Renouncing War and Proclaiming Peace

Sometimes the spirit of Freedom and Liberty burns so deeply within my soul that I do things I probably shouldn’t do.

Last Sunday, in Sunday School, I “renounced war and proclaimed peace” to my Sunday school class. In the process, it seems I offended some of the class members, including the Bishop. I’ll need to explain some of the details, but the summary is that by Sunday evening I was on “Sunday School Probation” (i.e., I would be taking a break from teaching for a while) and by Tuesday I was released.

In class, I listed on the board the questions I mentioned in my last post. I then referenced Book of Mormon passages and writings from Latter-day prophets that related to each section. The passages from the Book of Mormon we read lead to the conclusion that offensive war is waged for power and gain while defensive war is for freedom and liberty. As to our current condition as Latter-day Saints, the following statement from President Kimball probably still stands (he wrote this in the June 1976 Ensign):

In spite of our delight in defining ourselves as modern, and our tendency to think we possess a sophistication that no people in the past ever had—in spite of these things, we are, on the whole, an idolatrous people—a condition most repugnant to the Lord.

We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching:

“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

“That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:44–45.)

We forget that if we are righteous the Lord will either not suffer our enemies to come upon us—and this is the special promise to the inhabitants of the land of the Americas (see 2 Ne. 1:7)—or he will fight our battles for us (Ex. 14:14; D&C 98:37, to name only two references of many)…

I listed on the board some of the numbers related to the current conflict (number of dead and wounded, number displaced, cost in dollars) and then I made the offer in class that if there was anyone who is for the current war, to come by my house, I’ll fix us a couple bowls of sherbet (I’m watching what I eat) and we’ll discuss war.

This was too much for the Bishop and he stated that I had “gone too far.” I said, “OK” and brought the class to a close.

By Tuesday evening I was released from teaching Sunday School.

Just a couple of observations…

I spent a considerable amount of time wondering where I went wrong (because I did go wrong). On Tuesday morning I figured it out. I knew I was teaching about a sensitive subject. It was important that what I taught had the second witness of the bishop or bishopric member. I did not work with them in advance to secure that witness. The bishop’s disagreement with what I was teaching took the Spirit from the room.

While explaining my release, the counselor in the Sunday School showed me a portion from the Church’s handbook of instructions that states that controversial subjects should not be part of Sunday School. Frankly, I don’t know what to do with this. Does this mean that I could not reference Sister Beck’s last conference talk – it was controversial? Would I have to ignore the Book of Mormon’s warnings about Secret Combinations? That’s certainly controversial. I could go on and on. The Book of Mormon tells us about two societies that were completely destroyed and why. Am I supposed to pretend that the book does NOT apply to us? Or that, somehow, we as members of the Church are living as we should – when Mormon is quite clear that we are NOT? How can I bring up our errors without being controversial? Am I supposed to sugarcoat the Book of Mormon when teaching it? Sorry, I have to stand in front of Mormon someday and explain what I did with his book.

I do believe that these topics can be taught in a non-controversial way. It requires thought, preparation, and most of all, cooperation with the congregational leaders. I believe that establishing an environment of learning, respect, and understanding in the classroom is essential. I made too many mistakes in my zeal. The bishop was appropriate in his actions.

I am left to mourn that I can “renounce war and proclaim peace” to my gentile friends but cannot do so to my brothers and sisters in the gospel. At some point, God will no longer be able to ignore the blood of the millions of people we have murdered. When that time comes, we as a people will cry to him for help, and he will be slow to hear our cries for our punishment will be just. My God have mercy on us.

On War

Toward the end of last year I was asked to teach Sunday School. Not sure why.

The course of study this year is the Book of Mormon (the schedule is Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants). The lesson for this coming week is Alma 43 - Alma 52. It's all about war.

