This quarterly addition focuses on the reskilling vs skilling question, educational institutions and e-learning, what to look for in a consultant when seeking learning technology and/or learning systems; and what I see as relevant when looking at a learning system.
Q: I read that you are a proponent of the idea of reskilling over upskilling. Why is that?
A: I believe that the premise of focusing on upskilling in employee development in 2024 and moving forward is the wrong approach. AI is here. It’s at a very early stage, and you can read articles that say, more jobs will be created, and other articles that say a lot of jobs will be lost. What I see are folks that eye the more jobs and ignore the implications of lost jobs. What are the articles really are saying is that yes, more new jobs will be created – but based on new job roles within the company. Think about that.
New job roles – not current job role, nor job enhancements, but new roles. The articles never say, this or that job role will always be around. Nor do they say it makes sense to current job role training for that current job role. The second side of the house is the job loss’s part. What this is really saying is that the existing job role – will be eliminated or not needed because of AI.
If you know that your role is in the higher percentile of probability of being eliminated due to AI – assuming you are reading these articles (and there continue to be published), then the person overseeing HR should be as well. And they aren’t.
Ditto on the people overseeing L&D (the most common group for employees training/learning). Yes, there are people leading L&D that are aware, but what I find to my amazement are folks who are not paying attention – at least from the standpoint of “we need to recognize these new roles and start preparing to provide learning around these new roles (as the start to appear).”
I find this the same with HR. If you are hiring someone to be in marketing, let’s say marketing strategy, I’d want to be aware of what AI could impact, replicate or eliminate within that role. There are indications at least today, that identify some of them. If you are hiring someone for content marketing, I’d ask, “What skills would they need to adopt to have that role in say two years from now?”
With AI today, do you need someone whose role is solely content marketing? Generative AI is solid in that area (but as with any AI you need a human element to review the information before publishing it). It will continue to strengthen – depending on what LLM you are using or LLMs for that matter.
There are already jobs that have been impacted and are being eliminated – replaced by AI. So, why is someone overseeing L&D or HR, ignoring this? I mean yes, you are not going to recruit for that job (assuming you were told that is no longer a needed role), but what about L&D?
We (as a whole in L&D and HR who are actively involved with job skills – and why I must ask, but that is for another day – I wasn’t aware anyone in HR has a background in OD and knowledge and skills for learning), ignoring the warning signs.
Upskilling only works if that job role, that job will be around say in a year or two. The investment – outlay of costs to train that person, is high – hence the ROI argument (which honestly is a load of beans that comes from the exec team).
I look at the McDonald’s scenario – as a perfect example. There are McDonald’s out there, who have replaced the people taking your order, and even your money, and replaced them with full automation.
Equally there are McDonald’s out there who no longer have a person taking that order, they have been replaced by AI. That role is gone.
And it tells me, that strategically, that certain roles in their franchises will no longer be needed. They can point to a lot of reasons on why, but it comes down to cost. They know that role is going to be eliminated at some point.
Thus, to me, it wouldn’t make sense to hire someone, who will be upskilled on how to take orders and handle service, when that role will no longer be available.
As someone overseeing L&D what you should be doing, either right now, or adding into your strategy is what roles will be eliminated; what new roles will be needed; and how you can reskill the people who are talent at your company/organization, etc. to fulfill those new roles. Reskill must be the goal.
Thus, learn new skills – that are not necessarily tied to a job role that are in the high percentage of no longer needed (say within two years). We ignore the learning of new skills – the essentials for business – that are not tied solely to a job role. Somewhere along the way, a lot of people in L&D, and those in HR who are overseeing learning/training; forgot that.
That has to be part of the equation – learn new skills for across the board (not tied to a specific existing role, that you know or should be aware of, won’t be there), and reskill (think re-train) for those new roles.
Q: We are starting the process of finding an LMS to replace our current system. The challenge we have is that we do not know what to look for or how to go about the steps of doing so. Our company has told us to hire someone or a firm to handle this. Is this the right way to go or should we explore other options?
A: I see this a lot. Not just from folks replacing a system, but also those totally new to e-learning and needing a learning system (regardless of the type). The latter I think surprises a lot of vendors, because they wrongly assume that everyone already has some type of learning system.
Part of the challenge here on why people who have a learning system and needs to replace it – from the standpoint on seeking a 3rd party to oversee the process, comes down to a few factors: they do not have the time to do so; they do not know all the ins and outs of finding the right and best system for them – either due to lack of knowledge or insight or just experience; they are having to oversee the process because L&D has been eliminate; or they are in HR and are told they need to do this. And yes, it can be a combination of things.
