Nelson Croom's Blog

Disruptive technology that benefits everyone

by Alan Nelson

I read with interest last week that in the US sales of ebooks on Amazon have outstripped those of hardbacks, with the online retailer now selling 180 ebooks for every 100 hardbacks. This scares the hell out of publishers who have never been good at reacting positively to new innovations.

What is today termed disruptive technology has echoes in the past. The reaction 75 years ago to Penguin releasing the first paperbacks was equally hostile. So it’s appropriate that the Penguin boss, John Makinson, should be one the few publishing luminaries who is reacting positively.

Ebooks have been around for a while but the success of the Kindle reader has led to take off. The new iPad, with its superior ibooks app looks set to be an even greater catalyst.

In our world of online professional development, there are parallels too. Many of our clients and partners are concerned about the impact of online courses on existing face to face provision. Will people still come? I have to admit that I am never very sympathetic for two reasons:

1. I don’t really care much - in the end people will get what they want. If they find it more convenient to study for qualifications and stay up to date once qualified, by engaging with well prepared online material then that is what should be provided.
2. It doesn’t happen – our experience is that attendance at face to face events is not affected at all by online provision. Those that enjoy physical events where they can meet and interact with their peers, continue to attend, but others, who never went in the first place, start to engage online. Overall participation goes up.

So I was interested to read the detail of the story about Amazon sales of ebooks. Have they cannibalised sales of hardbacks? Is it the end for printed novels. No - far from it. Sale of hardbacks in the US – where these statistic comes from – are up 22%.

Going to Dublin

by Rachel Bruce

I was in Dublin last month to meet with two of our partners, CPA Ireland and Accounting Technicians Ireland.  As I arrived at their beautiful Georgian building, close to St Stephen’s Green, CPA Ireland was providing face-to-face training to a group of Lithuanian auditors.  I was interested to find out how this was going as it is a new initiative for CPA Ireland.  During one of the breaks, I was shown into the bright and airy training room and was introduced to John McCarthy, the presenter, who also happens to be one of our new authors that I hadn’t yet put a face to, who said that the training was going well.

I wondered how the language barrier was being overcome.  CPA Ireland showed me that each delegate has a copy of the PowerPoint slides, each copy with an English version and a Lithuanian version side by side.  In addition to this each delegate has a headset. In a separate room, while John McCarthy was presenting, two interpreters were translating the presentation which each delegate could then pick up via their headsets.  It was really interesting to see this set up, and how well it was working and being received by the delegates. 

The main reason for blogging about this though is that it reaffirmed something I have always believed throughout my working life: that even though new technologies are moving on apace, and facilitate amazing things in terms of building ‘virtual’ relationships, there is still a place for meeting people face to face.  My reason for meeting with CPA Ireland was to talk to them about the development of their online portfolio of courses from our Accounting and Finance portfolio, not to find out about their training of Lithuanian auditors.  However, in the process of meeting with them, on their turf, I found out and saw for myself one of their new initiatives in action.  This has helped to further my understanding about how our partner, CPA Ireland operates, which only serves to strengthen the bond that we have. 

A New Face at Nelson Croom

by Andrew Turner

Sitting down to write this blog, I am unsure how to introduce myself. Do I go for the formal ‘Hello, I’m Andrew Turner ……’? Or a more relaxed feel, full of quirky comments about me and the role I’m taking over.  Not sure either would be that great and so I went for the approach you have just read.

I have been fortunate to be offered the role of Marketing Executive at Nelson Croom and started on Monday 21st of June.  Previously I completed a degree in English Literature and History, travelled Australia,  and then studied a Masters in Publishing at Kingston University upon my return. This led many friends and family to suggest I was avoiding ‘the real world’ for as long as possible and should get a ‘real job’.

Much to their surprise, and my delight, I was able to do this shortly after completion of my course, being offered a position after my first interview.  It is a position which will enable me to develop the skills I learned through my Publishing Masters in a very unique way.  The friendly team here at Nelson Croom is something which will hopefully enable me to gain a greater understanding of the business as a whole, whilst also allowing me, selfishly, to pull out as much from the teams combined experiences in and out of publishing, as possible.

