Plenty to do for organisations that want to structurally strengthen L&D with the 70:20:10 reference model

The 70:20:10 debate

Tineke van Kooten is right that the debate about the sense and nonsense of 70:20:10 has stirred up a great deal on LinkedIn. Key parts of the debate keep pointing to the same supposed nonsense of 70:20:10, such as:

• 70:20:10 is a learning model or a learning theory.
• The 70:20:10 ratio is fixed and does not reflect reality.
• It is not based on sound research, because… and then, every time, comes the 1996 study of a small group of managers in the US.
• 70:20:10 is an intervention matrix, in which all learning activities have to be forced into the three categories.
• 70:20:10 applies in mainstream education as well as in the world of corporate learning (L&D).

How well-informed is this debate?

The thoughts about 70:20:10 above have each been refuted in, of all things, a Dutch book about 70:20:10, written on the basis of Tulser’s existing practice in the Netherlands. Our book has since been translated into English and Korean and sold around the world. In it, the 70:20:10 methodology is described as a contribution to strengthening L&D in the world of corporate learning, by broadening the services offered and consistently connecting them to the core business of organisations. At its heart it is a performance-oriented approach, one that should lead to measurable business impact for L&D. We are, of course, not against formal learning, the 10 (even if I sometimes give a different impression in presentations). In our view, formal and informal learning reinforce one another in the world of corporate learning. But then it really is a matter of delivering formal learning soundly and, where possible, in an evidence-based way. In our practice we see that this is still often not the case, and you can read as much in this book by Clark Quinn. The field of informal learning is still wide open, because little research has been done into interventions that are evidence-based, except where it concerns performance support and demonstrating the link between experience and the performance to be delivered: see the many studies in medicine showing, time and again, that experience (performing the operation more often) leads to fewer complications, rework and mortality.

A great deal of research has also been done, in the Netherlands no less, into the time people in organisations spend on formal and informal learning. This window onto the economic approach to learning in organisations is not, as far as we are concerned, the be-all and end-all, but it is extremely informative, with clear lessons for our profession. Andries de Grip offers an excellent overview of the power of informal learning. More recent studies show a shift in the percentages, and that is entirely in line with the premises of the 70:20:10 reference model. It is not the exact percentages but the underlying principle that matters. Everyone realises that Pareto’s 80:20 ratio is a principle that still holds even when the percentages do not match 80:20 exactly.

Many people in the world of L&D realise it is more effective to do more than simply offer formal learning interventions. With 70:20:10 we have developed a reference model with a concrete methodology and a wealth of solutions. Our aim is to strengthen L&D structurally and to develop the 70:20:10 field further with everyone who wants to take part. Naturally, we also contribute to any form of research that develops evidence-based solutions.

Tineke van Kooten’s summary is about Maaike’s presentation, in which myths about 70:20:10 were set out. I respond to those myths below, with the question of where these myths come from, and why our book was not taken into account in formulating the sense and nonsense of 70:20:10.

Myth 1: Every professional learns according to 70:20:10

See the book, in which 70:20:10 is described as a reference model intended to strengthen L&D in the world of corporate learning and to broaden its services with measurable business impact. So, as far as we are concerned, 70:20:10 is not an intervention matrix and the ratio is not prescriptive. Nor is it our idea that 70:20:10 should form the basis of the system of formal education.

In her presentation, Maaike apparently concludes that it is just as well a surgeon follows a formal training rather than picking up expertise in the 70 through trial and experimentation. Of course the 70 covers a broad range of activities for (learning to) work better, and it is not the intention of the 70:20:10 reference model for surgeons to just try things out or experiment. Maaike’s example is poorly chosen. Medical specialist training in particular involves a strong and extensive practical component (the 70 and 20, if you like) precisely in order to learn to work better: see chapters 7 and 8 of Duvivier’s dissertation (2012). Or, put differently: it is effective for a relevant part of the formal education of doctors and medical specialists to take place in practice. Not coincidentally based on the evidence-based educational concepts of UM (Maastricht University).

