Chris Taylor. Chris plays for the Los Angeles Dodgers, my favorite baseball team (MLB). You might have someone similar who plays for your favorite soccer team (there are sites, that mention the worst), or cricket, or hockey or football, or tidily winks.
Chris was once a good player. That was about two years ago. Nowadays he is awful. Batting a whopping .093 (as of June 7th). To give you an idea on how bad that is, it would be like your favorite soccer player, a striker, who every time he gets the ball, you cringe. He misses the goal opportunities. He kicks the ball out of bounds. He stinks. You want to replace him. You scream at the TV, or radio or even at the game.
Chris Taylor. Every time I see him in a game, as a starter, I think to myself, “why?”. Does his manager not realize how bad he is? His last two games, he got on base, by a bad bunt, and a missed throw from the pitcher to the first baseman. Next, game, a missed tag as he was running to first base. And he gets walks. His glove isn’t much better. The other day, a ball was hit to him (he was playing 3rd base), and rather than diving for the ball (as a 3B would do), he watched it go by him. I cringed. I screamed. I texted friends asking why is this guy still playing?
I know you are wondering what this has to do with my LMS, LXP, Learning Platform, Employee Development platform, or other type of learning system. I’m glad you asked.
Right now, if you have any type of learning system there is probability that one feature, UI/UX design, capabilities, administration, reporting, metrics or something else that is a failure. Are there vendors where this isn’t a failure? Sure, but remember no system is perfect. This is often due to a missing feature or capability or unaware of the challenges that do exist.
Nevertheless, I see them all the time with various EdTech (K-12, Higher Education) systems, corporate focused, government, open source (yowsa, talk about failures), association focused, non-profit focused and the list goes on. I see them in learning systems from well-known brands, lesser-known brands, and in the middle – not well-known, not lesser known, but just existing.
For those who have at least one failure, I look upon them, and wonder, doesn’t anyone besides me notice this? If they do, why are they ignoring it? Why is there a Chris Taylor persona in their system? Worse, if that is even possible, with my buddy CT3 (yes, that’s his nickname, and no – I have zero clue why), the person running the product team, thinking “this is great”? Ignorance they say is bliss. With what I see with quite a few systems, it isn’t bliss – it’s trash. Okay, that is probably too harsh of a word – so you decide the wordage. One could argue, “Well, they can’t do everything, they do not have the budget for this.” They could stipulate, “We have other things to work on, and nobody is complaining (I hear this a lot), so we do not see a problem.”
Just because your current clients aren’t complaining or stating this is bad, you are in the business of landing new clients. Ask yourself, how many have said something to you, about why your system won’t be ideal for them? Have they ever mentioned one of those failures above? There are cases where people are nice, and just say it isn’t a fit. There are others, who say nothing – but then when they get back to the office (remote or on-site) or see others who mention that system as a possibility, will bring up what they saw – including the yuckiness, and move on. It’s the same as me texting or you are telling someone “King Kong, on Man City, is yucky.”
Failures – Mention names?
With my warm and fuzzy personality (I never was a blue in those personality assessments using colors – I was green), I will not mention those names. Okay, maybe a couple, only because I have noted them in the past, or because sharing is my treat to you. Always remember this is just my opinion. You could be using the system today, and thinking, “This is great. I can’t see why he is picking on them.” Or you could say to yourself, “You know he is right. This is milk, outdated, and comes out as an awful cottage cheese.” Worse, you may have had a drink of it, because you were too busy texting a friend.
Systems that have a failure – which baffles why it is still there
Look there are vendors where the failure is recent, and thus the “they are unaware, until now” is fair. My main focus though is with vendors where the failure isn’t new, it’s been around at least a couple of years.
- SAP SuccessFactors – The other day, I was talking to a person running L&D, who is now working at a company, that is using SF. They mentioned how awful it is, and they wished they could leave and buy another system. I’ve equally heard people working at a subsidiary of a company, who is using SF for learning, and the subsidiary is forced to use it, even though they want another system.
SF, a long time ago (okay many moons) acquired Plateau, which honestly, was one of the worst UI/UX systems out there – but it was quite popular. SuccessFactors took that baby, revamped it, and when I saw it, I was impressed.
SAP SuccessFactors is long in the tooth. The front UI is boring. I’ve seen that look – design wise. Okay, the entire system’s UI/UX is dated and brutal. Where is the innovation? The analytics for a company owned by SAP (who makes a lot of $$$$) should have a rocking UI/UX and metrics to show for it. What’s funny – is that SuccessFactors learning is a cash cow. It was one reason, why they pushed it for large enterprise over Litmos (when they were under the SAP window) – even though Litmos had/has large enterprise clients. Yes, SAP SF is a HCM for all intent purposes, and SAP is using Lucy.ai – to what level I am still trying to extract. I know SuccessFactors is going to disagree with my perspective. I can live with that. But anyone who sees the UI/UX cannot in good conscience think – they nailed it!
