Well, hello there. The Turkey Awards are an annual tradition on my blog. For those of you who haven’t had the opportunity to read last year’s awards, click now.

What makes the awards special is that they are completely independent and straightforward, from my honest perspective. Some vendors have blackballed me for listing them as Turkey of the year.

This is a great honor to those vendors. I want to thank your senior executive (reportedly, it went all the way up the food chain, but I never got a clear answer about who made that decision).  

For the other vendors, knowing that you read the blog, and the Turkey Award post makes my heartbeat ever so much more.

Award Icons

Here now are my turkey award icons (drumstick roll please)

Winner – Notice the Trophies in the back

Nominee – Running for the win

Category 1

Nominees are:

• Vendors who are telling prospects that their AI is 100% accurate. They note that they use a RAG, have guardrails, and in at least one case, it was built from scratch (not using commercial, nor open source such as Falcon)
• Vendors who state that because it is only the client’s content in the LLM, and nothing else, and their AI can search the content and go right to the area-text that someone asked in a question/answer it is 100% perfect. One vendor noted that not one of their clients has told them that the information was incorrect
• Clients who tell vendors that they do not want any text noting that AI may produce fake or false information

Category 2

Nominees are:

• An inherent flaw of AI are hallucinations – which is fake or false information. It is imperative that a client knows this, and that their learners know this – which can exist if the vendor places the text in the system, whether under every window the learner sees to ask information or elsewhere where a learner can see. Ditto on the admin side, when folks are creating content, etc. It should note that a person should always check/verify the information is correct, before accepting it.

Every vendor can do this. It does not require a lot of work, and the audacity that vendors ignore this is unbelievable. Just because a client knows (if they do) doesn’t mean the learner will know. It is a false premise.

• Because it is your content and only your content then the answer can go right to the text or information that the person asked about – ergo it is always correct, and AI is correct.

It’s not a matter of ‘100% false ‘. The reality is that AI can indeed hallucinate. The fact that it’s your content doesn’t guarantee its accuracy. AI doesn’t discern, ‘Oh, this is their content, so it will always be 100% correct.’ The implications of AI hallucinations are far-reaching and should not be underestimated.

Moreover, the notion that AI, particularly LLMs, is immune to producing fake or false information because it was built from scratch is a fallacy. Vendors who propagate this belief are simply wrong.

Finally, the statement that because nobody is telling us that it is incorrect, it must always be correct follows the mantra of “If-then,” which is false.

First, the learner may not tell the person overseeing the system. Why? They think it is correct.

If I don’t know, why would I contact someone?

The argument that they validated when building it is always correct OR that nobody is saying it is wrong (let’s give them the benefit of the doubt)—what happens when it is incorrect?

And the output of your own content – thus, isn’t accurate. Who is going to take responsibility for this?

I can guarantee you it won’t be the vendor.

It’s important to remember that AI is not immune to bias, even when dealing with user-generated content.

On a side note, if the client asks the vendor to remove the text, that client is not only wrong but also opening themselves up to potential ethical issues (what is the value statement again?) or an impact that will have repercussions down the road.
Will the vendor take responsibility for the client’s error?

Heck no.

Oh, the vendor is supposed to be the expert here rather than the client.

Who wants to get into legal issues – if this impact is a big failure?

Think that way.

Category 3

Back to AI – What are you talking about?

The Nominees are

• LLM agonistic – 100% false statement. Currently not doable. Yet there are vendors who say they are. Seriously, are you reading about AI or just winging it?
• Their authoring tool (I say content creator) for creating a course in AI is something you have never seen before. I have only seen one tool that applies to, and that vendor, created another which is the basic content creator using AI. The latter – which is the most common will output the worst content someone has ever seen. This is not designed to WOW your learners to come back over and over again (even if it is assigned).

Rather it is to publish quickly. Why don’t you skip that and just upload a Crayola cartoon book?

• Ungodly number of vendors who are using AI going with OpenAI.

