara, Hesther O’Neill, Victoria Oglesbee, Gail Parker, Jackie Partch, Nicoal Price, Patrick Provant, Sinead Pullen, Sam Pumpelly, Lin Rainier, Larry Randall, Beth Read, Rod Richards, Cyndi Rosene, Steve Roskoski, Terry Roskoski, Rebecca Roth, Elizabeth Roghery, Jennifer Ryan, Susan Scharbach, Heidi Schaub, Lorna Schilling, Denise Schmitt, Sharon Schriver, Kristen Schroeder, Baron Schuyler, Kate Schwab, Tiffany Scott, Arden Shelton, Rachael Short, Carol Silva, Dale Smith, Arlen Snyder, Carolyn Sparling, Kate Swabey Grant Swanson, Maryanne Tarter, David Townsend, Anne Tran, Carol Uhte, John Vassallo, Daniel Wade, Becky Warren, Catherine Watanabe, Shane Wavra, Daphne Weiner, Jere White, Larry Will, Desiree Wolcott-Cushman, Keli Yeats, Eugene Lam, Maria Lowe, Lynda Pumpelly, Kristen Schlafer, Pauline Baughman, Eric Gregory, Laura Tyger = 172 total staff members! People Who Completed the Learning 2.0 Activities

How Many?

Who?

How Much?

Why / Why Not?

Where?

Enough Time?

Learning 2.0 Program Participation

Reasons for Not Participating Data from Survey. Only 22% of employees (19% of survey respondents) did not participate.

Data from Survey.

Only 22% of employees (19% of survey respondents) did not participate.

Motivation: The Role of “Tech Tools” Q: How big a role did the possibility of receiving one of the tech tools play in your decision to participate in the Learning 2.0 Program?

Completion: How Far Did People Get? as of 3/29/2008

Reasons for Not Completing Data from Survey. Only 38% of survey respondents did not complete. No respondents indicated supervisor as a reason for not completing.

Data from Survey.

Only 38% of survey respondents did not complete.

No respondents indicated supervisor as a reason for not completing.

Did we allow them enough time? Time Allowed vs. Time Needed Time Needed (outer ring) Time Allowed (inner ring)

Time Allowed vs. Time Needed

L2.0 Program Completion by Location

Completion vs. Participation (by Location)

Project Planning & Execution Plans we made How they worked out

Plans we made

How they worked out

Project Management / Planning Planned Committee Committee made up of IT rep, plus seven staff members representing different classifications, locations, work groups, and skill levels Nominated by Supervisors, selected by Martha, Mike, Abigail, and Vailey Actual Committee As envisioned, expanded to eight for extra inclusion Lesson: Should have included a Branch Leader

Planned Committee

Committee made up of IT rep, plus seven staff members representing different classifications, locations, work groups, and skill levels

Nominated by Supervisors, selected by Martha, Mike, Abigail, and Vailey

Actual Committee

As envisioned, expanded to eight for extra inclusion

Lesson: Should have included a Branch Leader

General Outline of Project Plan Follow PLCMC model, adapt it for MCL Investigate web tools; choose best for us Decisions by consensus whenever possible Used blog & wiki to develop program content Each member given primary responsibility for a “week” of thematically linked activities Subcommittees for program communication, resources/personnel, implementation, and incentives Result: Positive

Follow PLCMC model, adapt it for MCL

Investigate web tools; choose best for us

Decisions by consensus whenever possible

Used blog & wiki to develop program content

Each member given primary responsibility for a “week” of thematically linked activities

Subcommittees for program communication, resources/personnel, implementation, and incentives

Result: Positive

Schedule / Timeline Planned Timeline : Initial plan was to begin on Staff Day (end of Feb) and conclude by June 1st Actual Timeline : Program ran Jan 8 – March 29, “winners” announced at Staff Day (ahead of original schedule) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

Planned Timeline :

Initial plan was to begin on Staff Day (end of Feb) and conclude by June 1st

Actual Timeline :

Program ran Jan 8 – March 29, “winners” announced at Staff Day

(ahead of original schedule)

Budget Planned Budget : Committee time (development) up to 3hrs./mo. X 8 mo. Staff time (for participation) up to 90min./wk x 12 weeks Friends of the Library purchase “incentives” for staff Actual Budget Result : Committee time averaged approximately 2 hrs/mo. Staff participation time avg. __ (< 90 min planned) Friends of the Library donated $5000 for “tech tools” 68 unused flash drives returned for sale in the store at CEN.

