Read any article on the internet today, and you will usually see “summary” at the beginning.
I often see this as a quick take, and whether its objective is to have you read the article or just bypass it, it doesn’t inspire.
Rather, it taps into AI, and as a result, can be ignorant of what the writer is trying to say.
As everyone knows, I am a big fan of AI.
However, many systems repeatedly emphasize AI without clearly defining objectives that benefit learning for all audiences—white-collar, blue-collar, deskless, frontline, and even customers and partners.
If you are the former—L&D professionals, consider how AI influences your field: adapt, modify, replicate, enhance.
If you are training, it’s similar. With perhaps a twist depending on the audience.
Done correctly, it can inspire.
Done poorly, it validates the push towards the perception of innovation, even in the face of a negative reality, but hype is achieved.
What really surprises me – to a degree – is how many vendors are applying AI to skills without considering the potential ramifications – i.e., that AI can output errors and mistakes.
Think about that for a second.
Your learner’s mapped skills recommendations could be wrong.
Ditto on the content that is recommended by the AI tied to those skills.
Enough of Skills – We get it
Skills aren’t innovative; they are a necessity for selling a system to any audience, because “skills are essential for growth and development of the employee, at our company.”
Whippee-do.
Skills are not new – heck, it was tapped into back in 2000 without having to say skills – you, yes, you – okay, maybe not you specifically – could and would use a learning system – LMS or LCMS in those days for skill gaps.
Learning with ILT fails IMO to identify those skill gaps – unless it is technical training with a max of eight people.
But, this post isn’t focused on AI (I brought it up early as to where we are today, with the push), nor around ILT – albeit there can be areas for those who use it as though they can’t pull away, even if there is data showing that e-learning can be as effective, if not more so, than ILT.
Are you listening, universities?
Anyway, getting back to the learning systems, the innovation of approaches to skills isn’t there.
If it wasn’t for AI, the skills piece would be languishing – a bygone era, whereas skills – upskilling as the core – is innovative.
Yeah, right.
Change the narrative around skills.
Give me some scenario-based learning practice areas for the skills piece. Real-life, real-world.
Back in the days of Flash, this was easily achievable without a video head, and you could pick the questions the human head asks or the responses with a click.
How fun is that?
And are you truly applying to what you learned or should be learning – after all, comprehension and retention, let alone synthesis, don’t happen in one setting.
Despite the raves from companies talking about how high their rates of completion are, as if they are all driving around a race track and crossing the finish line.
The basic rule of learning and training when it comes to e-learning is to get people to stay in the system, beyond the “go in, take the course, and leave.”
That is the reality. It’s not new; it’s not tied to a system, i.e., LMS vs. a brand-new learning platform.
It’s how learners think when using a system.
Assigned learning doesn’t help, nor the idea of only compliance – no wonder you see high completion rates – they have to complete it.
When you think of tying skills to recommended content, and it is all assigned, you can easily do the math and see the irrelevance of said skills.
With SBL – as I’ve written before, it changes the whole experience.
Learning should be about experiences (ditto on training).
Yet, with skills, it isn’t.
Take a look at your current system and ask yourself whether there is innovation in skills that isn’t tied to AI?
Has your vendor done something that really goes yowsa – and don’t consider them adding smiley faces to the skill ratings, let alone having skill ratings.
To me, a skill analysis is innovative. It breaks in a positive way – a methodology that shows strengths and weaknesses, and if done correctly, could place the person into a series of content (which exists today), then the applicable SBL.
The SBL becomes building blocks – and thus skills application isn’t just an idea, it is a beginning.
I can’t tell you how many systems have a big F when it comes to the whole package here.
Yes, you can do it with AI – albeit nobody is doing the entire package, which is odd, since it is logical and, as they say, applicable.
Could you tap into immersive learning here?
Yes, but you really need those headsets – and sorry, using a mobile device without a headset to show off immersive learning isn’t truly immersive.
That is like saying I can see the ocean, and feel the experience – and then get into a glass-bottom boat and think “yeah, I am getting the immersive experience.”
Building Blocks
Speaking of building blocks, this could be an innovative approach to learning and training for all audiences.
I get the whole “there is no such thing as learning styles,” but as someone who ran training in multiple verticals and audiences, I respectfully disagree.
It changes – as you do, and adapts – as any human will do in any situation.
I have seen just a handful of systems that output (pre-AI) the learner’s preference of knowledge delivery mechanism.
Maybe it is short videos.
Maybe it is an e-book, a podcast, or audio files.
AI can streamline preference identification, but it still needs a human loop for validation.
Rather, by leveraging metrics and data, anyone – on the admin side, and honestly the person running L&D or Training or whatever department, learning/training slides under – to see the preferences.
How many systems, though, capture that data?
Well, a lot do – but you will never see it, because it isn’t part of the buy of the system.
You would be surprised how much data your system captures, that you, again, not the learner, won’t see.