This opens up these vendors to a “What if OpenAI shutters down?”

“What if OpenAI is no longer the leader (I’d argue they are not the leader in Generative AI)?

There are vendors who state they can easily swap out from say OpenAI to another LLM – but that shouldn’t be the driver here.

The landscape of LLMs is shifting, with open-source models rapidly catching up to their commercial counterparts.

To such an extent, some will argue they match them.

I believe that open source LLMs will by the end of 2025, surpass many commercial LLMs.

Finally, and thankfully, there are vendors who are leveraging the potential of Bedrock or similar MaaS (model as a service).

And the winner is LLM Agnostic. Not possible today. A year from now or two, who knows? AI is rapidly improving.

Category 4

Learning Tech Jargon – That nobody understands

The Nominees are

• Upload SCORM that appears on the admin side of a lot of vendors

That is the text – ignoring that the people on the admin side, may not be from L&D or Training. How will someone from marketing understand this? IT? You have to be kidding me. HR? What planet are you on? HRIS – which are increasingly getting the learning system or learning tech turned over to them, after L&D is gutted or the head of it, and the department itself is eliminated (this is a global problem).

A way to resolve this? Upload content – today most people upload videos, pdfs, and other. Sure, if they have a 3rd party authoring tool, they are creating a course in it – but I’m pretty confident that after “training” the vendor provides they will show them that content upload can be from their system.

One other important note – upload SCORM is vague. If I created a course using SCORM 2004 3rd edition, it will not work in a system that says SCORM.

There is no backward compatibility. Ditto if you purchase 3rd party published content – which you will connect to anyway – but an important fyi.

If the client has created content with AICC, it won’t work with SCORM from the standpoint of no tracking, and potential other issues.

Ditto on the reversal, in this case SCORM doesn’t work with AICC.

Lastly if the client created content and wrapped it with xAPI – where do they put that in your system if you list SCORM?

It is rare to find someone who actually knows what SCORM stands for. Remember that not everyone knows what you are talking about. Make it simple and universal.

• Calling your system something other than an LMS, learning platform, even LXP.

I get the latest, such as a Talent Development system/platform and sales enablement.

However, regarding the latter, SEP, nobody knows what that is unless those who are knowledgeable and are seeking a Sales Enablement Platform.

However, calling your system a bizarro things such as workforce development system, employee development system, or training management (and not knowing that it means that the heavy core is managing training from a scheduling and resource standpoint—no courses are in it).

When I searched for SEP on Bing, I was met with a barrage of financial SEPs, not a single Sales Enablement Platform in sight.

My disappointment continued when I searched for Sales Enablement Platforms on Bing, only to find that the results were not what I was looking for. The term’ Sales Enablement Platform’ seems to be used for everything but actual sales training platforms.

No worries, I bounced over to G2, which vendors rave about for showing the best.

The top listings were not sales enablement for training systems.

They included HubSpot Sales and a variety of others that were all over the map, including content management.

Hey, they have an AI bot—let’s ask G2’s AI bot which is the best for sales training. I’m expecting systems.

Only one was an actual system.

The others? Were selling sales training programs and an AI tool more suited to coaching with AI.

I also asked the bot, “What are the best systems for sales training?”
Guess what? I got the same list as before.

The point here is that saying SEP is jargon.

Saying Sales Enablement Platform goes all over the map.

Saying the Sales Training system isn’t any better.

I’m not a fan of saying “Sales Training System” because you get stuff that isn’t accurate.

Sales Enablement Platform and adding text for sales training and learning will aid.

Nothing is perfect here because any learning system can provide sales training.

After all, it is the content you create or buy to achieve that.

The quality?

That’s in your hands.

• EdTech – and you are in the corporate segment. Edtech means educational technology. Now, that word, educational should make it pretty clear, who is the target audience? It is education BTW. I taught at a university and was fully aware of what EdTech meant. Yet I see systems targeting the corporate market and only the corporate market, calling themselves EdTech. I saw it once at a trade show, with the words, “Best EdTech System.” The vendor was 100% focused on customer training.