On the first-time side, there are a lot of reasons – again, time, lack of knowledge/expertise/experience, a department that is not or does not a background in L&D or Training – for example, Marketing and similar ilk, or a combination of a lot of other factors.
What I see nowadays beyond the re-organization angle, are folks who need not just to find a system but need help with their strategy of e-learning. A double whammy as I say. Because you need the strategy piece first, before running to find a system.
I’m going to first do a shameless plug – apologies here – but I now offer a service, where I will help you, develop an e-learning strategy whether you need it to include AI or not; and will find you the best/right learning system (whether it is an LMS, LXP, a combo, Learning Platform). If you are interested, contact me here.
Okay, shameless plug is finished. Back to other options.
- Find someone or a company or a firm with extensive knowledge and experience – the need requirement here in the e-learning industry – especially those who have a background of actually doing both (whether it was at a company they worked at, etc.,.). I see people select consultants whose sole experience is that their firm previously did this work and thus, you should hire them, because they have that knowledge and experience. Doesn’t mean the trenches of at a place for example, overseeing L&D or Training (and thus lack that aspect). It can go either good or bad as the outcome. Some consultants are very good or good at what they do, others not so much – but they can sell you at the idea they can. Remember everyone is going to have clients, including big names – but it doesn’t mean they were masters of the knowledge (say from the early days). It reminds me of buying a system, whereas you see the big names and think, “This system must be great because they have ABCDS as a client.” To me, it means nothing. And it should mean nothing to you. Everyone has big names, otherwise they wouldn’t be in business. Ditto on the consultant side.
- I wouldn’t use an HR firm to find a system or help with e-learning strategy or both. Even if you are in HR, these folks IMO are not the experts to go with around e-learning, which uh, is relevant here. If they can’t explain to you what WBT is, why it was created, nor why an LMS was created (and it had nothing to do with compliance, nor is it solely used for management of learning – a serious misnomer), then don’t go. I mean, let’s say you are looking for an HRIS platform. Who would you consider? It wouldn’t be a training or L&D firm that’s for sure. Ditto on a recruiting platform.
- Budget clearly plays a role here for many folks, but this isn’t a time to pick someone because they bid the lowest. Focus on expertise – experience, knowledge of the industry, beyond the key or near key players; and ideally whether or not they have been in the trenches (i.e. working at a company, or business or whatever) in e-learning. I mean, you are about to invest in a big budget line item, nor a few pencils (do people still use them?).
What I find as a concern are the consultants who use FindAnLMS (I thank them for doing so), and that is their level of diving deep into the market. Ditto on the people who are consultants who ask me what they think they should buy. I mean, you have been hired to find a system, at least spend some serious time beyond just leveraging a directory or talking to an expert as the driver here.
I have seen folks walk around trade shows talk to vendors (and these folks have been hired by someone to find a system) and listened to their questions. It is so obvious they have no idea and are just pulling questions from the net or what they have heard. And I feel bad for whomever hired them.
I really do.
Q: Our professor told us to learn about online learning and what systems are out, for business and education, there for an assignment. I wonder if this is something you have seen before?
A: Yes. I have seen a big increase in this, and I think it is great. I really have seen it take off, post-pandemic. First and foremost, the e-learning industry has grown leaps and bounds in just the last five years. With that, they systems have to, regardless of how long the vendor has been around.
I do get inquiries from students, seeking time or asking if they can send me a couple of questions for an assignment (sometimes, a few, is like 20). I see students going into FindAnLMS and checking out systems, which is quite cool. In the last two years, the University of Washington – students from there, are using FindAnLMS as a resource, clearly for an assignment or something like that. HIIT out of Israel, a university, uses it a lot (and for years, even post-pandemic). Dr. Eran Gal has a program around e-learning. I wish so many other universities/colleges would follow suit. BTW, If you are a student at HIIT, Dr. Eran Gal is a brilliant person to know and gain insight, actually even if you are a company in Israel. And yes, a good friend.
I’ve even seen doctoral students focusing on e-learning or learning technology. I love that. Heck, when I was working on a doctorate, back in the late 90’s, my area of focus was around e-learning, and how colleges and universities that were not well-known, could attract students ito go to the university, take courses and thus boost revenue (sorry students to burst your bubble, but at the end of the day, a university/college needs revenue – so think of yourself as a financial number – you are welcome!).
If a university or college would ask me to teach a course around e-learning including learning technology, heck e-learning with AI, I’d seriously consider it. I think any expert out there should share what they know, and if they are a good teacher, heck, it is a no-brainer. This industry needs more universities and colleges to leverage these folks.
Our industry needs people with new ideas and perspectives. College students can be, and need to be – but it only works if they have the knowledge (there is that word again) to do so.
