A few weeks ago I attended ISA’s 2008 Annual Business Retreat in Phoenix, Arizona

ISA is the Association of Learning Providers, and positions itself as the only association devoted exclusively to the issues and needs of executives in the learning industry.

Being new to the association, my goal was to participate in as many of the conference activities as possible to learn what I could about the organization and its members.

I was pleased to find the conference to be well organized and filled with sessions on a wide variety of intriguing and pertinent topics; each led by informed, experienced and engaging speakers. Some of the more thought provoking topics included burgeoning industry trends, industry financial statistics and benchmarking, marketing analysis, merger and acquisition case studies, and success stories.

One of the things I found most refreshing about the ISA Conference was the pervasive atmosphere of warmth and openness amongst both the staff and members. As a “newbie” to the organization, within hours of my arrival I was made to feel as though I had been part of this group for decades.  

Each of the conference sessions required a great deal of group participation, which quickly revealed the underlying schism that still resides within the learning industry. 

Call me naive or myopic in my view of our industry’s evolution, but I simply was not prepared for the depth of the philosophical divide that remains between traditional and technology focused learning providers.

As the subject of traditional instructor led training verses web-based training continued as a theme throughout each session of the conference, the divide seemed to only grow … to the point where a nationally recognized presenter, attempting to demonstrate ”bleeding edge” learning technologies (podcasting, Second Life environments, etc …), had his presentation derailed by an onslaught of antagonistic questioning from attendees focused on traditional learning methodologies.

Time and again, I overheard phrases like “We offer some forms of web-based learning, but only when required by customers in order to retain their business.”   

I went to the conference expecting to be exposed to different points of view, based on the varying experiences of the members, but not nearly to such an aggressive degree; particularly on a topic I thought long dead.

Fortunately, with our philosophies and methodologies firmly based upon a blend of traditional and web-based learning solutions, I was able to understand and speak to both viewpoints. 

But as the needs of our customers continue to evolve, particularly with the growing demands of the ”new workforce,” it seems to me choosing one approach over the other is an exercise in futility … The choice is already being made, it’s now simply a matter of whether we’re choosing to listen and react.

Author: Peter Kelley     

I can’t count on my fingers and toes how many times we’ve been brought into client change initiatives after they have gone off course or completely unraveled, typically for the most fundamental of reasons.

More often then not, the people responsible for making the change happen simply don’t know why it’s necessary, continue to do things the “old way,” and/or they have no idea what the intended results are supposed to be.

These are all clear signs of a poorly constructed Bridge process; where the present state, future state and/or transition plan is poorly defined.

Basically, it works like this … you start by analyzing the “Present State” to explain why the change is necessary. Then you define and describe what the intended “Future State” will look like. Finally, you consider and plan out what transitions will be necessary to form the “Pathway or Bridge” that will lead to real change.

The next phase in the process is to implement the transition plans you’ve created through your analysis until you’ve achieved your ideal future state.

It’s a very straightforward model that’s certainly not breaking new ground. But, if utilized regularly, can have a tremendous impact on any business; particularly with the right support tools in place. In fact, we use this model on a daily basis for our internal change initiatives.

Obviously, I’ve only presented a simplified view of a Bridge process. There are a number of intangibles that can affect the success of a change initiative; culture, history, fear, buy-in, readiness, etc. These are the types of issues that we work with clients aggressively to help manage.

Bottom line, when a Bridge process is used properly you will create a compelling story that holistically defines your change initiative, identifies what is required to move your company to the future state, mitigates areas of resistance and risk, and gets buy in from your people early and often throughout the transition.

Author: Vicky Jarosz