LMS. LXP. Learning Platform. Talent Development Platform, all slide under the umbrella term of learning systems. Yet each one of them have similarities in terms of functionality they will need in 2024. Sure, TDPs may go X route, while the others go Y route, but in the general sense of it, there are capabilities that are ubiquitous to all kinds of learning systems. This creates the confusion; we all love and hate (and I include vendors who still think an LXP is only 3rd party content and a playlist).
The fact though remains that the majority of people in L&D and Training purchase a LMS. Now, you may have a Talent Development Platform, but a chunk of it, is really an LMS with additional flair that is in some cases pluses. The ditto of a learning platform, and even most of the “LXPs.” There are LXPs of course, that have minimal pieces of an LMS, but those pieces tend to be the usual standards, including the infamous assigned learning – and as I stress zillions of times, just because it is available in the system, doesn’t mean you have to use it.
For this post though, I am going to zero in on the LMS, LXP and Learning Platform side, and hold off from a TDP, albeit there are a few that based on my experience, could easily add these items – okay, not easily, but you get my drift.
That was Then..This is Now..2024 is Over There
Before diving into the functionality piece, there are two terms that need to be put to bed and replaced.
So long – Authoring tool
Hello – Content Creator
A term that is nowadays universally known, thanks to well, content creators in Tik Tok, Instagram and whatever else rumbles out where folks create content to uh, showcase and pitch products people should buy – what? Nobody else has noticed this is basically an informercial updated? Okay, well not for learning and training – that is – in the sense of well, informercial. And you get my point.
Thus, for the post I will refer to an authoring tool, as “content creator” – and will use the cc term going forward.
So Long – Saying “Analytics”
Hello to – Learning Intelligence
I thought quite a bit about this, especially as systems are either adding BI – Business Intelligence to their learning system OR as an integration or as an integral part. BI is not the same as LI, not even close. We are in the learning and training space -whether it is for your employees, customers, clients, partners, members, students and so forth. A BI tool was never designed to be used for training nor learning. That’s not it’s focus. Learning Intelligence though is all that wonderful metrics and data that you see on the back end (admin side) of your system. Through LI you should know your learning story. A BI tool can’t tell you that. KPIs works only for so many folks, and even a KPI doesn’t extract all the information you need to know to identify whether your learning for whatever audience is clearly achieving the results you expect – or ideally want.
Thus, it is of my opinion that vendors in the learning system space should use Learning Intelligence (LI) as the differentiation between BI, firstly, and secondarily, as the term of the data and metrics on the back end. As generative-AI advances, metrics and the data specifically, will be leveraged – in theory for the better – and LI only reinforces that premise. I mean learning intelligence is what drives your learning system – even without Gen-AI or machine learning, not a BI tool.
Hence, in the post for 2024, I will use learning intelligence to refer to the analytics that is used today as the general term in the industry.
Functionality 2024 – an Intro
Do you feel it? The thrill to come? The energy? It’s there, all around us. And for a LMS, LXP, LP and yes the TDP, the functionality presented below is a definite you want to add to your learning system. Some are very obvious, plenty more are not.
The issue I always have with vendors is the client impact to what they decide to include or not include. I am a fan of listening to your customers (clients as vendors refer to them as), but the customer doesn’t know everything that is possible, nor is even aware of it. And that is where it begins. The vendor listens to a lot of use cases, the use case points here, the client says we need this for the use case; the vendor in turn, hears it, then either acts on it, or listens to a lot or selected group of clients, and goes – well, they are all asking for X, therefore it is a must need. But how much should you really listen? Yes, there are things you can add to make your system stronger, but a client may not be aware of what is taking place out in the greater learning system landscape; nor aware of the variance options of LLMs, thinking that ChatGPT is only the one to use. A client isn’t necessarily going to know what metrics are really relevant, nor understand why views isn’t a metric of any benefit.
This is why you see systems that are zigging rather than zagging. Systems that seem like a doppelgänger. The functionality presented below is based on several factors
- What I am observing in the global learning landscape – I see a lot of learning systems, a lot. And globally I might add. Every time, I will see something that the light bulb in my brain turns on, and goes – yes, this makes 100% sense, so why isn’t everyone else doing it?
- Trends and Trends – Being an analyst requires you to take a look at trends – whether it is enterprise or not, employee development referred to today as talent development or not, customer training or not, member education, and then tied across the landscape or not.
- Use cases – what L&D, Training, HR and other departments/divisions, companies are seeking in their learning system. The majority of it is pretty obvious, although I always hear – “nobody offers that,” only to tell them, “yes, there are those who do.” Nevertheless, use cases is what drives the space from the buying perspective obviously.
