tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post1464173135645488566..comments2024-03-16T02:39:39.781-07:00Comments on eLearning Technology: Business of LearningTony Karrerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15408035995182843336noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-76083740282326082312012-08-05T13:15:00.056-07:002012-08-05T13:15:00.056-07:00I think there is no real medicine against "Si...I think there is no real medicine against "Sick Sigma" but to educate people to live the "lean" philosophy.<br />The heavier task might be to educate the management, as they just look at the $$$ and Lean focuses on the (really) long term and can't be done overnight.<br />People expect too much to be done in a too short time. And if there is only "little" success, enthusiasm and motivation go down. We can't let that happen, so we have to work hard to find ways to motivate!<a href="http://www.1stcourses.com" rel="nofollow">lean manufacturing training</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18133765657965222588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-9631108505586930942009-10-09T11:32:53.913-07:002009-10-09T11:32:53.913-07:00Tony - I agree with you that we are publishers, to...Tony - I agree with you that we are publishers, to some extend, but I do not believe that that is the reason why news papers are failing. From where I stand, the reason they are failing is because of the WAY they publish. Their are other mediums (blogs, twitter, etc.) where anyone can publish what they want for virtually nothing and readers can read for virtually nothing.<br /><br />As you are probably aware, there are plenty of publishers out there (Huffington Post, Mashable, Lifehacker...) that have embraced the technology that has allowed them to compete. Had newspapers done the same, they might not be in the situation they are in now.<br /><br />Back to elearning.<br /><br />You, me, and the rest of us have and continue to use the afore mentioned technology to our benefit. People will always need training. Wise people, the world over, will continue to want to learn and grow. Who will they turn to?<br /><br />Providers of solid tools will be an asset no matter what. The medium may continue to evolve, but if can as well, we'll be just fine.<br /><br />In any event, I appreciate your reply.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18166866542761326555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-87373936835629977642009-10-05T07:06:42.648-07:002009-10-05T07:06:42.648-07:00Donald - your comments are well made. And my gut ...Donald - your comments are well made. And my gut tells me two things:<br /><br />* Once we look at the role of learning and real performance improvement with business results, it does become something different than publishing.<br /><br />* A lot of learning professionals end up being put into a publishing box where their role is to create content. Yes, it has a different goal - but many of the pressures facing newspapers apply to this context.<br /><br />This is especially true once you hit the edges of where training can economically be applied as part of a solution.Tony Karrerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15408035995182843336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-73505551492384592009-10-01T09:59:14.159-07:002009-10-01T09:59:14.159-07:00Tony, I do not consider the training that I create...Tony, I do not consider the training that I create and/or deliver as being anything near to what newspapers publish. Since we agree that the start and end (analysis & evaluation) are quite different then lets discuss the middle:<br /><br />The design of training is for effect, specifically for a change in performance, thus you have to consider "skills". The design of newspapers is for information, which means they do not care if you perform any differently after you read the news, thus they do not have to consider the concept of "skills". <br /><br />Since training is designed to effect performance, then activities and interactions need to be created to aid in the development of skills. Very few news articles include these interactions or activities for the development of skills.<br /><br />As far as implementation or delivery, once newspapers have delivered the news to you (paper version), they don't care if you read it or not because they did not design for effect. With electronic versions they do hope for interaction (they want you to click on their advertisements), but that is about the extent of it. Of course since newspaper organizations are compose of professionals I'm quite sure they also hope the readers find their content interesting and enjoyable enough to read.<br /><br />When I deliver training it only has to "interesting" in a manner that they know they will be expected to perform differently after experiencing the learning process. Being a professional I also hope the learners have an interesting and enjoyable experience, but that is not my primary concern.