Yes, changed performance is ultimately the goal of all of this. And none of what you have written is contrary to any of this. We’re on the same page with you on all of this.

I do think though that there is another element here that some folks might be missing. Companies often need to reproduce the exact training that a given learner “passed” (or at least have the capacity to reproduce it). Being able to pull up the exact training that a learner took 3 years ago is a real need for large organizations. While I don’t think there is a ton of “value” in this, from a legal and compliance perspective, it’s critical for certain subjects. It’s not clear to me (yet) how we (or anyone) can do this with more dynamic content like blogs, wikis, discussions etc… I’m not saying it can’t be done any other way, just that, for now, what we currently describe as “courseware” is one of the few mechanisms we have to easily encapsulate and store training content that must be reproduced at will. That said, this is something we will be able to eventually address based on some of the deep reporting stuff we’re doing on the “informal” side. And of course, for any content that is not compliance-related, everything you said is dead-on.

Sorry if I wasn’t clear about this in my original post. I totally agree that results should matter more than the method. But when companies get in trouble due to an employee messing up, it’s critical that a company can show that they provided the “right” training, even if the employee didn’t carry through with it. Anyway, I hope my original post makes more sense in this light.

Dave

Agreed, there’s a role for the course, and making it available, but I want to track ability to perform, not evidence they endured a content dump. If reading a couple of blogs, adding to the wiki, and watching a video leads to the outcome, who cares? Which of course I don’t think it contrary to what you mean.

Nor does it preclude us from rethinking the non-compliance side of the learning business. This part of the business requires a radical rethinking. This is where Brent’s comments are dead-on. Today, our only vehicle for delivering “courses” and “learning” is the LMS — even when it’s not the best choice, even when the rest of world is relying on a lot of what Brent is alluding to, even when user-generated content is becoming a standard paradigm in the way people “use” the internet.

I don’t think Brent is off-base in the big picture, but specifically as to the need for LMS, this is not going to change anytime soon. Innovation needs to be inclusive of these needs or larger companies will be ill-served by what we’re doing.

Dave Wilkins
Senior Director of Content, Mzinga
dwilkins@mzinga.com