I also feel that I can bring something to the team, making it a somewhat less one-sided affair.  To deliver an old cliché, ‘I feel I can bring a fresh insight’, which, although is one of the most overly used interview phrases ever, is something I truly feel I offer.  With a Masters behind me as well as experience writing copy for a permanent cosmetics company (don’t ask!), I also believe there is a lot I can bring from my 7 years working in a bar come restaurant that makes what I offer quite unique.

Time will tell but I can say that I am very happy to be starting my career at this exciting, friendly and conveniently placed - on the cusp of Zone 2 - company!

10 years on: CPD

by Alan Nelson

The emergence of Continuing Professional Development as a serious part of professionals’ lives has been one of the key developments that have shaped the company over the last ten years.

Of course, nothing is completely new. It’s not as though professionals didn’t engage in their own development. Some of the ideas were around back in 2000, but the language was different. I remember a lot of talk of “cradle to grave lifelong learning”. If we were to prosper as a society, we were told, competing in a global market, we would all have to become knowledge workers , using our superior skills to stay ahead of competitors in lower wage developing economies.

So when did CPD start and how? The honest answer is that I don’t know. So I did what every lazy researcher does and turned to Wikipedia. I was amused to note that if you type CPD into the online encyclopedia, it comes up with a host of other expansions of the initials, nineteen of which apparently rank higher than Continuing Professional Development. So however important it may seem to me and to the people I talk to in professional bodies, we should all remember that it ranks nine lower than the Oregon based rock band, Cherry Poppin’ Daddies. Puts it in perspective doesn’t it? I should also say that the entry is far from comprehensive and includes this comment from the moderators:

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (November 2007)

Now there’s a project a group of us should turn our minds to.

Good professionals have always strived to stay current and this has been explicitly stated by many. The British Psychological Society, for example, had the following principle in their Code of Conduct long before they established their formal CPD regime:

“Psychologists shall endeavour to maintain and develop their professional competence, to recognise and work within its limits, and to identify and ameliorate factors which restrict it.”

Often through a network of local branches, professional bodies have encouraged their members to engage in training and development. Many of our early projects focused on this sort of activity and were designed simply to extend the reach of the professional development services on offer to members.

Over the years CPD has become more clearly defined. The Professional Associations Research Network suggests the following:

“[CPD is defined as] 'any process or activity that provides added value to the capability of the professional through the increase in knowledge, skills and personal qualities necessary for the appropriate execution of professional and technical duties, often termed competence.”

For what it’s worth, I think I prefer there to be more of an emphasis on currency. This definition from The Health Professions Council works for me:

“A range of learning activities through which health professionals maintain and develop throughout their career to ensure that they retain their capacity to practise safely, effectively and legally within their evolving scope of practice.”

Alongside this clearer definition of what is needed, there has been a move towards greater compulsion.

The move towards more tightly controlled and monitored CPD has been driven partly by the professional bodies. In health they are responding to adverse public reaction to high profile medical malpractice cases, and elsewhere the response is to other governance related cases such as Enron, which has been the catalyst for action in the accounting profession. This is reinforced by pressure from government for the professional bodies the get their house in order if they want to retain their regulatory role.

This move to the right of the scale created a demand for CPD resources of all kinds. What was exciting for me personally was that this world looked remarkably similar to others that I knew all about. I cut my teeth as a publisher producing textbooks for students. Students would buy good books in greater numbers than bad books. They found out whether a book was good either through peer recommendation or through a suggestion from their lecturer. But one thing was clear – they were mostly going to buy a book because they knew they needed it to get through their course.

The parallels with CPD were clear. I could see that if we could produce something good it would sell better than something bad. Good would have to be defined. It might mean any or all of: engaging, relevant, authoritative or fun, for example, but it was the existence of a CPD regime requiring professionals to complete and record their CPD that would ensure that they would buy something. It created a market.