<br /><br />Thus, when newspapers and trainers seek out SMEs or expert performers they do so for entirely different reasons; one seeks out news and interesting content, while the others seeks out knowledge and skills. The two also differ in the "interest" they are trying to provide; one seeks to hold the interest of the individual with interesting content, while the other seeks to improve performance.Donald Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01980740206430947090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-10916920074750939932009-10-01T07:04:58.759-07:002009-10-01T07:04:58.759-07:00Donald - you lost me on that comment. When I look...Donald - you lost me on that comment. When I look at the majority of what people do when they are doing course design - a fair bit of it as similar to journalists - but with different goals. Yes, the start and end (Analysis, Evaluation) are quite different. Maybe I'm missing what you are saying.Tony Karrerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15408035995182843336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-56356654886423899532009-09-30T19:08:21.967-07:002009-09-30T19:08:21.967-07:00Tony, I think that is a good analogy for what bad ...Tony, I think that is a good analogy for what bad training is but a very poor analogy for what training actually is. Being both a learning designer and trainer, that definition only encompasses a small portion of what I do, mostly when I'm creating a PSS or EPSS where people only need the right information at the right time. Newspapers and most other publishers don't care if you gain any skills from their content or how you will actually use the content in real life. It's sort of like comparing a reporter with a medical technician -- both dig for information and then pass it along to others.Donald Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01980740206430947090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-74059107943253580952009-09-30T13:16:55.624-07:002009-09-30T13:16:55.624-07:00Aaron - the short answer of how training is simila...Aaron - the short answer of how training is similar to news is that many people who are in training see themselves as publishers.<br /><br />They seek out subject matter experts and compose their expertise into something that will be of value and hold the interest of the consumer.<br /><br />Who did I just describe? News or training?<br /><br />Now it's not that easy as there are different goals in mind, but there are considerable similarities. In some ways, we could say that training is like very slow news.Tony Karrerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15408035995182843336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-50464728703532346102009-09-29T13:08:15.185-07:002009-09-29T13:08:15.185-07:00I appreciate your post, however I am having troubl...I appreciate your post, however I am having trouble seeing the parallel between news and learning, beyond simply the downturn in the market place as a whole. Most industries, almost all, have seen significant decline in sales this past year. Learning businesses are not different, much to my dismay, as I feel that a market such as this is when education should be turned up.<br /><br />In fact, I see it as the opposite of the newspaper industry..Newspapers are being made obsolete by way of digital means. I believe most agree, including yourself, that elearning is pushing out formal classroom training, thus wouldn't that be to our advantage. Also, given that more and more people have the ability to be online, wouldn't that increase our market share, overall?<br /><br />I will prepare a few questions for your panel via the Big Question.<br /><br />In any event, I appreciate your words and look forward to more..Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18166866542761326555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-81283770472421906502009-07-03T16:53:03.989-07:002009-07-03T16:53:03.989-07:00I'm an outsider to "training," but a...I'm an outsider to "training," but always found myself happier when I trained myself. The more complex systems are quickly giving way to more accessible processes. <br /><br />Ideal scenarios would be so intuitive that training would be... well, relatively pointless. :) We're not there yet, though.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07795226492107831614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-72165809186331073782009-06-25T06:38:51.172-07:002009-06-25T06:38:51.172-07:00Ray - those are great questions. I need some time...Ray - those are great questions. I need some time to think about them and where to go from here. Probably a post for Monday.Tony Karrerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15408035995182843336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-85590894889191286572009-06-24T08:31:21.653-07:002009-06-24T08:31:21.653-07:00Thanks for timely blog. Great stuff.