Planned Budget :

Committee time (development) up to 3hrs./mo. X 8 mo.

Staff time (for participation) up to 90min./wk x 12 weeks

Friends of the Library purchase “incentives” for staff

Actual Budget Result :

Committee time averaged approximately 2 hrs/mo.

Staff participation time avg. __ (< 90 min planned)

Friends of the Library donated $5000 for “tech tools”

68 unused flash drives returned for sale in the store at CEN.

Marketing / Communications Both 2.0 and traditional methods used: AA memos and e-mails Animoto and Molly’s YouTube videos Presentations to managers & work groups Update emails highlighting Blog of the Week “ Word of mouth” through network of Guides Project Blog FAQ Comments on participants’ blogs Result: Positive

Both 2.0 and traditional methods used:

AA memos and e-mails

Animoto and Molly’s YouTube videos

Presentations to managers & work groups

Update emails highlighting Blog of the Week

“ Word of mouth” through network of Guides

Project Blog FAQ

Comments on participants’ blogs

Result: Positive

Planned Learning Support Initial Model All support delivered through online resources; self-directed learning activities As Modified for MCL (Additional Support) Recruited and trained Learning Guides for onsite, in-person assistance Scheduled dedicated computer lab sessions February Reference Forum Weekly e-mail updates

Initial Model

All support delivered through online resources; self-directed learning activities

As Modified for MCL (Additional Support)

Recruited and trained Learning Guides for onsite, in-person assistance

Scheduled dedicated computer lab sessions

February Reference Forum

Weekly e-mail updates

Participant Feedback on Support Did participants get the help they needed? No 18% Yes 82%

Did participants get the help they needed?

Supervisor Opinion of Support Did supervisors feel supported by the Learning 2.0 Committee?

Did supervisors feel supported by the Learning 2.0 Committee?

IT Support Planned IT Rep on Committee Head off or fix problems before “go live” Planned 2 week test period Use Roller as in-house blogging platform Minimal involvement because activities based on free online resources Actual No test period. Program blog not ready until January 7, one day before “go live” date Initial problems with Roller usability, video players, help desk communications, server downtime

Planned

IT Rep on Committee

Head off or fix problems before “go live”

Planned 2 week test period

Use Roller as in-house blogging platform

Minimal involvement because activities based on free online resources

Actual

No test period. Program blog not ready until January 7, one day before “go live” date

Initial problems with Roller usability, video players, help desk communications, server downtime

Direct Impact of Program How we’re using web 2.0 tools since the start of the Learning 2.0 program How we feel about Learning 2.0

How we’re using web 2.0 tools since the start of the Learning 2.0 program

How we feel about Learning 2.0

L2.0 Tools Used to Help Patrons 19% of survey respondents do not interact with patrons. 36% have not used one of the Learning 2.0 tools to help a patron.

19% of survey respondents do not interact with patrons.

36% have not used one of the Learning 2.0 tools to help a patron.

Staff Non-Public Use of L2.0 Tools Only 25% of staff have not yet used one of the Learning 2.0 tools in some facet of their work duties other than helping patrons.

Only 25% of staff have not yet used one of the Learning 2.0 tools in some facet of their work duties other than helping patrons.

Usage Comparison: Public vs. Internal Greater staff internal usage for all Learning 2.0 tools

Greater staff internal usage for all Learning 2.0 tools

Work Group Implementation of L2.0 Tools graph from supervisor survey data 75% of supervisors either have already implemented, or have plans to implement the usage of 2.0 tools for their workgroups!

graph from supervisor survey data

Examples of 2.0 In Use at MCL Everybody Reads Blog Fairview Branch Wiki PELIC Wiki Ref Blog More Coming Soon!