It was to meet the demands of this market that we developed our publishing programme. We now offer our courses to a wide variety of professionals and are learning all the time about what they like and what they want. We also understand more about who is most likely to opt for online CPD:

• Judging by our sales, CPD activity is highest in regulated professions where CPD in mandatory and monitored. We have also been pleased to see that alongside the move to more regulated CPD, individuals are starting to migrate rapidly towards online offerings.

• In the UK and Ireland, two thirds of the courses are bought by women, who make up only one third of our audience. More women work part time and find it difficult to fit attendance at face to face events around other commitments.

• There is a bias in take up towards younger, newly qualified accountants, although this is not nearly as pronounced as expected.

• More courses are bought by those in practice, where a future course booking may conflict with a paid client work, whereas completion of CPD online can be fitted around other priorities.

• Finally, take-up is highest where CPD is monitored on an inputs basis – by hours or points – rather than on an outputs basis.

One of the things I like about publishing online is that you can see how people are using the courses. I never knew how someone used a book but I know exactly how they use our online courses. This means we can continually evolve our approach to meet their needs. So although more than 95% of users consistently rate our courses as good or excellent, and 98% say that the course has met their professional development needs, we continue to develop the offering to meet the needs of a CPD world that may well change over the next ten years as much as it has over the last.

10 years on: how has our philosophy changed?

by Alan Nelson

As part of Nelson Croom's 10th anniversary celebrations we are been looking back at how things have changed.

Reaching the milestone of our 10th birthday has made me temporarily reflective. Much has changed in the last 10 years but some things have stayed the same. The philosophy that underlies what we do is a mini example of this.

When David Croom and I first established Nelson Croom, we didn’t know much about e-learning. We were educational book publishers by background and although we knew a fair amount about the web, we had no experience of creating stand alone online learning. So we decided to get some help. We turned to a man called Trevor Bentley. Trevor was an organisation development consultant with a background in screen based learning that went back to the 70s. Over the course of a number of sessions, Trevor explained to us his central theory, that when dealing with remote learners, you had to let go of ideas of trying to teach them, and instead look to facilitate their learning. At first I thought this was a purely semantic distinction, but over time I came to see how important it was.

In practice what Trevor wanted us to do was to ask people what they wanted to learn and how, and then offer them each a route through material appropriate to their preferences. At the time, this all made a lot of sense to me. I have never much liked being told what to do and the idea of following a prescribed route through material, clicking on a next button, would never have appealed to me. This was backed up by some early work with focus groups, who pushed back hard on anything within our early offerings that attempted to control their movement around a course. So I went along with it innocently, never realising that acceptance of the approach would put us fairly significantly in left field in the emerging elearning world. Some people thought we were mad and certainly there were some areas where our apparently anarchic approach was never going to play well. It was a couple of years later that Trevor admitted to me that he had been trying to persuade Xebec McGraw to adopt his approach for some months and got nowhere. Indeed he told me that he nearly fell off the chair when our initial response to his suggestions was “OK. Sounds like a good idea to us. How do we do it?”

Looking back I think there were two reasons why we were so able to accept what others couldn’t:

• Firstly, we had less baggage. We were new and so we weren’t preoccupied with how to get our CD-ROMs to work over a dial-up connection, or how to convert our John Cleese videos into online learning. I was sold on the Internet and I wanted to use the browser as the navigational tool, not some interface that was dreamt up for a different medium.

• Secondly, as book publishers, we had spent much of the latter 90s discussing what a book would look like when it was online, only to realise that it was a pointless question. It would be a website not a book and once everyone understood websites, they wouldn’t feel the need to compare them to books anymore. So I was sure that I wasn’t going to spend any time thinking “What would a one day seminar look like as a course?” The question I was interested in was “How can we get people to learn this stuff using the internet?”