[QUESTIONS O...Thanks for timely blog. Great stuff.<br /><br />[QUESTIONS ON IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES]<br /><br />The nature of learning as a business is changing, for good, quietly, incrementally, and fundamentally. <br /><br />Whether we like it or not, and as long as learning or training is an expense paid for by organizations, there will always be formal training (which many suggest is obsolete/dead). Furthermore, informal learning will have to always impact work one way or another. <br /><br />Looking for learning impacts to the business is a necessary evil due to the fiduciary responsibilities of companies in investing money on anything. Now the hyper learners want to believe that learning is always self-driven-self-organizing, but may be the hyper learners, are only a small fraction of the worker base. The hyper learners are just the noisy bunch of people (smile). But our other colleagues in the work force(the quite learners) are dominant in numbers. (I do not have stats on this). I have the suspicion that we are hearing a lot of noise from hyper learners and neglecting the majority quite participants (trainers, trainees, IDs, SMEs, anyone who must train in formal training).<br /><br />Now having said that, I ask myself these questions and would love to hear your thoughts on:<br /><br />1. What changes are now occurring in training (formal) and informal which are irreversible?<br /><br />2. What are the significant cost savings, efficiency value adds of the irreversible changes to the organizations?<br /><br />3. What innovations or forces that cause the above?<br /><br />4. What changes affecting hyper learners and quite participants?<br /><br />5. What can we learn from these questions to guide the future of business in learning?<br /><br />I am really more concerned about the majority quite participants (the hyper learners seem to know it all - smile, they are probably the least of our worries). <br /><br />The quite participants have more buying power, control establishment, and keepers of training/learning traditions. We should study them. <br /><br />Thanks, Raytesthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08976515789787697863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-34908288564984031902009-06-22T17:11:38.701-07:002009-06-22T17:11:38.701-07:00@Gary - well said. I guess the question is - what...@Gary - well said. I guess the question is - what's the role of a training business in the world you describe?<br /><br />@Kip - I couldn't tell from your profile who your firm is.<br /><br />I think that most companies agree with the general sentiment, but the barriers most companies feel are enormous.Tony Karrerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15408035995182843336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-1294194597732036192009-06-22T11:26:06.495-07:002009-06-22T11:26:06.495-07:00Tony,
The shift really needs to be away from trai...Tony,<br /><br />The shift really needs to be away from training and towards learning. Learning in real-time, on-the-job, at the moment of need. Organizations (and training depts.) really need to think about how to become a learning organization and how to help the organization learn from one another. This is not new concepts, Senge has been talking about it for awhile. My company has been helping organizations become learning organizations for awhile. It's not easy! It does require commitment from the top! However the changes we've been able to accomplish has dramatically changed the trianing dept to focus on performance, instead of how many courses did we deliver last month? and to how many users? As the shift has occurred the realization thatKim Zhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03112078299696413554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-79646943854589323262009-06-21T19:24:14.381-07:002009-06-21T19:24:14.381-07:00Personally, I think that the burden of training, a...Personally, I think that the burden of training, and of having the right knowledge for each task that arises, is the problem. The world has become too complex, changes too rapidly, and often requires innovative responses to unforeseeable problems to have training in a set of procedures or memorizing specific knowledge be the answer. Instead, the burden of knowing will shift to the individual, or to a group of individuals working collaboratively, to come up with answers as needed and "on the fly". In other words, the knowledge that is normally made available to workers in training will remain in external databases or other artifacts, to be used as needed. The key skills needed will be do quickly do research and come up with mashed up solutions from the information in the external environment. To repeat a quote I heard a couple of days ago, "The world is its own memory". Instead of training, we need to know how to access it quickly and efficiently.Gary Woodillhttp://brandon-hall.com/garywoodillnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-18381104035936642432009-06-18T10:31:18.844-07:002009-06-18T10:31:18.844-07:00Hi Will,
