Comments on Bunchberry & Fern: Base Units and Harvard Business Press

Excellent. And excuse me if I'm wrong on this...

2010-03-17T08:17:14.510Z

Excellent.

And excuse me if I'm wrong on this, Robert, but isn't this argument impotent in the face of this post's proposition:

"As a book author I've sold over 300,000 copies. And millions have accessed my websites."

Sales and pageviews are irrelevant. It's the knowledge imparted as a result of this that is important.

I'm afraid you haven't said much in your r...

2010-03-06T04:42:04.899Z

I'm afraid you haven't said much in your response. I re-read your rambling blog post, and I can certainly see why you would prefer blogs to books.

I apologize for being opaque in my points. I skipped the baby steps, assuming you'd get it, but on reading the blog post over, I realize you don't have a clue about knowledge, wisdom, learning, publishing or writing coherently, and it's clear you belong on a blog where there are no standards but your own (which is part of the point.

You did say:

"This leaves publishers with a problem - how are they going to make me pay for it? I don't know and I don't care - it's not my problem if books turn out to be an accident of paper"

You clearly don't know, and you clearly don't care, and that IS my point. My point is that it's all connected, and that YOU may be suited to blog posting, because you lack the ability to create knowledge production and wisdom production in any other way, or meet the standards of publishing.

As to your point in the post, it's a dog's puked up breakfast. What comes across is the usual sour grapes about an industry you can't crack.

You and your colleagues will excel each leading the other in ignorance on the blogs of the world, and criticizing knowledge and wisdom that comes from true expertise.

Robert, I'm struggling to see what the point ...

2010-03-05T18:27:57.120Z

Robert,

I'm struggling to see what the point of your comment is. How is a post about how business book authors (and Training Departments) serve up one-size-fits-all books and courses evidence of self-centredness? Or that I don't care.

You're a relentless self-promoter who uses their blog and website to drive business. I have absolutely no problem with this - but this blog has nothing at all to do with my business and everything to do with thinking aloud, connecting with people and learning.

Shock/horror - sometimes I even realise what I've said was stupid and recant. My eLearning opinions are examples of this.

But in this case, I don't think I'm wrong. Some of the training courses that UK workers have to attend - neatly packaged into a 7-hour session but would probably be better off as something different if only we didn't have to pay the trainer for the whole day - is just plain wrong.

I know you hate big words. So I'll make this simple. Cut the crap. Address the issue. Or go and bother somebody else.

Is it really all about you? It sounds like it. You...

2010-03-05T18:01:29.947Z

Is it really all about you? It sounds like it. Your post here sounds like an ideal example to explain to people how social media (the whole thing-blogs, twitter, everything) has allowed every self-centered person to a) become more so because the medium suits it and b) to demonstrate how selfish they are and be applauded for it.

As a book author I've sold over 300,000 copies. And millions have accessed my websites. I will tell you that the ethical and successful approach to communicating is to balance their needs and my needs.

I know YOU don't care. But, you know what. I do. I care that publishers, readers, me, end up well served.

Amazing comment eh? Why is it the most active social networkers who talk so much about people are the most selfish and self-centered and truly do NOT care about others?

I'm fine with DIKW. I feel that, as with all m...

2010-03-05T16:50:17.872Z

I'm fine with DIKW. I feel that, as with all models, criticising its 'rightness' isn't helpful. If it functions as a social object (ie making a version of reality 'explicit and accessible') then that's all we need worry about.

But. There's a problem with these hierarchical models (cf Bloom) whereby you see people making inferences that aren't valid eg 10^4 Data = 10^3 Information = 10^2 Knowledge = 10 Wisdom. At each stage-boundary of the hierarchy we have a 'and then a miracle occurs' moment of transubtantiation.

That's the problem of users rather than the model itself, of course. But it does have that affordance, especially when depicted in the distillery-analogue of the pyramid.

With regard to training, in the UK I suspects it's a little more insidious. not only have training departments called everything they do 'training' but vice versa - if it's not owned by the training department then it's not learning.

Here's my experience of how the enterprise sees 'training departments' in the UK - over at Jane Bozarth's blog (see comments).

I also think the DIKW model also serves a purpose....

2010-03-05T16:30:17.540Z

I also think the DIKW model also serves a purpose. I modeled it it a slighty different way - http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/performance/understanding.html. I still don't think I got it right, but perhaps a bit closer.

Bob - I don't think we need to lambast training as it does serve a very useful purpose. I think what has really happened is that training departments have called eveything they do "training" thus its not training's fault but rather the fault of the other learning efforts we do.

Hi, Bob I frequently lambast training and trainin...

2010-03-05T16:25:26.845Z

Hi, Bob

I frequently lambast training and training departments - it's pretty much the reason this blog exists. Learning - too important to leave to the gatekeepers of the Training Department.

Looking forward to reading about the flowchain, by the way. One of my pet theories is that there are many ways to carve up the world in a Wittingstein Rabbit gestalt shift kind of way eg there are two kinds of people. . . And that one of those 'two kinds' distinctions is between those who see flux and those who see structure. (Of course, all of us see both. But I don't think we're good at seeing both at the same time - hence the gestalt shift - or that [m]any of us are equally good at seeing both.)

I'm wondering if the flowchain idea is a fluxophile-systems meme and, therefore, structure-stasis-analysers will always be inimical towards it?

Here's me doing a little light lambasting:
Training Analysis
The Armageddon Problem
Back to front learning and scaling
JIT education
Bushido Training
And, ugh, Competency Frameworks

And some stuff related to writing business books:
The Story Gap
Apprehension Span
Microwave Training

As someone in the process of writing two books, I ...

2010-03-05T10:51:34.094Z

As someone in the process of writing two books, I struggle with the issues raised here on a daily basis.

BTW Hopefully you'll get round to lambasting Training (and Training Depts) soonish.

- Bob