 

So that was how we set off on what was a fairly distinctive course. While it no doubt ruled us out of some work, particularly in the corporate sector, it was also a real asset, even in the early days. We became expert at dealing with diverse groups of learners, all starting with different pre-knowledge and in some cases with different objectives also. Inevitably, we gravitated towards the professional bodies. They were attempting to provide services to members all over the country, with differing levels of experience and different specialisms – highly intelligent and vocal individuals, not slow to criticise anything that doesn’t work for them.

So philosophy was not just an abstract concept; it became the foundation of what we did. Out of a simple and clear set of beliefs grew expertise and competence that informed the development of the business. The focus broadened over the years to include government bodies providing a service to the public and professional services firms with diverse clients, but we have always focused primarily on enabling organisations to extend the reach of their professional development services to individuals outside of their control.

Now of course the idea seems much less radical. The whole Web 2.0 movement is based on the idea that the users are in charge. We have enthusiastically welcomed many of the new social tools that have emerged because they have enabled us to bring some of our ideas to life. The whole concept of a community of learners creating a place where they can learn is tremendously exciting. The courses we create now get better when they are used – much better.

As a result of our approach we became obsessive about learners. Thinking about everything from their point of view is something of a mantra. So when last year we won an award for Elearning Development Company of the Year, and the judges cited our record of achieving results by focusing on the needs of real learners, I was particularly proud. As someone who has been rightly criticised in the past for flitting from one idea to the next, to have stuck with the same one for ten years, and eventually to have been proved right, was quite an achievement.

The idea that we aren’t completely in control of what the learner does is really what excited me about the web in the first place. Print publishers are obsessed with the layout of the page and hate the idea that a browser might present something different dependent on the user’s setup. Personally I always found this difference exciting. After so many years of discussions about line length and orphan paragraphs, I was able to admit that I had never really cared!

So, looking back over 10 years, has our fundamental philosophy changed? No, I don’t believe it has. What has changed is that we are much more flexible. I guess this comes with confidence. We have done it so many times now that we know how to change things with out losing what matters.

Disciples of Sisyphus or 21st Century Professionals?

by Alan Nelson

I read with interest Charles Jennings’ recent article, Less is more: A different approach to L&D in a world awash with information. I had been alerted to this author a while back when Jacqui returned from an e-Learning Network Event enthusing about his presentation.

Jennings central theme then as now is that the way professionals operate is changing. He highlights the remarkable rate of expansion of stuff you might expect a professional to know, citing as evidence the work of Andreas Weigend, former chief scientist at Amazon.com, who in May 2009 wrote in the Harvard Business Review,

“In 2009, more data will be generated by individuals than in the entire history of mankind through 2008.”

Getting professionally trained and then staying up to date is an increasingly Sisyphean challenge. Our expectations are changing though. Whereas it used to be the case that a professional could be expected to know most of what was needed to work in their chosen field, we now realise that in many areas that has become nigh on impossible and so a greater emphasis is being placed on having the information available: knowing where to find the answer, rather than just knowing it.

How much of this is driven by the expansion of knowledge and how much is due to the role technology has played in putting the answers within easy reach, I don’t know, but I am sure that Jennings is right to argue that it has significant implications for professional education, and of course for online learning providers.

This idea appeals to me instinctively – I’ve never much liked the anorak approach to professionalism. Most of the time we don’t need the world’s expert in any case, but we do expect a basic level of competence. And that requires more than just knowledge and information. If you put me in a doctor’s surgery and gave me access to the most extensive and user friendly reference resource imaginable, I’d still be a rubbish doctor. I’d be no better in a local authority benefits office. I agree that I wouldn’t need to know every detail of the benefits system, but I don’t know how it works at all, so I’d be no good at all.

I agree with Jennings that there must surely be a need to move the focus away from teaching facts and towards enabling people to assemble the core skills they need for their professional life. It chimes with our philosophy of putting the learner in charge. Put another way, perhaps we should see our purpose as educating people to understand how something works – the principles - and how to use them to make good judgements.

