I just finished giving a talk on training trends – what they are and the “so what’s” associated with them.

Here’s a link to the slides associated with this presentation

We had a nice group of folks participating, and we generated lots of discussion. Here – for those of you who don’t want to access the slides – are the top 6 trends we see, and the “so-what’s associated with these trends. Feel free to agree, disagree, or propose other trends.

The 6 trends

1. The need/demand to compress time.
2. The shift from “training” to “learning.”
3. The shift from F2F to online classroom.
4. Rapid authoring (and we aren’t talking about Articulate here!)
5. The new blend – formal and informal.
6. Mobile and web delivery.

The “So What’s” associated with these trends

The trends are pretty self-explanatory. I think it’s the “so what’s” associated with them that are more interesting. What implications do the trends have for learning professionals, learners, and, indeed, companies who employ people and, in theory, support learning.

1. Traditional learning design models need to be revamped and re-thought. We have to consider usability data from learners as part of this.
2. Remembering is WAY less important than it used to be. Now…FINDING stuff is most important. (Think WebMD)
3. Instructional design – and the role of instructional designers – has to change. (Yeah, this one kind of links with Point 1).
4. The tech toolbox HAS to be big – you can’t just use one tool and expect it do be your one-size fits all learning solution. Instructional designers may not have the technical proficiency to use all the tools, but they better be able to identify appropriate tools and figure out what to use when (or know who to ask.
5. We have many more distractions for learners and IDers to manage – NO ONE gives 100% attention to most learning events – formal or informal!
6. The new blend – formal and informal – only works so well. The holy grail right now is to “formalize informal learning” which sounds great but may not be a really good idea. Informal learning that is “formalized” requires a gardener/moderator to tend to it and cultivate interactions/community. Informal learning that is mandated (e.g. You will submit X blog posts/week gets the required minimum….but doesn’t really foster better learning. For me, it’s more about recognizing when letting people learn on their own is okay – and creating tools that make it easier for this to happen.

I’m going to deliver this presentation again on July 14th in Bloomington, IN and again via webinar in late July. Check out our website if you’d like to sign up for the next webinar:

I recently received an e-mail asking what I thought about adding 16 new people to the alpha review list for a e-learning course. The idea was to get a wide variety of opinions from people from around the organization and around the globe. To be inclusive and ensure that the course would be well received by the global audience for which it is intended. This is a group that likes to work by consensus, and they wanted to bring that culture to this project.

Now personally, I’m a big fan of consensus. I love talking a problem through with other people until a solution presents itself out of the chaos. In this case, though, the intentions behind the push for consensus and the realities of this approach, turned out to be very disconnected.

Intention:

Get the team to feel a sense of ownership and pride in the course, so they will be more likely to promote it.

Reality:

A lot of the edits that were submitted were ultimately ignored, because they didn’t line up with other comments. There was (as one would expect) a lot of discontinuity between the sets of edits. For example – one person loved the color scheme, another person hated it. Whatever we do with that information, somebody is going to think (correctly) that we disregarded their input. Where that happened on content points, the project runs the risk of having enemies, rather than advocates.

Intention:

Make the decision-making easier.

Reality:

Consolidating edits from all those people adds a whole lot of work and effort, and that’s before you even get to the decision making. And, at the end of the day, someone still has to write and approve the actual words that will be used. On balance, the approval process took longer and more effort even for the final decision-maker.

Making Consensus Work

Despite the risks and the frustration factor, I still believe it makes sense to work consensus into the creation of e-learning solutions. To do so effectively:

• Get consensus as early in the project as possible. Get consensus on the goals and objectives of the project. If people have different goals in mind, it’ll be impossible for them to agree on tactics. Since it’s World Cup season, I’ll use a sports analogy – if you don’t agree on which goal you’re shooting at, you aren’t going to agree on which direction to run.

• Recognize when you or your team is trying to use coming to consensus on how to describe a process as a way to come to consensus on the process itself. When the process, product or policy you are training people on is new, it is likely to take a lot longer to come to consensus. Plan that time into your project, because you will end up using ig.

• Decide where consensus is worth the cost. Consensus takes a lot of time to achieve. It’s worth taking the time for the big stuff. But when it comes down to deciding every single word in a course, as long as the words convey the appropriate message it’s probably not worth the time to come up with the perfect phrasing. As much as it pains me to recognize this, the words we craft with such care are often skimmed with much less attention to detail by our learners.

What experiences have you had trying to come to consensus on a course? What tips do you live by when planning your projects?

A couple of weeks I completed a video shoot for two short training videos. (When I say “I”, I mean I made sure there were snacks and supplies for my hard working video team.) I know that 90% of my job as project manager on shoot days is making sure that there is sugar around to get us through the afternoon!

Today, I read a post from Clive Shepherd that got me thinking about the decisions we made at that shoot. He argues that training does not need to have “Hollywood” production levels – that learners don’t need or expect it. His first point is that: “You will never in your wildest dreams be able to match ‘Hollywood’ production values or even get anywhere near.” While slightly depressing, it’s true. For those of us working as consultants with clients, it can become a little tricky to communicate this message (without looking like you’re trying to get out of work) and also identify what the production needs of the audience are. From my experience, here are a few questions you need answers to when developing training videos:

• How will the videos be viewed? A video viewed online in a 2×3 player probably doesn’t need the production value of something seen on a large projection screen.
• How old is your audience? In my opinion, a younger audience has different expectations than an older one. And while teenagers or twenty-somethings are used to low production videos on You Tube, they are used to videos that move quickly and have a high entertainment value.
• What’s the budget and timeline ? Many clients have little to no understanding of how much it costs or how long it takes to develop a super-slick video game, or Hollywood movie.

What other questions do you think need to be answered? How do you determine when you are less concerned about production value?