Last week, I tried something a bit "risky" in an attempt to motivate the class to read the assignment and ask some questions. I put together a petition. It went something like this:

Whereas as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we have been commanded to "Renounce War and Proclaim Peace" and

Whereas as we believe the United States Constitution is a divinely inspired document and was established by wise men whom God raised up for that very purpose, and

Whereas the current war in Iraq and Afghanistan is being waged without congressional approval as required by the Constitution,

We, the undersigned members of the of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do call for the immediate cessation of hostilities and the removal of all troops from the aforementioned countries.

I then asked, "What would be your reaction if I were to send this around for you to sign?" Before I even had an opportunity to call on him, a member of the stake presidency said, "You can't do that. This is a political issue and the Church doesn't get involved in political discussions."

I didn't respond to the comment (I might address it this coming week). I asked for a few more comments. They included: "I wouldn't sign it" and "We need to support the troops" and "It would make me uncomfortable."

I'm not sure I'd be comfortable either with sending it around. In the weeks leading up to the class I really pondered on what to say after reading the petition: Do I send it around? Do I leave it up at the front of the class afterward for people to sign? Do I ask, "What if I were to send it around?"
And, I don't necessarily disagree with the member who said, "You can't do that." I didn't feel like I should do it either.

I then said, "Well, interesting comments. The reason why I read this is because the issue is relevant for the discussion coming next week. We're going to read about war in the Book of Mormon. I believe the Book of Mormon was composed by a prophet, Mormon, who saw our day. He wrote it for us. For some reason, he included significant sections on war. While you're preparing for the lesson next week, please ask the following questions of the text:

Under what conditions is a country justified in waging an offensive war?

...a defensive war?

Under what conditions do you cease hostilities?

How do you treat prisoners of war?

What is the role of the church during war?

Who fights in wars (righteous vs. wicked, righteous vs. righteous, wicked vs. wicked)?"

I think people were a bit nervous with the whole petition thing. But the questions at the end were a good recovery.

Now, I have the lesson tomorrow.

I think sticking with those questions, and others like them, will be a good guide. I've found a lot of good statements by LDS Church leaders that will inform the discussion.

So, you should know however (and you'll see this confirmed if you continue reading my blog) that I'm very much against the current war. I believe it is wrong for us to be involved and the blood of the innocent people we've murdered is on our hands and we will have to pay the price sometime.

I have an opportunity in Sunday School tomorrow to "Renounce War and Proclaim Peace" to the members of my congregation. I hope I can do so in an appropriate way.

Kentucky Republican Party Politics

I believe that the president should defend and uphold the constitution. I believe the current (W) and previous (during my lifetime at least) presidents have not done so. Maybe in a future post I’ll list the repeated injuries and usurpations. For now, let it just be noted that the only candidate from the major two parties that seems to understand, and is willing to support and defend, the Constitution is Ron Paul.

So, I switched my party affiliation from Libertarian to Republican so I could at least cast one vote this year for someone who supports the Constitution. I also decided to see if there was anything else I could do.

Earlier this spring, I attended the Republican mass meeting for my county. 35 other people did as well. Since Oldham county has 47 delegates to the state convention, we voted all of us delegates (that was kind of fun). We also passed a bunch of silly resolutions (John McCain is a great guy, the state senators and congressmen are great guys, and the like). This was my first time at a mass meeting so I raised my hand and asked if I could submit a resolution. I quickly wrote one calling for the immediate cessation of hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. My resolution was defeated 33 to 3. Yes, it went down, but it did help me identify the two other Ron Paul candidates in the room.

I was not able to attend the regional meeting in April – we were on vacation.

The Republican state convention was yesterday in Bowling Green. I attended. It was a joke. I thought I might have an opportunity to express some of my concerns to a larger audience. No chance. The first item of business was to seat the delegates. The second order of business was to pass the agenda. Passing the agenda ensured there would be no discussion. It was amazing. The agenda only had 5 minutes allocated to the resolutions and 5 minutes to the delegates to the national convention. For each of these two items, someone proposed that they be accepted as proposed, someone seconded, and it was voted and passed. No discussion was allowed.

