Q - Can the course be easily upgraded, edited, or modified?
The best e-learning solution is one that provides you the opportunity to make changes as needed. Industry standards can change at the drop of a hat, particularly when software or other technological progress is involved.
]]> Smart companies adjust to the rapidly improving resources available before their competitors by implementing learning programs that are easily upgraded. Among all learning methods, including all forms of electronic media, Web-based courses are the only alternative for fast, near costless upgrades of in-progress courses. Unlike classroom instruction that can take weeks or months to reformulate curriculum, essential improvements can be made in less than a day on a web-based course. In the Internet Age, speed is the difference between falling behind and never missing a beat.]]>Q - Will the course be identical to your company's look and feel?
A - That depends on you. If you go with a boilerplate from the development application, there is some leeway in adding logos or changing color. However,
]]> a custom tailored course should have the ability to appear identical to your company's website, complete with color scheme, layout and logo, and should be able to seamlessly integrate with your company's existing site. In many industries successful branding is the deciding factor for creating return customers and maximizing market share.Going back to our first question, make sure that the vendor you select has the skill set to be able to match your existing company standards as well as propose new standards for eLearning. Additionally, while "template based development" is terrific for a quick turn around, when you are seeking robust development of courseware, ensure that the vendor you are working with has skilled instructional designers who can properly take your material and create meaningful activities from it. Will it cost more? Yes. However, the activities will be far more meaningful than items that are placed into cookie cutter activity templates.
With that in mind, look for consistency in their development of objectives and summary pages and the structure of courses. Look for innovation in the areas of activities and simulations.
]]>Q - How does the eLearning solutions company approach course design?
A - As in all forms of education, the most effective Web-based courses are learner-focused.
]]> Ensure that the company you select utilizes professional instructional designers. Look for memberships in ISPI, ASTD and STC as well as quizzing them thoroughly as to their process and background. This is now a recognized profession, so it is wise to ensure that the background of the IDs is in adult education and not in chemistry or engineering. You are looking for someone who can take your content and create viable learning - you are not looking for a subject matter expert (SME).Instructional designers gain the best results by customizing course work based on the learning needs of a target user group. This is done via a needs analysis. True customization allows for the highest quality of graphics, animation, audio, and collaborative learning features, all geared toward successful learning and retention. It takes learning expertise to design a multimedia module that will achieve both short-term corporate objectives and long-term success and ROI. Production of a first class course also requires technological expertise and experience that integrates the most effective learning enhancement features available.
In general, your content development team should consist of an instructional designer, graphic designer and editor. Ensure that the editor is a native speaker of the language you intend to deliver the content in as dialectic nuances and simplicity of speech are important.
]]>The Infosys SEAL (Sustained End-user Adoption and Learning) solution provides on-screen training that is available just in time, is just enough information, and is targeted just for the individual user.
I predict that we are going to see more and more health care providers very interested in our solution.
If you have a client who might be interested in SEAL for EHR (or if you are a health care provider who wants to learn more), please contact me at karen_burns@Infosys.com
]]>How well has this system served us?
It’s been a joy to participate in such a system. But I’d like to propose that delivering on the promise of building employee competence is necessary but insufficient. It’s not enough to make an impact on individuals – the L&D function must also make an impact on the business.
To provide employees with the skills and tools they need to do their jobs: This is the first order of training. The second, and higher order of training, is to move the needle on critical business initiatives.
In any given year, every company has a handful of strategic initiatives that are critical and timebound. I worked with a retail bank recently that was changing its strategic focus from operational efficiency to customer experience. I worked with a huge manufacturing purchasing department that was trying to change its approach from beating up its suppliers to collaborating with them. These initiatives obviously had great skill and capability implications, but in both cases, because L&D was so focused on delivering job skills to the organization, they were not “at the table” when it came to planning for, and executing, these strategic change initiatives.
How can the L&D organization evolve to meet this second challenge? At one company I know, rolling learning curricula or “academies” are developed and implemented to support key business initiatives. These academies are instituted based on current business needs, and then retired when the initiative has completed or is in sustainment phase. These academies don’t replace the bread-and-butter work of L&D in building programs to enhance job competence, they are an enhancement or an addition to the existing mission of L&D.]]>
But what happens in a small or mid-size company, when the headcount numbers aren’t large enough to generate enough savings to offset the investment in an LMS? We’ve run into this situation a number of times.
