Here’s the part of his post I liked the best:
The use of “Learning 2.0” in my mind, puts all the burden of change on the learner. If they are all 2.0 and changed then clearly we (The Organizations) don’t need to do anything on our end.
Think about it – Government 2.0 as a term – talks about how the organization of government needs to change. IMHO, the use of a term like “learning 2.0” seems to absolve us of addressing the hard questions of how we need to change as organizations.
Forget for a moment, about using Twitter for whatever or blogs for something else – do you need to have HR at the design table? What is predominant characteristic of your organizational culture? Is your technology woefully out of date? Does your office furniture suck and imparts to people a concrete idea of how the org REALLY values it “most important asset”? How do you hire? What kind of people do you look for?
I think it’s important to realise that Learning 2.0 cannot take place without Infrastructure 2.0 and Planning 2.0.