We “passed” some awful stuff. Not the least of which is a resolution that could be construed to be in support of laws that would make it a crime not to have identification proving your citizenship on your person at all times. I know these are just recommendations that will be passed to the national convention and be subsumed by what the party wants – but I hoped that a discussion would be allowed to perhaps inform, at least, the people sitting in the convention hall.

The chaos at the convention was troubling. There was a sizeable group (probably a 10^th or more) of the seated delegates that wanted to have a discussion and challenge the agenda. They were put down completely. The microphones were removed from the convention floor (the one that worked anyway…) the sergeant at arms was ordered to remove them, their concerns were not addressed. I was surprised.

Other observations…

• A state senator spoke – and left as soon as he finished speaking. He had NO interest in being part of the proceedings. Same with one of the congressional candidates. The other senator didn’t show (but had a good excuse)

• Creating and passing the agenda is the key to ensuring you have control of the meeting. You allocate a small time to anything that might be challenged and you can effectively stall long enough to be sure nothing happens.

• The state had NO interest in hearing anything from the party floor.

• Of 2,500 potential delegates, only just over 500 showed.

OK – so what did my full day, $40 in gas and $20 in convention fee tell me?

You MUST get people who want to change things involved at the county level. You take the county meetings, you can take the state. I was thinking, for example, that if all the Ron Paul supporters had showed to the county meetings (or pick whatever group cares to make a difference), we could have had complete control of the floor (made it so only Ron Paul delegates were the ones seated at the convention). There, we could have passed our own resolutions and determined who would be the delegates to the national convention. I think, that there are many other states where we could have made a difference.

So, what does this mean? Or as a friend of mine elegantly asked, “So what?” It’s a fair question.

What if we could have controlled a significant minority of the county organizations in the country?

• We’re stuck with McCain (I believe).

• We could make a stink at the televised national convention.

• We could own what happens in the party for the next four years at the local level.

Great experience. I’ve learned a lot. I think, as we watch our freedoms erode these next four years (McCain or Obama - there may be a difference in degree, not in principle), we’ll have no one to blame but ourselves. My little token effort doesn’t absolve me from being an accessory to the crimes this country is committing.

Role Update

So, I’ve come up with a little model of how I’ve been thinking about the work my team does. It goes something like this…

A client comes with a need for training. Let’s assume it is a legitimate training need. The client comes with a process. The policy consultants (technical writers) work with the process and develop procedures and the other supporting reference materials. The learning consultants (instructional designers) take that input, create a learning strategy, and develop the learning interventions. In those instances where there is a synchronous component, the trainers then deliver the materials. The output of the delivery, aside from people better prepared to perform the process, will be reaction, learning, results, data. The learning analyst takes that data, analyzes and reports.

Now, this model is not necessary sequential.

What happened with me is often people would come with requests for training and not have their process. In the organization where I work, there wasn’t a “process consultant.” I raised the issue a time or two, some very perceptive leaders churned on the idea for a while, and now I’ve been asked to develop the process consultant capacity in the organization. It’s going to be a blast.

Accordingly, I’ll be doing some work in Six Sigma. I’m also spending some time learning the Hammer process materials (check out www.hammerandco.com). I’ll be attending the offering in Cambridge Nov. 12 – 14, Cambridge Dec. 12 – 13, Tampa Jan. 28 – 31.

On Trainers and business operation improvement

An Epiphany of Sorts

For the past several months, I’ve been working, in my spare time, on ways of representing web-based outputs of Visio process flows to people performing those processes here where I work. I have several people on my team who are working on the same thing.

All along, while we’ve been working on these, we’ve been getting “push back” from the trainer group. They are not interested in using them in training. I haven’t understood why.

In a meeting last week, it finally became clear to me. I’d like to run the reason why by you and get your reaction.

I was in a discussion with several trainers; talking about classroom materials. One of the instructional designers who works for me had created a job aid that he was asking get introduced to students in he training class. One of the trainers said, “If they aren’t using it on the job, I’m not introducing it in training.”