]]> Big companies on average employ one training staff for every 300 employees, which for a 60,000-employee firm equals at least 200 people creating, delivering, and administering training. A fifth to a quarter of this headcount is doing tasks that can be either wholly or partially automated. What’s currently being done by 40 to 50 people can be done by 10 or 15.We have a relatively small but expanding client of about 4,000 employees that has outgrown its current processes and practices for training, and desires to invest in an LMS. Unfortunately, they can’t make their business case work based on cost savings – there aren’t more than 15-20 training staff in the entire company! – so they’re focused on identifying intangible benefits and on possible performance and productivity improvements that are, however, difficult to quantify. Intangible benefits include 24x7 access to training, better ability to audit training and to comply with training-related regulations, enhanced ability to create and deliver e-learning, and so forth. Performance improvements include increased revenue and market share resulting from more and better training, more and better performance feedback, and enhanced goal alignment.
In big companies, a business case relying on intangible benefits and unpredictable performance improvements will simply not fly. The good news about a smaller company is that they can still take good ideas on faith; the executives themselves are closer to the day-to-day headaches that result from not having an LMS – lack of visibility into the skill sets of the organization, inability to measure the inputs or outcomes of training, inability to run even the simplest training reports.
The overarching issue for corporations is availability and accessibility of learning. Companies need to reach the employees at the edges of the enterprise and to improve the volume of learning opportunities offered to everyone.
]]>If we agree that within the context of OR (Organizational Readiness) activities for business transformation projects; Change, Communications and Learning inputs and outputs are highly inter-related and drive towards the same goal, we can make a strong case for an integrated methodology that can act as the bonding agent for the three tracks of Change, Communications and Learning - with optimized, coordinated and streamlined activities, tools and accelerators.
]]> John Kotter (Kotter, John P. Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press) proposes a series of 8 steps for successful change management; at a high level Kotter’s process starts with creating a climate for change; then engaging and enabling the organization and finally; implementing and sustaining transformation. On the systems learning side; we have the ‘ALEC’ model that sets a four step process for creating a successful end-user adoption experience. ALEC stands for Awareness, Learning, Efficiency (provide opportunities to learn and receive support on the job) and Continuity. It is not difficult to see how Kotter’s change process which is the foundation for a good number of modern change management approaches and ALEC inter-relate and drive towards the same goal.The true value of integration can be achieved through planning, structuring and executing the OR activities with a view to deliverables and expected outcomes for the three tracks, combined. This also means that deliverables for each track cross-reference the designs, outputs and findings from the other two tracks where required.
In larger projects the 3 tracks may be staffed by individual but closely integrated teams, while in smaller projects; the resources may be combined into two (Change and Learning) or even one OR team. Overall, the team members will have full visibility, coordination and collaboration with one another - and when needed can ‘swap hats’. Deliberate role-swapping, if planned and executed well; provides a valuable cross-training opportunity for the members of the OR team. A team made of all-rounder individuals who can be deployed across the spectrum of OR activities, provide tremendous flexibility for the project leadership to shift emphasize between Change, Communications and Learning depending on the stage of the project - optimizing the deployment of OR resources, and the value for the client organization.
Accelerators are valuable tools that speed and enhance deliverables in consulting engagements. One example of an integrated OR accelerator for business transformation projects; is a database tool that can capture the relationships between system procedures, security roles, job roles, employees, their business units and geographical locations. Such a tool can be a strategic asset for the Change team (via generating job impact reports), Communications team (by presenting a detailed segmentation of the audience) and the Learning team (by generating the learning curriculum and logistics plan), in addition to Security and QA teams who can also benefit from it. Such a tool can be a ‘game changer’ in regulated environments, e.g.; CFR Part 11 for Pharmaceuticals – where business requirements, system functionality, training curriculum and test scenarios should be traceable from one end to the other.
An integrated OR method can help during the initiation of projects, the integrated steps and activities will help structure the work and ensure that all aspects of OR activities have been covered. It also helps in nurturing understanding and effective communication between the client and the consultants, via presenting a structured view of the work ahead using a standard terminology.
And while the implementation is in progress, it jumpstarts the OR deliverables, provides tips and considerations and helps team members understand how the work in their track ties in with the work carried out by the other tracks.
Reviewing the integrated OR method is useful during the buy cycle, to understand how the consultants might approach the problem - the big picture and the detailed view at the same time. The integrated tools, sample deliverables and accelerators provide a good representation of the consultants’ depth and experience in the field of organizational readiness.
It’ll be good to know if there are any strong arguments against the integrated approach.
]]>Regulatory compliance by the software is not just an additional ‘functionality’ offered by the system (which it is sometimes mistaken as), but more like developing a process framework (of course, backed by technology infrastructure) dedicated to meeting the intent of the regulation. Essentially, achieving a truly GxP compliant software system requires procedural and administrative intervention (including, but not limited to, trainings, notifications, SOPs, administration and reporting of electronic records) as much as it requires technical capabilities on the part of the software itself.
