Blog

I’m a day late on April’s Big Question from LCB but here are my thoughts to the following question:

ILT and Off-the-Shelf Vendors - What Should they Do?

In the age of Google, informal learning, mobile learning, social networking and the countless other areas that are being explored as avenues for learning, what does the future hold for those in the business of instructor-led training (ILT) and off-the-shelf courseware?

The diversifying portfolio being utilized at progressive organizations presents a wealth of options and an infinite number of combinations that can be used by a learning professional. 

If I were the owner of a company that solely provided instructor-led training and/or off-the-shelf coursework the quick answer would be to diversify my offerings to match what learning professionals are using in the market.  But - there is still risk associated in diversification, namely in lack of focus for my internal organization as well as brand confusion in the marketplace.  Plus it’s too easy to write…

There will always be a market for face-to-face training and mass produced content and I would make it my goal to determine the right business model for these services to be successful. 

The first step in doing so would be to determine which scenarios in the quickly changing field of learning would continue to sustain ILT and off-the-shelf material.  What unique features or benefits do ILT and off-the-shelf coursework provide?

ILT:  real-time access to an expert; face-to-face collaboration with peers; etc.

Off-the-shelf coursework: can provide superior delivery for content that won’t change often; can be used to provide content to large populations; etc.

What situations would benefit from these unique characteristics?

How about new-hire orientation programs where you want to impress new-hires with content that won’t change often and establish connections with their new peers?  ILT and off-the-shelf material may be a fit.  How about certification courses that leverage the same or similar information year after year?  The off-the-shelf model could be the answer.

After completing this analysis I would look for opportunities to re-brand my company as one that excelled in these niches (i.e. new-hire orientation, certification, etc.)

Additionally, I would seek out strategic partnerships with other organizations that offered complementary services (i.e. communities of practice) and present that package to the market. 

Although ILT and off-the-shelf are known not to contribute to the majority of how people learn in the corporate world, they are still viable modes of instruction and therefore will remain as something that organizations will seek to purchase.  Therefore there will continue to be a market for these services - it will just take savvy strategic planning to position a company to win in the new market.

This month’s Big Question on Learning Circuits Blog is: 

Are ISD, ADDIE and HPT relevant in a world of rapid elearning, faster time to performance, and informal learning?

In a world where products, targets and strategies adjust constantly the application of these models (ISD, ADDIE, HPT) will be greatly diminished.  As the roles of knowledge workers expand and require them to use information that changes quickly it will be more important for the workforce to have easy access to information rather than them be required to retain it as the result of a well-designed course. 

I use the term ‘greatly diminished’ because I don’t feel the models will become obsolete or completely irrelevant.  The in-depth analysis and often time consuming design and development associated with these approaches can still be leveraged for content that is not likely to change.  For an organization to invest the time, money and resources required for formal training it must be for something that will prove relevant for a long period of time.  For topics that meet this criteria, there will still be relevance for the models of traditional training.

For all other learning required by employees (what Jay Cross and many others consider to be 80%) a new approach to learning is required.  The models used by learning professionals will need to expand to include cultivating communities of practice, managing knowledge, facilitating open-ended dialogue, creating performance support tools and embedding their deliverables seamlessly into the workflow of their workforce.

The models listed in this month’s Big Question were designed for a type of training that was relevant for the needs of an environment different from today’s.  As times have changed our approach as learning professionals must as well so that they provide the learners what they need for success.

It turns out there are quite a few.  Some organizations are relying on the collective brainpower of participants to deliver value in gatherings rather than a rigid agenda.

I was reminded of this today when I read the Performance Express Newsletter from ISPI (scroll down to the article titled “Sharing is Good”).  Many of the benefits the author experienced in her trip to Zurich are the drivers behind what are being called unconferences, unworkshops, brain jams, or mind camps.

I came from the instructional design world and can remember looking at evaluations of courses where participants consistently rated their time with peers during breaks and at meals as providing the most value for them.  The approaches listed in the paragraph above have taken this feedback and designed sessions that cater to people’s natural tendency to learn from one another.

Organizations can save money and provide greater value by utilizing some tips in designing an unconference instead of relying on the traditional models of talking heads and flimsy action plans.  They also serve as a great seed for cultivating a community of practice.

Dreading desiging the agenda for an upcoming session?  Consider doing away with it all together.