I let the conversation go on without me and thought about that comment for a moment. It was a completely new perspective to me. I had thought of training and the classroom as a place to drive innovation. For this particular trainer, the classroom is NOT the place to drive innovation. The classroom is a way to get people up to speed on what is currently happening.

I’m now starting to think of the innovations we do as learning consultants in two categories. The first category is those innovations around teaching and instructional design. They happen in the classroom. If we can design a better classroom experience, that innovation will happen in the classroom. The second category is those innovations that influence how the work gets done. These would be things like job aids, information management solutions, and the like. These are implemented in the work environment and only make their way into training once that has happened. Once the innovation is part of the work, we can run it back into the training events.

So, certainly this is not earth shattering – and I’m making a fairly significant change to how I think about implementing changes based upon one comment. But the comment feels right.

Process and Instructional Design

The process work I've been doing with my current employer is garnering some attention. For professional development, I'll be taking some of the Hammer process courses in Boston later this year.

I've been working on an instructional design model and process that is specific for those instances where the instruction is primarily about process. I have a start and there are some things I don't like about it, but the process works something like this.

A request comes from a client to teach a group of people how to do something. The project lead requests from the client their process (temporary definition: a set of actions performed by one or more people that produce an outcome). The client has to own this process (the training and development group cannot). If they have a process, the project lead then asks for the procedure for each process piece. If they do not have a process, the project lead must assign a process developer to the project.

The next focus is on procedures. If the requesting department has procedures, the process and procedures then become the foundation for the instructional designer's work. If the requesting department doesn't have the procedures documented, a technical writer is assigned to the project to get them written.

The instructional designer should begin his work with the foundation of process and procedure. He looks for those places where there is greater complexity, longer sequences of steps (greater probability for error), and areas of greater judgment. These areas become the focus for any instructional components.

A full development team therefore, could consist of the following roles: project manager, process developer, technical writer (for procedures), instructional designer, trainer, and project analyst (the person who analyzes the measurement data obtained from instances where the content is delivered).

More on this later...

Interactions

Reusable Interactions
Starting in about 2000, while at General Motors, we started creating Interactions. Interactions are Flash files that encapsulate functionality that pull content from external files at runtime. With this approach, the Interactions only need to be developed once. They can be reused by simply editing a text file and indicating the content for that particular instance.

Flash is great at importing XML. So, the file that needed to be edited for each instance was an XML file. What we found was, that most of the Instructional Designers didn’t have the expertise to edit an XML file (no one willingly edits a raw XML file, whether Instructional Designers or not). So, our interactions had limited success. The success wasn’t limited in that the interactions weren’t used. We used them often. The success was limited in that we could have had more instructional designers using them in courses without going to the XML authors.

So, hanging out there has been this challenge to figure out a way to make it so instructional designers could author the XML in a way that would work for them. The preferred tool would be something they used all the time. The most obvious choice would be Word. The second most obvious choice would be Excel. These are the tools that people use all the time.

So, here are the key elements to an Interaction:
- The Interaction incorporates the functionality.
- The instance information comes from an external XML file.
- The instance can be developed without programming (i.e., no need to even have Flash installed on the machine where the instance is created).

We had 7 or so of them that we used regularly.

What I am providing here meets these requirements. Unzip concentration.zip into a folder. Open questions.xml (should open with MS Word – if it doesn’t, you’ll need to upgrade to Word 2003 or better) and edit the questions. When you’re done, save questions.xml. Open index.htm and see what you get.
This Interaction is a version of the concentration game. As questions are answered, an underlying image is uncovered. Other Interactions we’ve developed include:
- A version of Jeopardy.
- A procedure player: each frame has a title, procedure step, procedure description, image.
- An image player: presents a series of images, with a forward and back arrow.
A note about SCORM.
Ideally, these interactions should operate as SCOs. I’ve written this one so that it operates as a SCO. All it does now is sends the LMSInitialize and the LMSFinalize commands. When I get time, I’ll set it up so it keeps track of the number of correct / incorrect responses and writes that to the LMS. I’ve disabled the SCO functions. If you want to enable the SCO functions, open index.htm and take a look at the instructions.
If you know somewhere where other people are hosting these types of things, let me know and I’ll add a link. If you have one that you want to add, let me know.

