SIMULATIONS – BRIDGING FROM THWARTED INNOVATION TO DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGY

Gartner Research dubbed simulation the new “killer
application” in e-learning (Lundy et al., 2002) but even
assuming the best estimates for the adoption of simulations,
they represent a tiny proportion of the annual spend in
training and education. Considerable research has been done
to evaluate the effectiveness of simulations and, by and
large, the results suggest that simulations are effective but
there are doubts about even the most fundamental claims of
the efficacy of simulations (Feinstein and Cannon, 2002)
partly because there isn’t a clear, acceptable methodology,
partly because there is no real agreement on definitions, and
partly because there is little agreement on what should be
evaluated. Burns et al. (1990) consider the multi-fold
problem with evaluating experiential pedagogies stating that
there is firstly a need to compare the efficacy to ‘traditional’
approaches, and there is a need to compare alternative
experiential pedagogies competing to achieve the same
learning. Not surprisingly, they note a paucity of solid
empirical evidence regarding the relative effectiveness of
experiential techniques. Other authors (e.g. Pierfy, 1977)
note two particular problems with respect to evaluating
simulations or experiential techniques: the first being the
conceptual problems pertaining to definitions, domain
boundaries and the theoretical basis which underpin and
frame pedagogical research. The second fundamental
problem is that there remain significant methodological
difficulties including experimental design, constraints
within the organisations and institutions, time
considerations and ethical questions associated with any
comparative study.
This paper does not intend to argue in favor of one
approach, method or definition over another but to consider
why simulations have not yet emerged as training and
education’s “killer application” and how it may be possible
to bridge from being a thwarted innovation (Zemsky &
Massy, 2004) to a disruptive technology (Christensen,
1997).

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
May
18
3D Team Leadership Arrow Concept
Image by lumaxart via Flickr

In How the Mighty Fall, Jim Collins makes a case for why the fall of previously great companies does not negate prior research:

The principles in Good to Great were derived primarily from studying specific periods in history when the good-to-great companies showed a substantial transformation into an era of superior performance that lasted fifteen years. The research did not attempt to predict which companies would remain great after their fifteen-year run. Indeed, as this work shows, even the mightiest of companies can self-destruct.

Leading Blog: A Leadership Blog @ LeadershipNow: Confusing Principles and Approaches.

This should serve as a reminder, less that leadership research and the desire to stand by principles of good practice but there are three stages in the lives of leaders.

Great leaders and great companies begin as risk takers – they will push the boundaries and challenge the status quo. When the ‘fire in the belly’ is diminished and we rest on our laurels, we be come care takers os our business. This is especially true of any business or leader whose praises are sung from the pages of books, magazines, television or even movies. Soon follows the third stage of course, the role of under taker.

The day you or your business is identified as an example of excellence – be it a quote in a book, the cover of a magazine or a TV appearance is the day you need to sit up and take notice, forge ahead, learn from the past success and change.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Jan
29


DBA Thesis – Effectiveness of Simulations for developing managerial competencies – Get more Business Documents

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]