Ditto on mentoring BTW. Another under-tapped program for students to gain knowledge.
Q: When you look at a learning system, what are the most important areas that are relevant to you, and therefore anyone should identify?
A: From an analyst standpoint, I focus on five main areas – a few that you won’t necessarily see:
- Support – It is either good, average or bad. What a lot of people do not know, is really the level of it, behind the scenes. I never take a vendor’s word for it – nobody is going to say, their support is awful. I know vendors’ whose support is just not good. Even those, who really don’t care – because they know it is bad, and it isn’t an essential (which makes no sense). Vendors love to talk about an NPS (who cares) – but they never like to tell you how many distractors they have (a key piece of info to share). The high return of clients – always presented, is great for marketing, but I have no idea on whether they are staying because they do not want to search – it is time consuming, or they have to, or the vendor gave them a discount to stay, etc. BTW, a vendor should have more than one metric, but that is another story. You really have to dig into the weeds here to get an idea of their level of support. I will ask if I can see the metrics they generate for their support. And they all have this – any vendor who says they are not tracking this – are either lying (I’ll be blunt here), or really don’t and that should be a huge red flag. I will sometimes get the “we can’t share that information,” which is a concern. If you want me to buy, let me see it. I’ll sign an NDA – send it over!
- UI/UX – This is huge. When was the last time it was updated? Don’t assume that the update is across the board. I’ve seen the learner side, and the ignoring on the admin side, or big on learner side, and a tweak or two on the admin side. There are a lot of great systems out there, even ones that are not on your radar, whose only fault is they need to update their UI/UX. For the most part, they know this and are working on it (not yet live). But yes, I’ve seen ones that see their UI/UX as fine. Oh, don’t assume that the newest system out there is going to have a better UI/UX and functionality for that matter than say someone who has been around for more than a decade. It is a false premise.
- Functionality – I want to go beyond what they point out or I see. I ask a lot of questions, really dig into it. And I will go off-script, and yes, be blunt. I don’t have time for spin. Spin bores me. And I do get plenty of spin.
- Strategy – What do they see as the key areas they need to focus on – in the current year, and coming year (the next year). I get bemused on the number of vendors who just don’t get it. They don’t see what is clearly waving at them – “You must do this,” because they are so focused on what clients have told them. Don’t use your clients as your strategy. If you do, then why are you in business? Let them run it. Oh, wait, they may already be doing it.
- Speaking of clients – how big of an impact are they in your strategy for the coming year. I have heard numbers like 50% or even 70% and the vendor thinks this is a great idea. YOWSA. That’s a horrible idea. It should never be more than 10%. If it is higher than that, as my dad would often say in business, “If I can do it, what do I need you for?” – a valid point. Oh, this is a question people should ask – and be aware that if the number is higher than 10%, be concerned. I usually find that the vendors that follow the mantra of more than 10% are listening to those who are either large size – by user base, or those that reach out (and a lot will never do), or those that use the system a lot. I’d focus on those who don’t, and a swarth of clients you have. Plus, uh, I don’t know – be the expert yourselves? That would be a great idea, don’t you think?
I will tell you what I find annoying when vendors want to show me their system, because I will make it very clear in an e-mail what I don’t want to see – and a lot of vendors ignore that. I think there are other analysts who will agree with me on the following:
- Your presentation. I see a lot of these, and I always tell them in an e-mail, to send it to me ahead of time, I will read it, and if I have any questions follow up. Then those who ignore that (and at least 90% do), start their discussion, pulling out the PowerPoint – and again, I tell them, no need to do it – just send it to me, and blah blah blah. With that, I see less than maybe 10% who ever send it. I love when they say, it’s confidential we can’t do it, but uh, you are willing to show it to me? That is, as Spock would say, “illogical.”
- Case studies – I don’t care. Case studies are marketing materials – great for a vendor to show or send to a prospect, but from an analyst standpoint, not relevant. It won’t be a deciding factor on whether I am enamored with your system or not. I expect a vendor would have case studies – nice marketing spin and potential selling point – just remember they aren’t going to send you any case study or info around someone who dislikes them. It’s love all around!
- List of clients – I always ask is the vendor the only one in the company (many have no response to that, and yes, how is that possible?) And what department they are in, or departments (they should know this – surprise, many can’t answer that – oh, and I never see the answer when I ask for it). I love the “we are very transparent with prospects.” Which I commend them on, but transparency means you tell me, while I am looking at the list, not me having to ask you.
I equally find it annoying when they say you can ask them a question at any time during the showing of the system, and when you do, they ignore you. Thanks!
Bottom Line
There you go. A nice mailbag of questions from readers, just like you – okay maybe not exactly like you, but you get the idea.
E-Learning 24/7