Duh! Now it makes sense. So I would vent...Hi Will,<br /><br />Duh! Now it makes sense. So I would venture to say that it has not kept up with inflation. When training really peaked (along with a lot of other things) was the height of the dotcom bubble because it was coupled with the need for new systems and processes (that need training) to fix the Y2K problem. And of course the problem was fixed and the bubble burst. So after thinking about it, the chart shows that we were near the 1999 level of spending in 2007 and perhaps well on our way to matching it except we ran into our present economic woes; however, the spending levels are more than likely down because of inflation.<br /><br />But, I do not think they are down as much as you calculated because of a couple factors: 1) the biggest cost they report is salaries, which as I noted before has to be pegged to the ECI, not inflation 2) elearning and the use of other technologies has increased that are way more efficient (more bang for your buck); 3) we do more "just good enough" through the use of just-in-time techniques rather than trying to be perfect; and 4) we simply are expected to do more today than we were ten years ago.<br /><br />Again, I believe the pattern in the graph is fairly accurate because they have the data gather techniques down correctly but the model it is based on simply cannot accurately portray the complexity and diversity of organizations coupled with inflation, population growth, and a number of other factors. It might be somewhat comparable to the National Weather Service where they can gather the data and see the patterns, but then they have to plug it into three different models and then use human expertise when the models differ to choose which one is giving them the correct picture.Donald Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01980740206430947090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-58173614521284860622009-06-17T18:53:29.842-07:002009-06-17T18:53:29.842-07:00Donald,
And come to think of it, the numbers depi...Donald, <br />And come to think of it, the numbers depicted in total amount of training expenditures aren't really that meaningful without knowing the total amount spent. Is this amount 10% of the total budget or .0001? This is still related to the inflation issue.<br /><br />BUT ALSO, there is non-monetary inflation to factor in as well. There are the number of employees served. I'm guessing that over a ten-year period there are bound to be more people in the workforce. Isn't the population still growing? So $60b spent on 100 million workers is not the same thing as $60b spent on 150 million workers.Will Thalheimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15417374592525615269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-6270649382420088292009-06-17T16:44:35.170-07:002009-06-17T16:44:35.170-07:00Donald, my thought on compounding was this. If the...Donald, my thought on compounding was this. If the training magazine numbers are not adjusted for inflation, then $60b in 1995 and $60b in 2005 would not be equal investments as the 2005 amount would really be a $49b investment in 1995 dollars. So while your chart shows a pattern that is mostly a straight line (with some undulations over a period of years btw 50 and 62b), in amounts that are adjusted for inflation the trend for the whole period would be down in inflation-adjusted dollars.Will Thalheimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15417374592525615269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-14876339132308333372009-06-17T13:47:51.245-07:002009-06-17T13:47:51.245-07:00I'm not sure if I am correctly interpreting yo...I'm not sure if I am correctly interpreting your last comment on inflation. If a company increases its budget on training by 6% annually and inflation is running at 2% then then that shows a true upward growth in spending, not a downward trend. What does the "10 years compounding calculation" have to do with an annual budget (unless maybe they borrowed the money for that budget over a ten year period)? <br /><br />As far as the discrepancy between ASTD and Training Magazine, yes their sampling differs from each other, but that does not mean they use different sampling methods from year to year. In fact, if they did, then their reports would in all probability miss the trends that they show -- the numbers would simply be all over the place. When you compare the chart to real world happenings, they coincide. Thus its the patterns that are the most important and reliable.<br /><br />Even Bassi admits that the direction of causality is hard to prove, particularly in her case, thus she uses several methods (none of them actually prove it, but it they do tend to show a direct). At least she tries to show something (perhaps controversial and in quite an unexpected manner) rather than doing something like pulling a rhetorical question out of a magazine and passing it off research that shows only 10% of training is transfered to the job :-). Thus just like the industrial reports, you have to look to look at other indicators to see if it aligns with other indicators... of course we all tend to look at organizations somewhat differently...Donald Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01980740206430947090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-88304307677307361282009-06-17T12:14:50.529-07:002009-06-17T12:14:50.529-07:00A lot to absorb - I will have to come back and rea...A lot to absorb - I will have to come back and read more carefully and I apologize if my skimming has caused me to miss some fundamental framing that makes these comments useless/nonsensical/etc. BUT:<br /><br />A fundamental framework for me is a 2x2 of tacit vs. explicit knowledge, and know-how vs. know-what. Explicit know what is INFORMATION, which is increasingly available and searchable. Explicit know-how is PROCEDURES and implicit know-how is SKILLS, and I've often thought of them as the focus of training. I understand the potential for those in the business of learning to panic as training becomes possible on the internet. I think ALL of us need to pay attention as automated expert systems become increasingly capable of carrying out procedures and even exercising skills where no formal procedures exist.