winds of change, The

E.learning Age, Sep 2005 by Wilson, David

It is time to recognise the great forces building on organisations' learning departments.

Learning functions and e-learning groups are trying to navigate some choppy waters at the moment with common issues and common decisions being made about their future. More than focussing on the organisational challenges affecting e-learning groups, there is an important discussion to be held relating to the forces that are causing those challenges - the winds of change for e-learning.

It is apparent that five major forces are currently impacting upon e-learning groups within large organisations. These forces need to be considered individually, but they also need to be considered collectively. The article examines how these forces are creating an impression.

All of the forces are strong, but they are also complex and sometimes guite subtle. There are no simple answers, but organisations ignore them at their peril.

Force 1 : More, now, easier, better

Do staff in your organisation need less training than before? Do products change slower? Are they simpler? Do you care less about how they sold? Are staff in the office more? Are customers less demanding of the service they receive? Are you less regulated? Do staff have more time for learning? Are the consequences of poor behaviour less?

Go on, surprise me. Tell me the answer is yes to all of the above. Or even tell me it is yes to some of the above. I've not found anyone who works in an easier environment for learning than they used to. There is a constant and growing pressure for more extensive, less intrusive, more timely, easier to deliver, more auditable training than ever before. This is ultimately driving the pace of change of learning within the business and therefore within the learning function. Like it or not, these challenges cannot be met without changing the way we think about learning, the way we deliver it, and the way it impacts actual workplace performance.

On-demand, 'e' and blended learning are integral parts of meeting these challenges; they are not optional or marginal. But many learning and development (L&D) departments still don't get it. They claim they do, but any examination of their actual behaviour contradicts this view very quickly. They do not recognise the magnitude of the challenge (I call this the learning complacency gap) and they are not recognising the magnitude of the transformation needed to meet it.

Force 2 : Specialist or generalist; Expertise is King

Do you need e-learning specialists or don't you? History has taught us that: making e-learning projects successful isn't easy, subject experts don't do what they say they will, instructional design of content is even more important when you don't have a decent trainer delivering it who can compensate or contextualise, the techie stuff repeatedly kills you, e-learning standards don't work as standard, vendors aren't good at everything they say they are, and... do I need to go on.

The e-learning experience of many organisations strongly reinforces this list of challenges, each a potential minefield needing to be navigated successfully with new projects, new vendors, and new systems and technology. Good practice and process helps manage the risks, but ultimately it is proven expertise that reduces those risks and ensures successful outcomes. It is expertise that interprets what vendors and subject experts are really saying or meaning. And much of this expertise is niche; SCORM and AICC, e-learning production and design, technology platforms and processes.

Most organisations have learnt this the hard way, usually building a small specialist team within L&D/HR (or sometimes IT) to manage e-learning projects and work with vendors to ensure success. The trouble now is that much of this hard-won expertise is being dissipated or diluted at just the time (see Force 1) when it is most needed. Whilst elearning is now more normal and more accepted in most large companies, significant pressure on HR and L&D budgets, and most especially headcount, is causing lots of problems for e-learning specialists.

The resultant trend is to devolve e-learning responsibility into mainstream L&D whilst reducing budgets for specialist resources. Whilst I agree with the first, I don't agree with second. Mainstream L&D is a long way from having the expertise to successfully manage e-learning projects without huge reliance on the suppliers - a reliance that cannot be managed given the lack of expertise to interpret and understand what they are really doing or delivering. Companies need to broaden their pipeline for e-learning and de-risk the process. Currently they are increasing their risks by diluting the very resource that can help them. Nice idea guys, but too early.

Force 3: All hail the subject matter expert

Analyse the bottlenecks on nearly any bespoke/custom e-learning project (or even training project) and you will typically come back to the subject matter expert (SME) who is providing the content. I've lost count of the number of times that I've talked to e-learning people who are missing deadlines or not meeting business requirements because the SME doesn't do what they have agreed to, or changes their mind, or won't sign-off the content, or can't agree with a peer. Management of SMEs is a significant risk in most projects.