- Wisetail – Very nice folks but another system whose UI/UX isn’t good. The whole statement they have an LXP in their system is not accurate. They had a couple of items; they also were missing quite a bit – just like Taylor who can’t seem to hit a baseball. Yes, they have big name clients – and hey, I am happy for you – but to me, the UI/UX isn’t good.
- Litmos – The back end is a bit long in the tooth as well. While they are adding new functionality, the equally have stated that they are going to do a revamp of the UI of the system. I respect recognizing that you have a problem. The metrics side – seriously, how could a system that when they rolled out was cutting edge and unique, turn into, well what it is today? According to a few folks at Litmos, the SAP ownership wasn’t good. The R&D investment really wasn’t there – hence the current challenges. They are owned now by another entity. Maybe they can turn it around, maybe not. The UI/UX is the first step.
Other failures – Isn’t anyone paying attention?
- Repeat. Wash Cycle. Repeat – The front end with the playlists – recommend, suggested, tied to your skills, job role, preferred. I do not personally have an issue with the playlist angle – my problem is that it is so dated. Where is the UI/UX wow factor? You could take a look at 30 learning systems, and at least 20 have the same design with how it appears. Some are static – which means you can’t move one playlist up or down – as the learner themselves. Others, the admin can do it by group, or entire system. Ho-hum. The first whereas the learner can do it – should be the #1 here – you pitch personalized – that is pretty personalized. I see the UI/UX on the front end with the playlists on mobile apps that appear far better. The content streams better, looks better in appearance.
- Tear down the wallpaper. Why do bar charts still reign? Worse them and pie charts often have lots of tiny text squished together on the X and Y-lines. If you hover over the specific chart bar, sometimes you can see one data point. If you are going to stay with wallpaper from the late 90s (I was referring to 1890 – I kid), at least have it so that if I click that specific bar or pie slice it opens up another window for more details or say detailed tied solely to that one point. Vendors will retort that this is doable via a report. Fantastic, but I am not asking for it in a report, I’m asking for it visually on the screen whereas I can further ascertain what it all means. It’s called learning intelligence. Not learn by numbers or is that paint by numbers? I always forget.
- Stoic Profiles – Is it just me or do we really need to know what department blah blah works in at the company, or their specific department or role? Why not add some interesting information – like interests, or level of expertise on some specific skill – which I see more and more, but even then, it is from my perspective – the person on the profile. I’d rather see interests – not just work related, but general. Add a mini calendar – that people can schedule times – if that profile person is defined as an expert or a coach or a mentor and offers folks the ability to see what time – sessions are available or when that person will meet provide a group session or something like that? Go beyond what is the same, same, same, every time. And leave the department to someone who still enjoys reading the yellow pages – the huge book. Uhh for you youngsters you can find them in a library – a building that houses these things called books, among other items. Dewey!
- Fun – Fun – and engaging. Wait, Engaging? Attempting to tap into what is popular with audiences across the board in the consumer world? Yes, Tik Tok for now, Instagram still, FB for a few, LinkedIn, well you get my point. A lot of the world uses WhatsApp as their primary for calls, communicating – so why do I rarely see it as a way to connect via the learning system? Go on a site – heck even mine, and you will see under “Contact us” the green WhatsApp logo. I know of only a few vendors whereas you can send content with the WhatsApp option.
- Systems at the university level and definitely corporate world – are museums – tread carefully, look the brand, be the brand (even if it is internal only). And you expect people to want and stay in the system, and do other things, then jump in, take their assigned course and leave? Oh, we will have VILT in there – see, they are staying! Ask yourself, would you want to stay around in the system – and try out different things? Be honest, and not based on you buying this and pitching it to others. I love that vendors add labs or as Pluralsight calls it, “Playgrounds”. Brilliant – you gain access to the playground to practice, whether it is tech skills (in their case) or could be any skill (not just tech in your playground) and so on. Even the terminology – playground elicits something far better and endearing I believe, than “sim”.
Bottom Line
Chris Taylor has a strong possibility of actually achieving near perfection. Since he did actually have a hit at some point this year, true perfection of .000 (which is similar to zero) isn’t attainable. Rats. Nevertheless, he can work towards that dream, so many of us Dodger fans want – ideally on another team.
You as the vendor can understand it is not about who you already have using your system, but about getting new people, and even within the company to look objectively and differently and say, “Hey, why not this?” OR “Sure, we haven’t done it before, and yes, no one has asked for it, but nobody asked for the Eiffel Tower, or Mt. Rushmore, or the Great Wall of China, or amazing art, architecture, plays, even a small playground near your home.”
They say we can learn from our failures. I believe that wholeheartedly.
For vendors here is that chance. Learn from what is not working, not because you heard it from someone else, but you, yourself can see it.
And if that is something you are not comfortable with doing,
Contact our friend, Chris Taylor or one of the 50 worst soccer players (according to that site above).
They are probably comfortable helping you.
Especially since one can’t hit a baseball, and the others?
Can’t play soccer.
E-Learning 24/7