Think About It ...

Traditionally, an item referred to as a commodity has been thought to hold little distinction from other products in its class of goods.  Commodities were typically manufactured and agricultural products like apples, milk, steel, grain, sugar, etc. For sure, education and training programs have not been historically viewed as commodities.

However, the perspective of many buyers of eLearning is changing.  They are now looking at eLearning courses as generic products similar to generic drugs – in other words – commodities.  And, guess what happens when buyers look at items as commodities? – no more premium margins, prices drop, and price becomes the primary criteria for selection of a supplier. 

Let’s assume that you agree, somewhat at least, with the premise that eLearning is becoming a commodity.  Now, ask yourself the following question: Why has eLearning become commodified?

In its early days, eLearning was viewed as a major breakthrough in training and education with its ability to deliver information and learning to anyone, anytime, anywhere.  At the 1999 COMDEX conference John Chambers, CEO of Cisco Systems, gave eLearning a big boost by saying, "The next big killer application for the Internet is going to be education. Education over the Internet is going to be so big it is going to make email look like a rounding error."  

While we're not suggesting that Mr. Chambers’ prediction was a complete miss, it is our opinion that eLearning has never quite lived up to its expectations.  Indeed, it has become big business for some training companies and a few online colleges and universities.  And, eLearning has helped drive web technology to support streaming audio and video across the Internet.

So, has Internet-based learning lived up to expectations? Well, in our opinion, the answer is - not really! We're not inferring that online learning hasn't significantly impacted our schools, colleges, and universities and the way corporations train their employees and customers - far from it. Most educational institutions now have substantial online programs and nearly all of them are growing rapidly.

But, at this time, not very many people believe that eLearning is making email look like a rounding error. Actually, social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace along video sharing sites like YouTube, the free online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, and Second Life, the online 3D virtual world, have had more influence on education and training than online learning applications.

The question is - Why hasn't online learning exploded and achieved the level of acceptance that John Chambers, and lots of other very knowledgeable people, predicted during the last decade? Unfortunately, it would take a book to explain the myriad of reasons that have delayed the widespread implementation of eLearning.

For now, let's try to make a few suggestions about what might give Internet-based and other modes of eLearning the critical boost needed to achieve its potential for impacting our educational system and corporate training.

Here's our inital suggestion.  Now, let's share some thoughts because eLearning is an important part of training.  It's time that we get a lot better at it ...

• Use the new Web 2.0 technologies and other tools to create more effective and interactive learning: flash presentations and video; simulations; techniques from serious gaming; animations; 3D objects; wiki/blogs, webcasts, adaptive questioning; and more.

Think about it and share your thoughts in this blog or feel free to email me at jhanlin@trainingindustry.com.

The most sucessful business executives will tell you that getting an organization to perform at the ultimate level, you must clearly define the business processes, and then position resources to consistently execute on those processes. Training organizations are no exception. I believe that many training organizations do not perform at a level they should because they don't understand process management.

We offer training, but we never get to the detailed level of managing the processes of learning. Most learning leaders run their organization based on their experience of attending educational institutions. I believe this is why the university model became popular in corporate America. But let's be clear. How you manage public education and secondary institutions are not the best way to manage a corporate learning organization.

As a personal mission to address this issue, I began several years ago researching what made a great training organization. An early finding was that great training organizations were operationally excellent. The executive(s) understood process management, and how to effectively and efficiently MANAGE the learning process. We aggregated what we thought were the best practices, and created the Training Process Framework. Our goal was to help leaders of training organizations with how to define the business processes for managing the training function.

The Training Process Framework categorizes processes around four functional areas; administration, content, delivery, and technology. All training organizations must provide an administative set of processes, they must manage content, they all deliver learning in some way, and all use technology in some manner. The framework defines the processes around these four functional areas into 26 processes that must be integrated through inputs and outputs. 

There are 10 administration processes; registration services, scheduling, strategic alignment, vendor management, assessments and testing, financials, client relationship management, tuition reimbursement, marketing and communications, and metrics and reporting.

There are 6 processes related to content; they are instructional design, content development, graphic design, materials fulfillment, portfolio management, and content refreshment.  

There are 6 processes related to delivery; they are instructor recruitment, instructor development, instruction, feedback, classroom support, and facilities management.

There are 4 processes related to technology; they are LMS/LCMS management, authoring tools management, delivery tools management, and technology integration.

Please note that many training executives like to personalize the name of the processes. No issue with me. I say call them what you want. What's most important is that they are clearly defined and communicated to the staff. And if the organization is using outsource suppliers to manage parts of the training function, then clearly articulate the tasks, inputs and outputs of each process.

And let's remember, the real differentiator is how you execute on the processes. Applying fancy names without being operationally excellent, (usually done by suppliers to differentiate) is like putting lipstick on a pig. The pig looks prettier, but it's still a pig. If you are not executing well on the process, the name of the process doesn't make it look or perform any better.

If you would like a copy of the framework including definitions of each process, feel free to send me a note at dharward@trainingindustry.com.

Think about it ...

I did a pretty dramatic head turn the other day while scrolling through the September issue of CLO magazine. I came across an article written by Cushing Anderson of IDC with the title - "Training Outsourcing on the Decline"

The implications of the article made a famous quote by Yogi Berra pop into my head,

"The future isn't what it used to be."

I thought, could this be a misprint? We devote a lot of time and effort at Training Industry, Inc. extolling the virtues and communicating best practices and business strategies associated with outsourcing learning services. The last thing that we expected was a report indicating that this fast growing movement is in decline. The future of training outsourcing has always been viewed as being very bright with double digit annual growth predicted.

I knew that a little further investigation was needed to determine exactly what Cushing was trying to say. Then, right in the middle of the first page in a shaded text box, I saw...

Now, I'm feeling a little better but I'm also a little confused. The findings in this article are from IDC surveys from 393 members of CLO's Business Intelligence Board (BIB) - a very good and knowledgeable group. But, how could training outsourcing be in decline when 85% of companies expect to spend more money on it? (BTW, I like Cushing Anderson's research and writing so that's adding to my confusion.) I finally figured out that the reported decline reflects only the per cent of companies indicating that they had outsourced some of their training functions. Does this mean that the industry is as a whole is declining as inferred by the article's title?

Both the BIB findings and those reported by Training Industry, Inc. actually show a significant increase in revenues and projected spending for training outsourcing. This year, Training Industry, Inc. compiled survey data from leading training companies as part of the selection process for the "Top 20 Companies in the Training Outsourcing Industry". A revenue growth rate of 18% in learning BPO services from 2006 to 2007 was reported by the Top 20 companies. For 2008, the Top 20 companies projected a 16% increase in revenues.

After thinking about it, I have concluded that we in the corporate training space are still not sure about definitions of all of the parameters related to outsourced learning services so we interpret research results based on inconsistencies and misinterpretations. For example, at Training Industry, Inc., our "Training Process Framework" identifies 25 learning business processes. In the research that Cushing Anderson reported, only nine training activities or learning business processes were considered. So, are we mixing apples and oranges?

I'm not going to attempt a complete analysis the status of training outsourcing or embellish on what I believe is a misnomer about the decline - but, I do encourage you to take a few minutes to read the article for yourself and let me know your thoughts - it's in the September issued of CLO magazine assessable via CLO magazine's digital version at http://www.clomedia.com/business-intelligence/2008/September/2339/index.php. BTW, I liked the article - great stuff - super food for thought!

Think about it -- and let me know what your thoughts...