The key item here is that a lot of people have no idea what EdTech means let alone what is educational technology. If you have to explain it, then that should be clue that you have an issue.

And the winner is SCORM. Congrats for the confusion. Who’s up for Tin Can or IEEE?

Category 5

Turkey of the Year Award – Learning Systems

This is the category a lot of people zero in on. Is it totally subjective? Absolutely – it is based on my viewing of the system(s). In the past, SuccessFactors was a multi-winner, but not this year. The folks there seem to have had an issue with my award. Which wasn’t a factor here and although I had to go through another channel to see the system – thank you my source – I still think the system is underwhelming – but safe – for this year.

The Nominees are

• Workday Learning – A past winner. Can they repeat? Their whole new AI thing is an utter joke. It goes not only in WL but elsewhere. The system has been in the past ignored at their yearly show. Not this year. I am befuddled on why anybody would buy this turkey. My guess is the pitch tied around you having other Workday modules, and thus the platform and it is easier to connect and work.

That should not be the reason.

Sell them on how great it is, not that staying within the WD family is easy.

However you land on this baby for your learning, there are far better systems for employees that work well with Workday.

If you’re considering using this system for external training, it’s important to note that it’s not designed for that purpose.

This is not the system that is focused on that segment.

I shouldn’t say shame on you; how is that extra yearly payment for such a wonderful system designed for internal audiences?

• Continu – They get a lot of buzz for their system, but what I saw wasn’t that enthralling, especially around a few areas

a. They have icons for their content, one of which is a camcorder. A camcorder for video.

They told me that nobody has told them that is a problem, and they can figure it out.

Uh, it is a camcorder for video. What’s next, a VCR?

b. Another icon was a lightning bolt.

I couldn’t figure out what it meant.

And I can’t recall what it was tied to.

Their statement that nobody has ever said anything about the icons doesn’t mean much.

Training 101 always uses icons to create a how-to guide or similar.

A light bulb means tip or something similar, a stop sign means stop, etc.

Plus, if you see a red stop sign without the words, you may be in another country, not know the language, and recognize it as stopping—even if people are not stopping.

c. They were the vendor who stated that because they built their own LLM, it is 100% accurate.

They added that this is due to them using the data that’s “definitely in the system.”

Remember that AI flaw?

It still applies here. Just because a system is built on data, it doesn’t mean it’s infallible.

There can still be errors and biases in the data that the AI learns from.

The fact that they are telling me it is 100% accurate is a concern because I wonder if they are telling prospects the same thing?

I should note that if a client removes all their content from the LLM due to fake or false information or concerns around it and adds new content and their data into the LLM, believing it will now be 100% correct, be aware that some remnants from your previous content will remain in the LLM.

Surprise!

• LinkedIn Learning – The system is more of a giant why – because the majority of buyers from what I can gather and from vendors who have LL content tell me – people are purchasing the content. I surmise if you are big enough, they might toss it in. I know this has happened with other systems where the content is the money maker – although if they can sell the system to you, why not? As folks know I am not a fan of LL content. Plus, for the longest time they had an issue with Workday capturing the data of the learner on the LL content, as in they couldn’t. Ooops.

I was going to add a vendor who continues to sell their system, even though the finances are beyond terrible, including an overseer to handle the finances. Once a wonderful system, today? An electrical board that your mom says, “do not play with it, and then you think about doing so.”

And the winner is Continu

They are really nice people, and I was really looking forward to seeing the system.

Thus, seeing what I saw, was an unbelievable disappointment. I thought about the movie the Poseidon Adventure or Earthquake starring the great George Kennedy.

The first was a classic, the second was like the remake of Twisters – the original was awful too.

Next time, I need to find my camcorder.

Because I sense a Twister is coming

for my video.

Until next year, Gobble, Gobble, Gobble!