This month’s questions include best practices for creating content/courses; RFPs/RFIs, Relevance of Learning in 2026.
Q: We are new to creating courses and see the terms you use – “content creator” and what others use “authoring tools.” Is there a difference? We have a lot of videos we want to use as separate courses – or as you refer to it as content, can we do this?
A: Content Creator and an Authoring Tool are one in the same.
I prefer content creator, because ‘content’ is a worldwide term that folks understand these days, especially the younger generations or anyone new to online learning.
An authoring tool is a legacy (old-school) term, that doesn’t really explain in a general sense what people – again, those new, who have zero experience in creating a course, zero experience in instructional design, and e-learning development, and wants to push out content quickly.
Can it do the push out quickly aspect?
Sure, but when you compare it to say a built-in content creator (this means it comes with the system and is “built-in”) in a general perspective they are not the same thing.
Personally, anyone who has a foundation in instructional design/e-learning development wouldn’t use a content creator aka authoring tool (some systems still refer to them as that) to build content (aka courses).
They are not designed for that – rather they are designed for anyone to create content (aka courses) without having that knowledge around ID (instructional design).
Would it benefit you to learn some basics?
Absolutely and it will improve your content; however, in all honesty, it is about build and push – as in create quickly, push out quickly and move on.
Nowadays content creators in a system are offering more capabilities tied around AI, but how you use it to achieve engaging content is another matter.
I do like content creators that offer an ‘on/off’ option before you create content. This means if you want AI to do it, select ‘on’, if you don’t select ‘off’.
I’ve seen only one system that offers that option for every piece of the content (aka course) – I really like that.
Videos – yes, you can use them in nearly all learning systems for content for your learners. Some vendors offer some flexibility, other’s do not.
I say nearly all – because a knowledge management system isn’t really a video angle, unless your KM has the ability to summarize the video and list key points.
Q: I have been assigned to create courses and have no idea what to do. Can you offer a few pointers?
A: Here is an article I wrote around new instructional design.
Secondly, I am going to provide you with hitting a home run (or at least a single) right out of the gate when it comes to content (aka courses) and folks viewing it.
I should add that way too many people even those who have been around a long-time fail to do this – including those who sell 3rd party content to the masses.
a. Create a description
Get right to the point here. If it is longer than two sentences, then you need to rewrite.
People today are not going to want to read the entire course angle here.
A summary is sufficient and it can be done – i.e. the summary in two sentences.
The goal is to get me “interested” in taking the content.
b. Objectives
I never understand why people ignore them. This is a crucial step.
Objectives at the maximum – three. Okay, you want three, any more than that – is a book.
Again, get to the point, but never, and I mean never say “You will Learn..” – I see this at a lot of seminar descriptions with their objectives and even 3rd party content build by providers.
You will learn – implies a guarantee that someone will learn whatever is in your content (to stop from repetition think courses, because any piece of content is a knowledge nugget which to me is a course).
If I say, you will learn how to drive a forklift, and then you run over someone’s foot, or you crash into a box, who is responsible?
You told me I would learn how to drive it.
There are sites that provide some terms to use instead of “learn” – this is the best site I have found.
Let’s go with an example of a piece of content.
A put in my two-sentence description.
There are people who say, “after completing this course..” – this sets up the idea that the person has to complete the course, ignoring that unless it is assigned; I do not have too.
If I am training you on a forklift – and you know how to maneuver one, and your only interest in how to pick up a box, then am I expected to learn the entire course?
No, you want me to learn the skill and knowledge around what you are interested in knowing or need to know to do your job or improve your skill set.
Example of an objective
In this course (if you are going to say content, then use say ‘With this content’) you should be able to
a. Identify two ways to do this XTA
b. Create a benchmark for XBDS
c. Define what is BAGSDS
Simple.