<br /><br />Tacit know-what is PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT, and this is the stuff that continues to have economic value. Any "business of learning" that can demonstrably improve or extend professional judgment will attract customers. One opportunity that will remain important is the translation of PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT into INFORMATION and SKILLS and ultimately into PROCEDURES - on some level a "trainer" does this anytime he or she builds curriculum and/or instructional materials. Another opportunity is to assist in the process of automating information, skills, and procedures. Trainers presumably have acquired professional judgment about all of this and the many ways humans can respond to knowledge and the systems that produce, deliver, and/or consume it. That "subject matter expertise" can be valuable to the people building the expert systems that will replace so much of the work people do now.<br /><br />And I'm not a "robots will replace us" Singularity wacko - I think some form of the Singularity is coming in my lifetime but I think whether the result is largely good or bad depends on our political and social responses. When we went from being almost entirely farmers to having almost no farmers we replaced all that economic activity with new and fulfilling forms, and I think we can figure out how to do that again. <br /><br />In the meantime, it is worth trying to figure out how to focus the business of learning on developing "professional judgment," transforming professional judgement into informaton and skills and procedures, helping build virtual learning systems for "teaching" all that, and helping build "expert systems" that ultimately make all that obsolete.<br /><br />I will read more thoroughly this thought-provoking collection of thoughts and links.learning goalsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-39090713018400079212009-06-17T12:03:13.337-07:002009-06-17T12:03:13.337-07:00Donald, I'm enjoying the discussion.
I think ...Donald, I'm enjoying the discussion.<br /><br />I think inflation must be taken in to account if we consider compounding effects. If inflation is at 2% annually for 10 years, a $60b amount of investment in training becomes a $49.1 billion investment (if I'm using a compounding calculator correctly). That's a big difference!!<br /><br />My problem with the industry research goes further than the incredible (thanks for pointing this out) discrepancy between Training Mag and ASTD numbers. It's that they don't even try to use the same sample year to year. It's hideous stuff really.<br /><br />Laurie Bassi's research, if I read it correctly years ago when I looked at it, suffers from a methodological problem. That strain of research tries to show that companies that spend more on training get better financial results. They try to control for the correlation-is-not-causation problem by looking at say 2002 training investment and then 2003 business results. They claim that this shows the training results impacts the business results. But that is a bogus control. Companies tend to do well in cycles that span years of time. Bottom line is that it is just as likely that a company doing well in 2003 was probably doing pretty well in 2002 too so they had money to make more training investments. So for example, doing well financially (in 2000 and 2001) actually causes the heightened expenditures in training in 2001 AND it causes the company to continue to do well in 2002, 2003, etc. It is NOT that more training in 2002 caused the better results in 2003.Will Thalheimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15417374592525615269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-30784521811168242732009-06-17T09:29:53.945-07:002009-06-17T09:29:53.945-07:00Hi Will,
I'm almost sure the numbers are not ...Hi Will,<br /><br />I'm almost sure the numbers are not adjusted for inflation; however, inflation has been low the past few years. Since the majority of a training/learning budget is for salaries, the best indicator to compare it with is probably the Employment Cost Index which has only been rising around 2-3% the last couple of years where as training budgets rose 6-7%.<br /><br />I agree with you that the total numbers are probably way off. For example ASTD reports way higher numbers that have hovered around the 100 billion dollar mark the last few years, mostly because of different methods. I think it would be almost impossible for organizations like ASTD or Training Magazine to capture the real numbers (the cost is simply too high -- perhaps they should join forces). But I believe what they do capture are trends or the "health" of the industry as their methods have been fairly consistent throughout the years. That is, when you compare their reports to the rest of the economy, they show consistent patterns, thus the patterns matter more than the numbers.