The 'Art' and the 'Science' of L&D There are two different conversations in what continues to be called 'L&D'. I don't believe one is any more right than the other. I do believe that they need to happen in the right order: The 'Art' of L&D L&D teams working alongside the organisations' leadership team to agree: How work gets done today and what needs to be different in the future for the organisation to prosper The environment needed to create this way work of working; (the stop, start, continues) If compliance and efficiency are important? (because this organisation will thrive through it's processes) If new ideas and practices are important? (because this organisation will thrive through it's adaptability and innovation) If sharing knowledge and experience quickly and openly is a priority? What is meant by 'high performance' for individuals and teams? How high performance will be measured and

For decades the music business had the perfect model. You had to go to a record shop to buy their products. When the old record wore out you had to spend money on a replacement. The record companies were in complete control of the artists and of production. Their products were spread by a free sampling tool - the radio. It was the ultimate centralised, hierarchical, money making machine. With the internet everything changed. The record company's monopoly on production and content ended. Every record ever made was available for free. Control was now in the hands of the artists who could create, share and market for themselves. Communities of fans could come together on new digital platforms to engage directly with each other. Fast, open, two-way and connected. Reliance on the old model where the record companies decided who got signed and what music was made (and for who) soon collapsed. There are parallels here for the work of L&D teams in the new knowledge economy. L&am