Here is a great example of what not to do (and I’ve seen it i.e. descriptions, objectives, etc. on other sites – on various topics)
I pulled this one down from LinkedIn Learning
“Artificial intelligence is transforming content creation—do you know what AI can do for you? Learn how you can harness the power of AI in this course that explains how artificial intelligence is revolutionizing content strategy—making it faster, smarter, and more personalized than ever before. Instructor Lachezar Arabadzhiev shows how content creators can automate time-wasting tasks and build more efficiency into the workflow, leaving more time for actual creative work. Learn how to conduct AI-powered research, scale and enhance script writing, automate content workflows, enhance editing, and schedule tasks utilizing AI. Plus, explore the latest AI-powered tools that support content creation while understanding the steps and rules to consider to maintain integrity and use AI ethically.”
“Learn how you..”
Plus, look at all those objectives just mashed together.
Better Way to write and more effective?
Discover how artificial intelligence is revolutionizing content strategy by automating routine tasks and enabling faster, smarter, and more personalized creation. Instructor Lachezar Arabadzhiev demonstrates how to leverage AI tools for research, scriptwriting, and editing while maintaining ethical standards and creative integrity.
Objectives
- Automate repetitive administrative tasks to streamline workflows and prioritize the creative process.
- Utilize AI-powered tools to scale scriptwriting, conduct research, and refine content editing.
- Apply best practices for ethical AI usage to maintain content integrity and personalization.
Two sentences in a description, three objectives.
Scale down to one sentence in the description
‘Discover how artificial intelligence is revolutionizing content strategy by automating routine tasks and enabling faster, smarter, and more personalized creation.’
You can always dump the instructor’s name – since I can see it, next to the copy. Unless it is someone famous, like former President Obama, that having the instructor’s name isn’t relevant to me.
Then you keep the three objectives.
Which is better – their way or this way?
Rule of thumb
In a micro-course or actually any content for that matter, zero in on one topic – think chapter or a couple of pages – what is the most relevant someone should know?
If the goal of the content is to teach me how to maneuver a forklift – it isn’t effective to create a micro-course that is 30 minutes long but has five chapters that are each six minutes – based on whomever believes this is the actual duration.
The power of online learning is for someone to go on their pace and time.
I find it hard to believe that in 30 minutes someone is going to know, retain and synthesis a piece of content – regardless of the topic.
Yet, someone – not you – is saying hey – 30 minutes is all it takes.
Rubbish.
Anyway – I’d rather have five pieces of content, focused on one specific target.
How to start turn your forklift 60 degrees (or whatever term you use in the warehouse). – That is one course aka content piece.
You then can recommend that the most effective way to retain this information is to return back to the content, as often as the person wants.
Way too much content is seen as one and done.
I get that folks live by the duration aspect, because that is how we were taught going to school – The class is X length.
Then repeated in the workplace:
The seminar I attend is X time.
The webinar is Y time.
Self-paced online learning (which ever piece of content is) – thus, I never get the self-paced term – but hey, if it works; was designed to change the way people learn because the former wasn’t and I’d argue isn’t effective.
If you decide to include duration (Then note duration may differ depending on the way you learn – or something similar in vernacular).
Personally, nobody wants to take a five-hour course – that is seen as too long.
And results in the – fast click and go angle OR if the person is required to look at the page for 30 minutes – “the open another tab and surf the net or do work” before I move on.
For the course include a few deep thinking questions – you want to ascertain how much is being retained, and more importantly, get them to really think about it and tie it into whatever.
AI today, cannot do deep thinking.
A plus for you!
Q: We submitted our RFP, received it back from the vendor and then upon seeing the demonstration realized that what they said they had, they did not have. Is this common? And if so, what should we have done to find out if they actually had the functionality before the demonstration?
A: First off, I recommend scheduling the demonstration first, prior to blasting out an RFP. By doing the reverse, you are wasting your time, if you realize it isn’t a fit.
Nevertheless, I realize that the practice for a long time, has been the RFP first, then demo aspect second.