<br /><br />I thought what was perhaps the most interesting part of the reported numbers was that the last report by Training Magazine in which they noticed a drop in expenditures -- it went from two years of 7% annual growth down to 6%. It almost as if it was one of the first indicators that something was wrong with the economy. I tend to agree with Laurie Bassi's research that training investments are positively linked to an organization's performance -- those that spend more on training are likely to outperform other firms in subsequent years.<br /><br />Good organizations seem to get the fact that training and learning platforms are vital to their health, but we consistently shoot ourselves in the foot by failing to link our processes and platforms to real business needs, thus at the first signs of trouble our budgets are lowered; thus it will be interesting to see what the patterns in their reports show over the next couple of years.Donald Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01980740206430947090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-22342087941547677902009-06-17T08:11:18.148-07:002009-06-17T08:11:18.148-07:00I enjoy analyzing the future of our industry by co...I enjoy analyzing the future of our industry by comparing it to the publishing, music and transportation industries. Admittedly this results in vigorous conversation but few answers.<br /><br />Recently, I have been comparing our industry to the "software" industry. I use the GPS as an analogy to help us understand where our industry is headed. There is a very bright future.<br /><br />I've written about this at http://ifivealliances.ning.com in the Forum: Social Learning - Truth and ConsequencesUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01788480827275351287noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-43536209393063139532009-06-17T07:57:07.173-07:002009-06-17T07:57:07.173-07:00Tony, a fantastic and provocative post. I see this...Tony, a fantastic and provocative post. I see this from a different framework. You mention "once the economy rebounds." This implies we are going through the usual cycle of ups and downs. <br /><br />I don't see it that way at all. We are experiencing a fundamental reset of the economy and of how business transpires. The Industrial Age is being replaced by the Network Era. It may be a bigger shift than the transition from Agriculture to Industry. <br /><br />So... from hunter/gatherer to farmer/cultivator. Then from manual labor to machine. Now from individual to connected intelligence. Farms and machines will continue to exist, of course, but networks will become the predominant source of value and progress.<br /><br />My colleagues at togetherLearn and I have been in active conversation this week about whether <i>learning</i> has outlived its usefulness as a term. This morning at the IADIS Conference on eLearning in southern Portugal, I outlined a new approach. Unlike most four-step models of learning, it incorporates learning with others and/or the option of performance support. I haven't been able to spit the words out fast enough, but I imagine discussions will begin popping up on togetherlearn.com in the near future. <br /><br />You point out that the need for learning is increasing as our world becomes more complex. Let's be cautious with that one. The fact that there's more news isn't buoying up the papers, is it? That Jon Stewart clip is amazing; thanks for the pointer. <br /><br />I look forward to continuing this discussion. Thanks for being our industry's catalyst once again.<br /><br />jayjayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16271633210993298646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-90996083973172621762009-06-17T05:41:34.986-07:002009-06-17T05:41:34.986-07:00@gina - I'll be curious to get thoughts on you...@gina - I'll be curious to get thoughts on your concept.Tony Karrerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15408035995182843336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22055982.post-6847029777744806612009-06-17T05:40:30.920-07:002009-06-17T05:40:30.920-07:00@Catherine - great post. "Our challenge as l...@Catherine - great post. "Our challenge as learning professionals trying to find our place in this “new normal” is to be able to articulate why a company needs experts like us to help create a learning environment that everyone seems to be convinced will rise up of its own accord if we just get out of the way. I agree completely that people will routinely access the internet, intranet, shared workspaces, and accessible colleagues (live or online) to satisfy urgent learning needs. But I’m not entirely convinced that they always get what they need, and I am pretty certain that many folks don’t know how to do that efficiently (or don’t have the tools to do it efficiently). And I don’t think that this kind of just in time learning is the only form of learning they need."<br /><br />And I believe that selling this as a vendor and selling this internally is a tough sale. What am I getting? What does it do? How much does it cost? Will people use it? This is so much more complicated than selling a course (elearning or classroom), more complicated than selling a tool.<br /><br />Part of what you've said reinforces the need for skill building which we are equipped to do. Part of it is quite a bit more of a stretch.Tony Karrerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15408035995182843336noreply@blogger.com