1. “Employees want to learn in personalized, microlearning bursts”. I wonder if that statement isn’t a little too one-size-fits-all and whether conclusions we draw from that belief would apply to most learning environments. After about 15 years working in Financial Services where employees are mostly exempt, salaried types, I went to work for a telecom company that is 65% non-exempt (Call Center, Field techs etc.) . And after a few months, I realized i had to re-examine a lot of what I thought I understood about learner attitudes, motivations, dispositions.

    I don’t sense the statement above is quite representative of those learners in my environment. It might be truer to say that they want to learn things that apply to their jobs and advance their career (eg a certification) and given a choice between shoehorning some learning between installs and having a day in a nice classroom, they would choose the latter. There is also what management wants. Management wants everyone to learn the same thing the same way because consistency is important. They also want to minimize down time which means, in the Call Center, they are still looking for that magical integration that allows their system to dynamically control class schedule and assignments in LMS in response to call volumes. With heavily regulated businesses such as Pharma or Energy, you might hear a different story. I can’t imagine the Learning delivery model they would like at Google is necessarily the same that would fit JetBlue or Johnson&Johnson, or the one IT workers would like vs. Sales people.

    So what I would like to read in those articles is a bit more of that nuance, a bit more about the different currents of thought, different categories of learners and how we see this reflected in the choices available in the Learning Delivery Industry.

  2. Having read this article twice, and being a learning professional for over 2 decades, what can be gleaned from its message is – LMS is the old jargon, let us now call it a “learning platform”. At the end of the day HR & management will always want to know who received the training, what the training was, and did it produce the outcome that was desired. Therefore there always will need to be a mechanism to provide that data. Regardless of the social learning aspect, regardless of the HTML5 capability – basically regardless of what way the learning actually happens it will always need to be measured. L&D offices/departments still need a system to track and analyze the end users of their respective organization’s learning initiatives. The LMS’s or whatever nomenclature one would like to use in the future, are not going away anytime soon…maybe when Elon Musk or someone like him has their brain chip idea fully realized.

  3. For me the new problem we have (now without an LMS) is measuring what people have learned. We require our people to complete a Monthly Learning Journal telling us what they have learned, how they have benefited, how the company has benefited, what they are doing differently as a consequence of learning, what new learning objectives they have set themselves and how they intend to achieve them. More than 50% of what they learn they learn on the job. Another 40% or thereabouts they learn from accessing the Internet. But the key result is what they can DO differently, better as a consequence. Nothing else really matters. Or does it?

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment *
Name *
Email *