Therefore knowing the practice people do, and that’s understandable – here is how you can make sure what they are providing as a response to you, is the most accurate (as far as they know) – the ( ) is crucial.
To understand what I mean by this is to understand how the RFP response process works in the industry.
At one time – seems just like years ago – the RFP response was handled solely by the salesperson.
If the vendor was big in size it went to an RFP team – who reviews and responds – then sends it to the salesperson to send back.
The process still exists – however, the size of the company – i.e. big vs small, no longer is applicable.
There are vendors who go with the RFP team or individual who responds to them – using a ‘cut and paste’ approach – if the question is something they see over and over again; or the salesperson responds to each question and request in the RFP – ‘they still may do the cut and paste’ depending on what is requested.
That’s it.
Now, you see the problems – right?
If the salesperson isn’t aware of the latest with the system, or fully understands the question or feature you are seeking – what do you think the outcome will be?
If the RFP team or responder doesn’t know the latest or misunderstood what was being sought out or asked, and the company has no process in place to verify or validate, then outcome?
Every vendor should (and I will be upfront the majority do not) have a process in place, regardless if it is the salesperson or an RFP team or responder.
a. Who ever receives it, responds based on the knowledge they know at the given time.
Even if it is a feature they have had for a long time (and they see the same question all the time), they may go cut and paste. But what if a tweak was done with that feature?
b. X receives the RFP, completes what they know.
Then it goes to a dedicated product manager, who knows what is current in the system – i.e. they are in the loop; and if it doesn’t exist but is coming before the end of the year, can provide this.
c. Goes back to salesperson or RFP team (who will send it to salesperson)
d. Before being sent out, the salesperson verifies information is correct – never assume that the head of sales is in the loop with product.
e. Salesperson sends back RFP.
Key Points to Remember
a. There are vendors who say they have it, then in reality it is a workaround. The truthful ones will say ‘workaround’, but plenty fail to mention this.
b. If it is a workaround, have them give you the name of one client who went through the workaround, and ask to speak to them. Vendors love to provide the names of clients on their pitch board – great, give me someone to ask. Do not sign any deal, unless you can feel comfortable with the workaround.
c. If the salesperson or the RFP person isn’t sure or understands what you want – they should ask you in a follow-up. I always recommend the salesperson – because that is your POC – Point of Contact.
d. For the demo, focus not just on your use case, they will plan for that – or at least they should; but also around dealbreakers – do not tell them, hey you said you had this, but you don’t, thus that’s a dealbreaker for us.
What you can say is “hey you said you have ABC, but we are not seeing it, can you explain to us why you said you had it but we are not seeing it?” – The reason you do this – is if they failed to mention workaround, they will mention it here.
An option you may want to list in your proposal are what you consider to be dealbreakers – this means, unless you have it, we won’t be moving forward.
A vendor may in return say it is possible, but they will need to do a customization (i.e. workaround) to make it work.
Regardless, if they say workaround, get the name of someone they did the workaround with, and talk to them. I find people are quite honest in regards to workarounds and their experience with it. Even if the vendor raves how much the client loves the system.
Ditto on integrations and support.
Q: Do you think learning is still relevant in 2026 with AI coming into the workplace?
A: I am a huge believer that Learning and Training is more relevant today, than it ever has been before.
You need to learn how to adapt. You need to learn new skills. You need to reskill to change.
You need to be updated or keep updated on what is taking place around AI – and just not using ChatGPT or a web browser to do so.
You need to take content that really gets it – if you want to know more about foundations of Gen AI or build Agents for example: then jump into a hands-on lab – Pluralsight is the best in the industry.
Heck, I use it for the hands-on labs and skills.
That said, they constantly do the no-no by stating you will learn…
Bottom Line
Best Practices. Creating Content. Validating RFP responses and accuracies.
One last item – if you want to know what the process is for reviewing questions, responding and verifying them to be accurate for your RFP – ask the vendor.
Don’t be surprised if they have a workaround for it.
E-Learning 24/7
