Bottom-Line Performance

It seems important to begin this post with a disclaimer…this is my “multimedia developer” opinion. You’ve been warned.

As a multimedia developer the thought of developing e-Learning with an LCMS development tool sends shivers up my spine (not the good kind, like when you learn a new way to make something animate in Flash…yes, I know I need to get out more).

Don’t get me wrong, the majority of LCMS development tools are great for rapid development, and are a great way to manage content and content objects with a single application. However, my experience is that if you want sophisticated or slick-looking/functioning e-Learning, you won’t want to use the development software of an LCMS. Although huge strides have been made in improvements of this software, it is still necessary to incorporate Flash elements to get that slick movement and learner interaction that only Flash offers.

As I step down from my “Flash soap box”, I acknowledge that as with every other e-Learning development tool purchase (whether it’s Flash, Captivate, Articulate, Lectora, etc.) you need to be sure that when deciding on an LCMS you are clear what the LCMS development tool can and cannot do. Your learners have a certain level of sophistication (different in every situation) and will expect a certain level of interaction, function, and look.

So, when researching an LCMS be sure that when evaluating all the great “LMS” capabilities you don’t forget the “C” in LCMS. You don’t want to get stuck with an LCMS development tool that is no better than PowerPoint circa 1993.

How much time does it take to develop a training course?

The answer, of course, is that it depends – on a lot of things:

• The media you are using.
• The length of the course or solution.
• The complexity of the media being used as part of the learning solution. (An animation takes longer to build than a static image with some text on it.)
• The complexity and availability of content.
• The desired outcomes (learner awareness vs. learner skill development/appication)
• The number of people involved in its development
• What’s already known about the audience, the task, the need, the gaps, etc.

Here’s a bit of data from Bryan Chapman at Brandon Hall research on “average” development times for different media. The data is culled from surveys of learning professionals and was reported by Brandon-Hall in its reports. See if the hours match your own experiences:

34:1 Instructor-Led Training (ILT), including design, lesson plans, handouts, PowerPoint slides, etc.

33:1 PowerPoint to E-Learning Conversion. Not sure why it takes less time then creating ILT, but that’s what we discovered when surveying 200 companies about this practice

220:1 Standard e-learning which includes presentation, audio, some video, test questions, and 20% interactivity

345:1 Time it takes for online learning publishers to design, create, test and package 3rd party courseware

750:1 Simulations from scratch. Creating highly interactive content

I would assume the 33:1 for PowerPoint to e-learning conversion is what most closely correlates to Tom Kuhlman’s references to “rapid development” of e-learning since I know it’s not the 220:1 ratio reported by those Brandon-Hall surveyed.

Does this match your own experiences?  How much time DOES it take to develop learning…and which tasks consume the most time? Our experience points to reviews and revisions consuming large chunks of time…and managing the process of reviews and revisions. What about you?

In today’s lean times, there is lots of buzz and interest around “rapid” elearning design and development. But what, exactly, is “rapid?”

According to Tom Kuhlman, author of the Rapid e-Learning Blog (one of my favorite blogs), it’s 40 hours. Here’s what he says in a recent post (on another topic actually – professional narration):

Rapid elearning development has a 33:1 ratio in development time.  For every finished hour, you’re probably spending about 33 hours of work in labor.  I’m just going to keep it simple and say that it takes you a week to do a project.  That’s 40 hours.  At $100* per hour, the company is spending about $4000 per project.  That’s just for your labor.

Hmmm…I am amazed by that number. I suppose it could be true if you already had your learning objectives, course design, and content defined and were at the point of programming it into your authoring tool. I wonder if it’s true when you have to convene a team of SMEs, discuss what the course is supposed to accomplish, define a look/feel for the course, write the content, and then program it.

Here’s what makes or breaks rapid for us – and rapid is not 40:1:

• The client project manager. If you have someone who understands work plans and scope, then you will move fast. If you have a PM who allows subject matter experts to add screens, content, animations, etc. to the course, things will not be rapid.
• Content. If it exists and is stable, then we can move quickly. If it has to be gathered from people’s heads…and people have multiple opinions about the content, things will not be rapid.
• Limiting screen templates. If we agree at the design stage how many unique screens will be created – and stick with it (i.e. 8 or 10 different screen layouts), then we can import content quickly. If the customer – or the instructional designer – keeps wanting changes and different screen layouts, things will not be rapid.
• Realization of what a 30-minute course really means in terms of the amount of content to develop. If the client and instructional designer  understands that 30 minutes is probably somewhere between 17-30 screens (depending on the # of pop-ups, animations, or video files embedded within a screen), then we’re good. If the designer creates a design that requires 40-50 screens, a bazillion popups, or tons of audio, sthen we will not be rapid.
• SMEs. Quite frankly, the more you have the less rapid things will be. Wherever possible, one SME per course is optimal. Get 5 SMEs involved, and you will have 5 opinions to consider and 5 schedules to work around. This is one of the BIGGEST reasons rapid doesn’t happen more often.
• Review cycles. If we can go from design to alpha with no script reviews, then we can be very rapid. If the client wants three review cycles on scripts/storyboards before we move into programming, we are in trouble in terms of rapid.

I might hit Tom’s # of 40 hours if I get to be the SME, the project manager, the instructonal designer, the writer, and the multimedia developer all in one and I have all the content at my fingertips with no creation of it required. The reality is that on a complex project, this is seldom the case.  I content it’s also a lot harder to be “rapid” when you are truly trying to teach someone to do something as opposed to merely sharing information with them.

So…what strategies have others evolved to achieve “rapid” AND how do you define “rapid?”

FYI – Tony Karrer, in his blog e-learning Technology has a  post on this topic that offers a definition as well as info on a pile of tools intended to help SMEs create “rapid” elearning. Check it out as well before answering me. Then…tell me your thoughts on rapid – please!