Zeroing back, though, to the data output, you can see, let’s say sans AI, your cornerstone is right there waving at you.
There are too many companies that train their retail staff using online PDF guides, and they think this works.
Hint – it doesn’t, which is why WBT, let alone CBT, outpaced it.
Next time you attend a seminar and take notes, let me know how much you read it once you get back to your location and work.
Oh, and how often you do so.
OJT is still in the debatable mode in terms of long-term success, let alone short-term, if you work in hospitality (inc. retail) with high turnover rates.
What can your system then provide to help reduce those high rates?
What are you missing?
And if you say, “We are missing personal and professional dev content,” perhaps find out why your system doesn’t offer it via a 3rd party off-the-shelf provider.
Innovation is crucial here, and limiting 3rd-party content, if you have it, goes a long way.
Better than having zero, but is there something in your system to get folks to want to go in, over and over again?
Gamified Learning
It can be innovative – if you go beyond badges, leaderboards, and points.
A store is always a winner – turning points into swag or items that folks want.
Sims today are as popular as they were in the early days of “The Sims”.
Why isn’t something like a sim – where your learners have to apply those tasks – to grow and prosper, not in a system?
This is different from the SBL lab; this is seriously like one of those Sims that people love.
Minecraft isn’t exactly state-of-the-art, so why isn’t something like that, or at least an attempt at it, missing in a system?
Crosswords, “Wheel of Fortune,” “Jeopardy,” and similar ilk are old school.
I never cared for it, as a gaming experience, and I can guarantee you that most of your learners in the 21-35 category would have zero idea of the Jeporady “game”.
If you go with gamified learning, you need usage metrics.
I have seen vendors with a “golf game” as though this empowers learning.
I’m not seeing it.
So I get to play putt, putt.
Here are key ways you can drive innovation:
a. Recognize that blue-collar and even white-collar folks may not be able to attend college due to cost.
How can you CHANGE that? How can you tap into that in your system to keep folks coming back?
How can the system incorporate that, without you having to drop a dime – i.e., the learner to do so. How can you, as the client, convey that you truly care about your employees, customers, and members?
The other day, I got an email from Brandeis University (online), the head of professional development.
Immediately, I thought to myself, this could be beneficial to both sides of the house: one for learners and the vendor (i.e., the learning system), the other for the college.
Maybe you test out (no pun here) the offer to get a degree at a lower price point (I have no idea how Brandeis charges, but there are plenty of universities that, with the right partnership, can make it work – even community colleges).
If you want to offer or target apprecentiships, then what are you missing in your system, that will benefit them?
This can motivate someone.
I’m a big believer in executive education certificates – because people love to place them on their LinkedIn profile, ignoring that it was an EE program.
I am still stunned by how many vendors just ignore this.
Yet, I suspect many themselves go through an EE program for that certificate.
If there is a company or university that offers an AI certificate, I’d think you would definitely see a jump in usage of your system, plus capture essential data that benefits your company, business, etc.
AI on demand with a program that pushes out a certificate, and not one from LinkedIn, is very valuable.
The development of Agentic Agents will be big in the coming years.
Why then are you not giving folks at your company who are interested in working on this the opportunity?
Why, as a vendor, are you ignoring this – leaving it to the customer to find it?
Why are you, as a vendor, not capturing the usefulness of this data or any data tied to certificates, beyond the standard fare of “X got a certificate in Y”
And hey, you can customize it, print it out, or send it as a PDF.
That is not innovation.
That is 2000.
Take a look at that front-end UI/UX – i.e., on your learning system.
Does it shout out – 2022 at a minimum, or 2015 or earlier?
Does it scream – “Look, we are 2025, or early 2026?”
And if so, how?
Again, don’t rely just on AI here.
UX – user experience should equate to user- “learner” data capture.
If business today is all around business intelligence, which it is, why are vendors as a whole lacking either behavioral intelligence or data intelligence, that if correctly done will tell you your learning story
Again, AI can do this – okay, in 2026, so far, the number of vendors that have figured this problem out is super low.
However, I’m referencing without using AI.
Bottom Line
The basics of a system need an ongoing innovative path.
Offering customer training? How about adding customer forensics as a core component?
Instead of just saying “we base this on your use case,” take the last 50 use cases and extrapolate the unique aspects that can be applicable to anyone that your system is targeting.
Don’t just include the use cases of new clients – they are already a client – look at those that you didn’t win.
Then think to yourselves (vendor reference here) whether this is a learning innovation or a learning outdated?
If I am a vendor, I’m going back to my drawing board.
Not the whiteboard on the wall, but rather the visual one, people can offer suggestions to – and I’m referencing employees here.
They should be taking your system and offering a perspective on it.
Because they are your uncertainty.
The people you want.
Innovation doesn’t come only from success.
It comes from failure, too.
Perhaps then,
Combine one with the other.
As they say, if the first time you don’t succeed,
try and try again.
Without using AI
to do so.
E-Learning 24/7