Myth 2: 70:20:10 as an ideal

Of course 70:20:10 is not an ideal. But the principle is too important to ignore in the world of corporate learning. All kinds of survey research show that formal learning makes up 80–100% of what L&D offers worldwide; see the State of the Industry reports from ATD and the benchmark studies from Towards Maturity. A challenging task for L&D, then, to also make a relevant contribution to informal learning (during work). Learning in organisations goes further than the supply of formal learning, and it is precisely in the field of informal learning and working that new opportunities arise for L&D. Surely no one can object to that?

Myth 3: Formal education and training is only 10% and therefore pointless

Why the suggestion that spending 10% on formal learning would be too little? Of course the ratios should not be taken too literally. But still. On average, people in the Netherlands work a little over 1,800 hours in a full-time job with a 36-hour working week. According to the ratio, the idea would then be to spend roughly 180 hours per employee per year on formal learning, whereas in practice CBS (Statistics Netherlands) finds that employees spend an average of 35 hours a year on formal learning activities. The suggestion that the 70:20:10 reference model is against formal learning is incorrect. We do think a shift is taking place towards learning during and around work, but as far as we are concerned that does not come at the expense of formal learning.

As De Grip’s research shows, formal learning reinforces informal learning. That is why it is certainly worthwhile to design and deliver formal learning effectively, and (in the world of corporate learning) to connect it to the organisation’s core business.

Myth 4: There are 3 kinds of professional learning (70, 20 and 10)

For us, 70:20:10 is not an end in itself. We see it as a movement that is open to other approaches and (theory) development. In our book, 70:20:10 is described as a Droste effect: during the 70 you can also be engaged in 10 and 20 activities, and vice versa. Of course people work while following a MOOC, watching an instructional video, doing e-learning or reading a (scientific) article, all activities that can be read as a 10. The same principle holds the other way round for collaborating (20) or practical simulations (a form of 70) within the 10. And I am genuinely curious about those various learning activities and how they can be ordered, if not within the 70:20:10 reference model.

Myth 5: 70:20:10 reveals a problem

I cannot follow the line of reasoning here. I quote: “In fact the opposite is true: if professionals in an organisation learn a great deal through work-related activities and by sparring and reflecting with one another, that is fantastic news. It means work is organised in such a way that it is conducive to learning. There is only a problem when learning and development is not successful. And that can sit in any of the three segments.”

Let me simply refer back to my response to Myth 2, which makes clear that the L&D offer in the corporate world is dominated by 10 solutions. L&D does indeed have a problem or a challenge, then, because it is hugely important to be connected to the core business and to play an active role in supporting better (learning to) work. It is precisely in the corporate world that L&D finds it far from easy to demonstrate business impact. That is why it is up to us as a profession to rise to the challenge. And that can be done with the 70:20:10 methodology.

What has the model delivered?

The benefits of the 70:20:10 reference model are described at length in the book. They go further than the three benefits named on Maaike’s slide. I say three, because the fourth benefit listed is: “The learner is in charge.” This is not always a benefit, nor is it in line with reality. An excellent blog by Mirjam Neelen and Paul Kirschner (2017) gives a good overview of the concept of SDL, with the possibilities and limitations of applying it in organisations.

Finally

We invite everyone from the world of HRD, HR business partners, managers and other interested parties to spar with us about the possibilities and limitations of applying the 70:20:10 reference model. Together with our clients we will soon be winning our first international awards, and we have plenty of cases in which we are honest about the possibilities, the limitations and the bloopers. For us, 70:20:10 is not an ideal but the logical basis for structurally connecting L&D to the core business of organisations. Its importance only grows in today’s knowledge economy, where knowledge is no longer confined to following formal training and e-learning. On this, at least, we in the world of L&D do agree with one another. That is a good start, so let us travel on together rather than waging insufficiently informed debates about a label that happens to be called 70:20:10. The underlying principles (broadening and renewing the services, connecting to the core business, and business impact) are too relevant for the HRD profession to leave by the wayside.