Jennings suggests some core skills that people will need – search and find skills, critical thinking etc – and these are useful. However his focus is primarily on the role of the L&D function within organisations, whereas ours is more on individual professionals – both their initial professional development and qualification, and their continuing professional development. So how does the change potentially affect the different types of learning resource that we create at Nelson Croom.

We claim four capabilities:

1. Distance Learning
2. General Professional Development
3. Formal CPD
4. Compliance

Let’s look at them in turn.

 

Distance Learning

Our distance learning projects are focused on preparing students to take their professional exams. The students do not get to decide what they would like to learn; they just want to ensure that they have reached the point where they have the requisite knowledge and skills to pass the exam.

This places an emphasis on the Examiner who sets the syllabus. They are in an invidious position. If they keep the syllabus as it is they will be accused of teaching and testing an increasingly small subset of the relevant information. On the other hand, senior professionals had to study hard to qualify and are likely to resist any initiatives to change the nature of the qualification to focus more on skills and judgement, on the grounds that it is lowering the hurdle and downgrading entry to the profession. If this conjures up stereotypical images of the oldest, most traditional professions, ask yourself why new taxi drivers still have to pass The Knowledge. I’d frankly rather they used a Sat. Nav.

So for these reasons I suspect that our distance learning resources may be slowest to change, but we will continue to push from our end.

General professional development

Our work in this area is more and more focused on professional conduct and ethics. In this area we have already taken huge steps forwards. Whereas five years ago we might have created a course to explain the ethical code in place in a particular profession and thought we had done our job, we are now focusing more on the application of the principles in practice.

Our course for Resolution, designed to encourage family lawyers to take a less combative approach to their work, encourages learners to reflect throughout on a real case they are working on. A range of case studies for STEP (Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners) present complex scenarios and ask the users to make judgements based on the ethical code. The concepts are simple but in practice it isn’t as easy as you’d think. And our own Ethical Issues for Accountants is a vast array of case studies that the user can comment on and read the views of other professionals.

CPD

Our approach to CPD has always been pretty flexible and so it is easier for us to change than it may be for others. From our origins in 2000 we have always argued that we should look to facilitate learning rather than attempting to teach remotely. Professionals all come to a course with different perspectives. They operate in different specialist areas and have different levels of experience. So any course that tries to make them all learn a set bunch of facts is going to alienate most of them. The idea of taking someone through the basic principles, getting them to engage and think and offering them access to more information for reference where they are interested, has always been central to our approach, and so we have been well placed to embrace these new ideas.

Over the last eighteen months, we have taken a further step forwards with the launch of our peer enriched learning courses. These tend to deal with an issue or debate. The learning takes place in a series of three-step activities. Firstly the learner is asked a question which they consider and construct a reply to. Next, they read an expert summary of the key issues. Finally they read their peers’ contributions. While this may be an inefficient way to teach lots of facts, it is a excellent way to change attitudes and broaden horizons.

Compliance

This is the area of our work where we have the most challenging conversations with our partners. Whether we are talking to an organisation that is concerned to make sure their employees understand the ins and outs of competition law, or to an individual professional signing up for a course to make sure they understand how to avoid a malpractice case, their instinct is to focus on what they need to know.

Although this makes intuitive sense, I think it is often misleading. I’m pretty convinced that you could write down what most people need to know about competition law on two sides of A4. When we teach them more, I wonder whether they remember it for much longer than it takes to pass the assessment. What matters is not whether they become expert, but whether we really succeed in changing their behaviour. So recently we have started to work on more and more case study based approaches to compliance. This seems to me to be a massive step forward. If we can focus more on whether people understand the limits of acceptable behaviour and less on their ability to commit a series of facts to their short term memory, we will be doing a great job.

So how does this all fit together? It seems to me that it continues to be the case that professionals in any particular sector need to learn some principles and how to interpret them and put them into practice. Add to that some more generic information management and retrieval skills and we will start to turn out some real 21st Century professionals and not just an army of Sisyphean disciples.

It's a "nelson" for us at Learning Technologies 2010

by Victoria Clarke

Did you know that the number 111 is also known as a “nelson”?