- Technology – You need to have a pulse on the technology of what is doable today, and how it will benefit or not – learning and training. For the masses. Folks loved to rave about VR, but I never saw it as a foothold due to all the items that were needed for mass adoption -which are the same issues that plague XR. Who wants to buy 200 XR headsets for $1,500 a piece, while we are gutting the L&D department? Anyway, technology plays an essential and key role in our industry – and has from the early days of the internet and a modem – with the start of online learning aka e-learning (the original and still main term).
- Data. Lots of data. I love metrics, and data and what data can tell you. Data drives business. It drives your learning. Always. And it can provide you with a wealth of insight, if you are able to take a look at that data, extract it, and say okay it means this, and not that.
Functionality 2024 – Details, please!
- Generative-AI – A no-brainer really. The big question, what LLM will the vendor have in their system? Will it be GPT-Model (it is the overwhelmingly favorite with vendors today – ChatGPT is the prominent one -because it is free, GPT-Plus (formally known as GPT-4) is fee-based and can get expensive. Some are using Azure Gen-AI (which is really a chunk of GPT Model from Open AI). I do hope vendors look at other LLMs, such as Cohere, or Claude2, or the monster that will roll out, Gemini from Google. So many options. Anyway, for those that have it now, it is really an answer engine, whereas your learner asks questions, and the system responds – err the Chatbot – you can even see a retort with your content title, and in some cases, you click, and it shows up. There are vendors who are using the GPT model to create a learning pathway, whereas you add your assets; and your content creator tool generates an entire course – all text. Yuck. A few can allow you to add images, even video links. Still, a huge yuck. With DALL-E-3 (rolling out soon) and advanced data analysis (available now) – which are free plugins, there will be better opportunities to really punch it up and make it rock – but it is available only if the vendor has GPT-Plus (and whatever comes after it). The latest to be released for Chat-Plus and Enterprise ChatGPT (company) will be the ability to see, hear and speak – again big win, but not in the freebie version.
- Bundled options – I’m a big fan of everything is included and if you don’t want it, you can have the vendor turn it off, or you can in some cases. The exception would be like performance management which should be an add-on. Why pay more for a content creator tool – when you will (okay, not instructional designers) want to use it?
- Learner side for content creation. Why limit it to only your admin side?
- Learner side reports – It is a page within the learner view. The admin decides what they can see. Think some analytics here. Learning intelligence shouldn’t be a one-way street. I’ve seen the leaderboard thing, but trust me, if I am in the bottom, this won’t motivate me. If I am not a A-Personality, this won’t motivate me to take more content. I truly believe that as Gen-AI improves – of course it depends on what LLM the vendor is using, metrics will be huge – and a big win. It can change so much.
- Learners can move around their playlists on the screen – via the admin selecting this option. I see this option, but it is limited to the admin selecting the screen playlist view and where they go. Why can’t the learner do this – since they are the ones seeing it? There are a few vendors who offer it, I think it should be widespread.
Admin Side
- Learning intelligence that aligns to your use cases. There are a few vendors that totally get this, but it is still a need. I saw a vendor heavily focused on customer training – yet their main analytical data point, was completion. Why? Completion should not be a key data point. What should? What content is not popular (filters). What content is popular. Usage data that drills down for example, is very useful across the board. Another system I saw, that plays in customer training and L&D (employees), listed the popluar and unpopular. It made perfect sense. If you are selling content, wouldn’t you want to know your revenue numbers? Wouldn’t you want to know projections of the content, and think about this – with gen AI, wouldn’t you want a stronger learning financial data? Well, the last point isn’t going to be here, until say 2025, unless a vendor finds the right LLM. However, when it comes to metrics, learning intelligence is the key, not BI, nor views – which tells you nothing.
- Connections/Integrations – You need them as a buyer, the system needs it for various use cases, regardless of size.
- Stronger skills data – what skills are they selecting, what skills are tied to the content – and usage, duration, and trend lines. More vendors are adding skill mapping as a component of the system, which you can expect to see a continuation. Metric wise around it? Needs to happen.
- Streamlined. Find it, and utilize it.
- Gen-AI in some form. It will be there, how useful is another question. Personally, a learning pathway based on a skill or topic, isn’t that impressive. Especially when these Gen-AI is not infallible, so you still need to verify.
Bottom Line
From a vendor perspective when it comes to pricing – expect to see a lot more of “active users” per month; “monthly active users,” in your discussions with vendors and proposals. Here is the key point to remember – if they are billing you upfront – annual how do they really know how many active users per month are using the system? What they will always want to know, is total user base (active for sure, but hey, if inactive after three months, they still slide in here). There is one exception – vendors who invoice monthly for active users – they and only them, will know the usage counts, and price accordingly. Anyway, the active user model plays well.
I wish more vendors would go to the invoice per month model, especially for customer training, training organizations, and training consultants.
By doing that,
They are truly moving forward.
Not backwards.
E-Learning 24/7