Everybody Reads Blog

Fairview Branch Wiki

PELIC Wiki

Ref Blog

More Coming Soon!

Supervisor Opinion of L2.0 Program Supervisors who feel the Learning 2.0 program was worth the time and effort

Supervisors who feel the Learning 2.0 program was worth the time and effort

Key Lessons

What Went Right Learning Guides Opportunity for fun & break from routine Bringing people together “ Blog of the Week” helped encourage participation Walked the talk (used 2.0 tools to develop and deliver program content) “ Opt out” (where applied) Library work still got done

Learning Guides

Opportunity for fun & break from routine

Bringing people together

“ Blog of the Week” helped encourage participation

Walked the talk (used 2.0 tools to develop and deliver program content)

“ Opt out” (where applied)

Library work still got done

Lessons Learned The value of social engagement! Open labs not used Roller problematical Connectivity/PC configuration issues Privacy concerns persist People don’t read instructions Schedule most applicable activities first

The value of social engagement!

Open labs not used

Roller problematical

Connectivity/PC configuration issues

Privacy concerns persist

People don’t read instructions

Schedule most applicable activities first

Where do we go from here?

Supervisor Support Do supervisors support future training on the same delivery model as the Learning 2.0 program?

Do supervisors support future training on the same delivery model as the Learning 2.0 program?

Survey Says… Skills/tools employees want to see in a future program

Skills/tools employees want to see in a future program

Recommendations: #1 Implement Learning 2.1-- a program for continued learning of new technologies A new activity/tool each month Posted to a new central blog, similar to Learning 2.0 Rotate responsibility for posting (between Mike/Martha/Abigail/others?) Highlight what other libraries are doing Participation optional

Implement Learning 2.1-- a program for continued learning of new technologies

A new activity/tool each month

Posted to a new central blog, similar to Learning 2.0

Rotate responsibility for posting

(between Mike/Martha/Abigail/others?)

Highlight what other libraries are doing

Participation optional

Recommendations: #2 Centralize system-wide 2.0 tools Avoid duplication of initiatives List MCL blogs, wikis, etc., in one place (like Hennepin’s extranet) Consolidate & standardize tools (e.g. Roller is shared, “official” blogging platform) Especially need standardized wiki platform Provide list of people to be contacted for info on specific 2.0 tools.

Centralize system-wide 2.0 tools

Avoid duplication of initiatives

List MCL blogs, wikis, etc., in one place (like Hennepin’s extranet)

Consolidate & standardize tools (e.g. Roller is shared, “official” blogging platform)

Especially need standardized wiki platform

Provide list of people to be contacted for info on specific 2.0 tools.

Recommendations: #3 Implications for future e-learning programs 2.0 tools are here to stay; usage will continue to grow Staff will require training as tools & technologies are developed and gain widespread use and acceptance Self-paced online e-learning a valuable and necessary, but not a sufficient means of delivering training for most employees

Implications for future e-learning programs

2.0 tools are here to stay; usage will continue to grow

Staff will require training as tools & technologies are developed and gain widespread use and acceptance

Self-paced online e-learning a valuable and necessary, but not a sufficient means of delivering training for most employees

Recommendations: #4 Serve as a resource for other county departments and work groups interested in similar training programs or in using web 2.0 tools. Point of contact: MCL Learning Systems

Serve as a resource for other county departments and work groups interested in similar training programs or in using web 2.0 tools.

Point of contact: MCL Learning Systems

Recommendations: #5 Highlight applicable 2.0 tools on new public blog

Highlight applicable 2.0 tools on new public blog

Recommendations: #6 Require/encourage newbies to complete Learning 2.0 activities Reference staff Technohost volunteers

Require/encourage newbies to complete Learning 2.0 activities

Reference staff

Technohost volunteers

Questions & Comments