Education loves all things new. New formats, tools, competency models, programs, platforms, and guidelines are constantly being introduced. And now there are AI offerings as well. Much of this makes sense. But there’s one question that’s asked far too rarely: What has to go to make room for all this?
That is exactly why I am interested in the term “exnovation.” It does not refer to the next new format, but rather to a different perspective. Innovation asks: What is being added? Exnovation asks: What must come to an end so that something new can actually take effect?
That’s why an article from the University of Münster caught my attention. It places the term “exnovation” in the context of transformative education and describes a school project on sustainable entrepreneurship, design thinking, and portfolio work. For me, this raises the question: What happens when “exnovation” is primarily associated with new learning arrangements in an educational context?
Authors Sebastian Zumholte, Marcus Kohnen, and Christian Fischer describe how students develop sustainable business ideas, build prototypes, pitch their ideas, reflect on the process, and gain their own experiences. This can open up valuable learning opportunities. But as I was reading, I wondered: Is this already “exnovation”? Or is it, first and foremost, an innovative learning format that’s framed in exnovative terms?
I think this distinction is important. After all, “exnovation” originally stems from a discourse on organizational innovation. It doesn’t simply mean, “We’re going to do things differently now.” Rather, it asks which practices, routines, structures, or assumptions are being consciously discontinued, scaled back, or delegitimized because they are no longer effective.
A new learning format alone does not change an organization.
A workshop alone does not change a learning culture.
An AI training program alone does not change the way people work.
A competency model alone does not change decision-making practices.
All of that can be important. But it remains merely an addition if the old routines continue.
Further insights from Anja:
Beyond Teaching: The Graveyard of L&D Legacy Issues and the Art of Strategic Omission
A school can adopt design thinking while still maintaining the same assessment framework. A company can offer AI training while still adhering to the same monitoring routines. An organization can talk about “future skills” while at the same time maintaining structures that prevent independent learning.
Then the new is integrated without questioning the old. The already overburdened daily routine of education becomes even more crowded because the old, obstructive structures remain in place.
With AI, this tension becomes even more apparent. That’s because AI doesn’t just change tools; it changes the conditions under which knowledge is created, work is documented, performance is evaluated, and learning is organized.
Nevertheless, many organizations initially respond by simply adding new tools, guidelines, or prompting courses. That can be a start. But it doesn’t answer the real question:
- Which routines lose their plausibility due to AI?
- And which control processes only appear to ensure security?
- Which learning formats generate more engagement than development?
- Which reports, meetings, training sessions, or programs are still continuing even though hardly anyone believes they’re effective anymore?
These aren’t purely educational issues. They’re organizational issues.
Perhaps that is exactly the point where I got stuck while reading. The article highlights some interesting learning processes. But it raised a bigger question for me: What would actually have to change in educational organizations, companies, and institutions so that new ways of learning and working no longer remain the exception?
This is not meant as a final judgment. Rather, it is a caveat for readers—and an invitation not to water down the term “exnovation” too hastily. For if “exnovation” becomes just another word for methodological renewal, the term loses its true edge. Then it no longer describes the willingness to actually abandon something structurally old. It becomes part of the very rhetoric of innovation that it was meant to disrupt.
On Thursday, Anja will present findings from a survey: At what level do efforts toward exnovation begin in organizations—and what does the answer reveal about the willingness to embrace structural change? I’m curious to see what the data shows.
Just stop by and join the discussion:
Thursday, June 25, 1:00–2:00 p.m.:
CLC Lunch & Learn: The Big L&D Cleanup Check: Initial Results and What’s Next!
Update: Here is the presentation for the session.
The paper “Exnovations and Innovations in Transformative Education: Sustainable Entrepreneurship in Schools” is worth reading. You just need to keep in mind what the term “exnovation” means in this context as you read it.