The Interaction is located here:
http://speed.pbwiki.com/FrontPage

Process Sensitive Information Support

Where I work, we have a document repository. I've done a fair amount of observing and interviewing people to determine how they use the repository. The key performers spend their lunch hours browsing around, locating documents, and learning what's there. Most everyone else doesn't like it and doesn't use it efficiently. There are plenty of reasons why people don't use it, but the primary one seems to be that they need to find information quickly and the repository doesn't get them the information as quickly as they need it.

This led me to thinking, how can I get them the information they need in the context of the procedure they're performing. My thinking is that, if I can know where in the process they are, I can know the documents that will help them at that point. I know, nothing revolutionary here.

Here's what I'm suggesting we do.

I work in a process-based organization. There is a team that has documented in MS Visio the processes the audience I'm targeting performs. I'm working with them to identify the procedures and information resources required at each step in that process. We'll take the Visio process flows, link them to the supporting information (loaded in the content repository), export the Visio flows as HTML, and provide the HTML to the performers (both in training and on-the-job).

Right now, we're at the stage of linking the process flows to the supporting information. Here's a principle I think should be followed, based upon what I'm learning.

No post processing

Let me explain. The process team has, along with the process flow, all sorts of notes in the documents. The people who will follow these processes don't need the notes. I can't ask the process flow team to pull their notes. What we did decide to do, is to have the process team add a Visio layer and put their notes on that layer. This way, they can have their notes, but when we need to export to HTML, we can turn off the notes layer. This allows us to have two levels of dialogue in the document. It also means that whenever we decide to export a version for HTML, there is no work we do aside from the export.

In the past, I've had the same dilemma while using Word. How do we present the information to the user, but still allow for a discussion about the content to remain in the Word document. In Word, we did it with styles and hidden text.

This is a big effort for me right now. If we're successful in doing this, I expect we can cut down the time required for training the new processes. I also expect we will have greater conformance to the process. I also expect we can reduce processing time by getting people information in context of the process they're performing - Process Sensitive Information Support.

More to come. I'll start talking about usability in the next post.

IU IST Annual Conference

I gave a version of the presentation I gave at Masie's conferene at the annual IU IST conference a couple of weeks ago.

I want to talk a bit about the presentation. But first, a comment or two about the IU IST conference. This is a great conference at a tremendous value. I saw a great presentation by Darryl Sink on efficient learning content development. Andy Gibbons from BYU presented on different types of reserach (science and technology). I'm at Humana right now. I'm going to encourage my team to attend/present next year. I'm also getting active in the local ISP chapter and I'll see if I can get them involved as well. It's a beautiful 90-mile drive from L'ville to Bloomington. I think this conference can become a professional development highlight .

On to the presentation.

First of all, here are some additional resources:

Here's the original presentation page: http://www.learningwiki.com/911

There you'll find an example that demonstrates the XML portion of the presenation that you can download and try.

I'm working on a paper based upon this presentation and the feedback I've received. Sections coming soon...

Briefly, here are some of the main points from the presentation:

Content should be authored, maintained, and delivered in one tool - preferably a tool that your SMEs use.
Word for textual content
Visio for process flows

Yes, I'm saying you should think twice about using a tool like Toolbook, Lectora, or the like for development. Use them only if you can import the content at runtime from XML output or web output from the program in which the content was authored.

"Why?" you ask. Because of the inefficiency resulting from moving the content into a tool your SMEs don't use. Other benefits: no content freezes, your SMEs can participate in authoring content throughout the entire development process, you will be more efficient in developing content.

It is better to have content used once quickly that never reused.
I misspent my youth chasing the dream of content reuse. Forget about it. Focus on developing the content quickly. The reuse that is going to happen as our tools and methods mature is functionality reuse and content reuse (with no additional effort) within the lifecycle of information use.

