" Siloed departments, fixed roles and tasks, hierarchical structures, top down controlled strategies, action plans and funding mechanisms.  Our dominant ways of working aimed at optimisation and efficiency won't promote the adaptation and exploration required to work in complex situations." John Hagel Despite the layers of learning technologies I'd argue 'L&D' is still predominantly supporting the old industrial gods of optimisation and efficiency. Find a management problem. Develop a 'solution' to directly solve it. Measure (something / anything). Tell Management. (Realise Management have moved on to the next fire to fight and aren't that interested anymore). Let's consider what used to be a differentiators in a successful business: An efficient System; (fixed processes and procedures) that could be scaled, repeated and refined; A 'growth strategy' formed from the particular experiences and values of a small leadership

The basis of "L&D" came from the factory. The industrial era of repeatable work, low tolerance for mistakes and individual skills for fixed jobs. Value was created from this efficiency and compliance. The role of "training" was simple and transactional: "Take what we've agreed workers need to know, to do what we need them to do. Make sure they understand and follow." The status roles were clear in the hierarchy: The process owner - high status; needed to maintain this position so execution and results were always the urgent default The trainer - low status work; reacting to the process owners, dutifully serving by providing the tools and tactics of knowledge transfer programmes. The worker on the line - lowest status work; following orders, an interchangeable cog in the system In so many respects this description of "factory work" sounds far removed from the work we recognise today. Interestingly, this historical model still