So, it’s very apt that we will be exhibiting on stand 111 at Learning Technologies 2010! Superstition has it that if you score a nelson in cricket you should hop in the air so that neither foot is touching the ground (no mean feat) and then stand on just one foot until the score has moved on. Don’t worry, we won’t be expecting any gymnastics on our stand (luckily for me!), so if you’re attending Learning Technologies on either the 27th or 28th January do pop by the stand and say hello.

Members of the Nelson Croom team will be on hand to discuss your online learning needs and plans, and to answer any questions that you may have about our services. If you’d like to make an appointment to speak to us then just get in touch.

If you haven’t registered yet, then there’s still time. Learning Technologies will be held at London’s Olympia 2, 27th-28th January. The show is now in its eleventh year and is Europe’s premier showcase of organisational and learning technologies. This year, Learning Technologies is being co-located with a brand new exhibition: Learning and Skills.

We hope that you can make it, and we look forward to meeting you!

Market Research for Publishers

by Rachel Bruce

I have just been reviewing one of the new courses that is soon to be launched in our Publishing Portfolio – Market Research for Publishers.  As a former commissioning editor I reviewed this course with much interest.  I enjoyed the fourth module called Making it Work which provides examples of the ways in which market research can be applied to different parts of a publishing business.  The module provides some useful information on looking at competition and how to analyse the data, which I would have found helpful in my former role! 

I particularly enjoyed looking at the activities in this module, where learners are invited to submit their responses.  Obviously there aren’t any learners on this course yet, but I found myself wishing there were, as I wanted to be able to use the “see what other learners said” button, to find out how other people had responded to the activities, and what their experiences were in applying market research in publishing.   

I have always thought that the functionality we had for seeing what other learners have said was a great piece of technical development within Imago.  But it only stuck me while reviewing this course how powerful this is as a learning tool.  I really wanted to see how others had responded to this activity – it would have added not only to the knowledge I was trying to acquire but also to the learning experience itself.

I am yet again jumping on the ‘importance of networking tools bandwagon’ (as I did in my previous blog entry on 9th July).  I can’t help it, as I just keep getting reminded, in various ways, of how significant these tools are in supporting the learning experience.

Negotiation skills: poacher turned gamekeeper

by Alan Nelson

Over the last couple of months we have been working with a team at the British Library, helping them to develop their negotiation skills: skills they use in their interactions with publishers. Having worked for many years in publishing, and counting many of the UK's leading publishers as clients, this has been an interesting experience.

The negotiations we have been discussing can be divided into two types. Firstly the BL licenses content from publishers for its physical and online collections and for inclusion in its document supply services. These discussions look set to toughen as budgets shrink and prices continue to rise ahead of inflation. The BL name is globally known and this can work for or against them. On the one hand, publishers of scholarly material would not want it to become known that the BL had cut their titles from the list. On the other hand, if details of any special deal were to seep out into the broader library community, they would quickly be seen as an example what to expect in negotiations. So publishers are particularly wary of agreeing to deals that might set a precedent.

The second set of negotiations concerns outward licensing. The BL holds a massive catalogue of digitised rare and out of print material. It licenses this content to publishers to include in commercial publications. Here, one of the key issues is the guarantees that publishers are looking for. If they are going to invest in developing and printing a publication, they want assurances that if the copyright is challenged, the BL will be responsible for defending the claim and liable if they can't. Unfortunately the copyright issues are not always clear cut - this is an area of judgement. The BL know what they are doing when it comes to copyright but while they are happy to stand by their judgement on their own behalf, they aren't so keen to underwrite the publishers' risk as well.

This leads to an interesting dilemma. Each individual deal is not worth the risk of agreeing to the terms, but if they take that view generally, they would lose significant license income and be accused of failing to support the dissemination of the collection.

I have come out of it all thinking that maybe life on the other side of the table isn't any easier! It has also reinforced a simple principle of negotiation - you are much more likely to do a good job if you take the trouble to understand the other party's position.