What does this mean? It means that a tool that displays multiple choice questions directly from a Word file (saved as XML) can be reused - but the questions probably will not be reused. A course where the content is tagged (concepts, facts, principles, procedures) will have content reused WITHIN the course. For example, the procedures can be presented and practiced throughout the course - then "reused" in a job-aid format at the end of the course.

Then there is the idea of Quickly. Information has a lifecycle. You get it from your SME one day and sometime the next week, it's no longer current (sure, some hyperbole here, but not much). Have you ever wondered why your SMEs chafe so much at content freezes? If you freeze the content for 3 weeks while you put the finishing touches on a course, I may not be accurate when you're finished.

Andrew
Prospect, KY
Happy St. Patrick day

Learning 2006

Orlando, FL
Masie’s Learning 2006 just concluded. A couple reflections…
When you want to learn something, where do you go? Do you look for an online course? How about a online learning unit? Nope, you type “www.google.com”. Our learning has to be that same way. If my team never produces another “course” that may be the best use of our time. We need to be focusing on developing the tools people need at the time of need. “Courses” should be about teaching people two things: 1 – an overview of the job is and 2 – how to use the support resources that will help you do the job. The rest of the time should be spent in scenarios that give people practice experiencing increasingly complex examples.
I presented this morning as part of the conference. I demonstrated how you can author courses entirely in MS Word. There were a handful of people who seemed to get engaged with what I was presenting. I committed to placing some examples on a Wiki I’ll maintain around the topic.
The general sessions were great and I learned (or were reinforced) some principles for my team’s direction. I only really attended one smaller session. Two guys from the Univ. of Michigan were demonstrating a method of using Visio process flows (exported as HTML with links to supporting documentation) as the foundation for just-in-time instruction. I had explored this method a few weeks ago with Visio 2002 and the Export as Web feature just didn’t cut it. They’re using a newer version of Visio and the Export as Web feature looks to be robust enough to support what I want to do.
As part of my role, I provide the training support for 4 call centers. Right now, the centers are organized, primarily, by function. Calls of one type are sent to one center, calls of another type are sent to another. The management has decided to restructure the centers. Now each center will handle all call types and calls will be routed by region. The intent is that associates will gain an understanding of a region and make better decisions with that increased regional understanding.
I was visiting one of the centers a few weeks ago. While I was there I noticed an interesting thing happening. Each CSR (call center representative) had a small flag attached to an 18” stick. When they had a question, they’d raise the stick and the front line leader would come by. They’d discuss the question, it would get answered, and the stick would go down. I asked one of the CSRs, what happens if someone in a different part of the department has the same question later in the day? His response, “They’d have to find the answer the same way.” Well, immediately I started thinking “searchable threaded discussion.”
As I’ve reflected on this a bit further, I believe there are different types of knowledge that we need to support in the call centers. One type is “institutionally-blessed knowledge.” These are the corporate-developed processes, procedures, and policies. The second type of knowledge is that gained by people as they have questions. We aren’t going to be able to predict all the questions. We need a way to support people as they gain this understanding. If we’re supporting and monitoring this type of learning, I’m sure we’ll find things that need to be moved into the blessed domain. The third type of knowledge are “alerts.” These are the official messages that need to go out that serve as updates to the established knowledge or new knowledge that needs to be integrated.
Right now, we don’t support the first type of knowledge well. We don’t support the second kind at all. We don’t support the third in any systematic way.
I have some ideas for each type of knowledge and I’ll keep you updated in the next few weeks as I work on it.
So, back to this restructuring… Not only are we giving everyone new tasks to perform we’re also implementing a new software system that will change the existing processes. All these things are happening around the same time and my team needs to support it. We’ve been promised the documented processes well in advance – and I’m sure we’ll get something. However, the software is still being written and I’m sure the processes will be changing right to the time when the software is implemented (which is just 3 weeks ahead of when the restructure starts).
My team has to support this. Here’s what I’m thinking. I think we need to be leveraging the process flows and procedures that the business unit develops as they do their work as the supporting materials and classroom materials. I’ll keep you updated on how it goes.