While building up these technical capabilities falls in the purview of the software vendor, the other mentioned aspects need a robust and scalable approach towards organizational readiness and change management, which, to many organizations, can at best be addressed by a partnering organization who can undertake the entire responsibility from defining process framework to systems integration to software validation to effective change management, leveraging technology capabilities as enabler to deliver a GxP compliant system in its true essence.
Also, while many off-the-shelf software products come as ‘validated’ for regulatory compliance, I’d think it’s very essential for the customer organization to run with a comprehensive validation phase as part of the implementation lifecycle before the software is deemed ready to be adopted into the company’s process and technology stack. Would you agree?
Organizational Readiness’ (OR) goal is to integrate the “people” component of transformation with the “process” and “technology” components to ensure a successful business transformation endeavor.
Change Management, Learning and Communication components of ERP implementations form a “three-legged stool,” and no one component can stand without the others. The interconnected and cross-leveraged deliverables of change, learning, and communications only underscore the necessity for broad thinking about organizational readiness. Here are four examples to illustrate this:
Example 1: Leaders may underestimate the challenge of implementing ERP, viewing it as just another package. Some stakeholders may see little value in adopting the new system or overlook its profound effect on their organization. It is the job of change management to educate the leadership as a first step during the project, such that sufficient funds, organizational recourses and time is allocated to learning activities and building the right capabilities for sustaining it.
Example 2: An early step in change management is assessing the organization’s readiness for adopting and assimilating the change. Two of the key factors measured are individuals’ perceptions about learning activities within their organization, and their attitudes towards learning to use new systems. The output from these drive the communications about learning, as well as the pace and blend of the learning program.Example 3: An ‘organizational impact assessment’ is typically carried out during the Design stage by the change management team, its goal is to determine the job impacts resulting from the new processes and procedures, as well as the interventions required to support the transition of the workforce. These interventions typically include management action plans that must be stewarded by the change management team, as well as communications and learning goals for the affected job roles, that will eventually shape the learning curriculum.
Example 4: Finally; any ERP trainer who has been through the experience of trying to deliver a class to individuals who do not understand the need for the transformation, or how it is impacting their organization and jobs; knows that appropriate and timely change communication is an important prerequisite for any systems training activity.
The leading organizations who understand the importance of the people aspects of business transformation, profoundly appreciate the value of an integrated approach to change, communications and learning by their vendor partners. This provides a golden opportunity to differentiate from the rest of the flock, for the few consulting firms who have the breadth and scale to provide these services under one roof, to go to the market and present their Org. Readiness offerings as integrated and holistic solutions, rather than a set of competing or incompatible add-ons.
]]>What do you think?
In my opinion this does pose a significant challenge for end user adoption. Organizations need to ensure that user population is ready to use the application in a shorter period of time due to shorter implementation cycles. Hence, I think such scenarios would mandate end user adoption strategies to be quite different from current methods applied to traditional ERP implementations, which runs for 12-18 months. The time horizon to create awareness of the change, build the right skills and prepare the users for the new business processes and workflows is relatively short.
Do you believe that a new approach is required for such scenarios leading to “meaningful use” of cloud based applications?
]]>
A company, while investing in the technology infrastructure, must look for a robust, scalable and cost-effective solution that offers the highest degree of availability, reliability and integrity, and befitting the business requirements and information security & business continuity commitments of the organization. The choice of the deployment/hosting model should take all these factors into equated consideration, right?
]]> The choice of the hosting model usually needs to be made from the following listed options, and should be contingent upon a careful analysis of several factors:1. Perpetual license based (internal hosting) – where a customer buys the perpetual licenses for the software and procures the hardware to deploy the solution in own premises (own network, behind the firewall)
2. External (third-party) hosting – where a customer buys the software licenses, however, delegating the deployment and operation to a third-party by paying regular fees for operation, upgrade and support
3. On-Demand Software (SaaS) – where a customer does not buy a software solution, instead, rents it from the provider. The provider hosts, maintains and supports the solution, and charges the customer for the use of an instance of the software tailored according to some specific needs of the customer
From a cost perspective, the On-Demand (SaaS) hosting model stands apart, as it involves neither the cost of license perpetuity, nor does it require any expenses on maintenance, upgrade and support of the deployed solution. It does incur a monthly fee (contingent upon usage) to be paid to the service provider; this usually is much lesser when compared to the entry cost and operating cost involved with the other two options.
Given the above, the On-Demand hosting model makes a pretty compelling proposition for most Learning Technology implementations. Then, why are we not seeing a significant surge in the number of companies (especially large enterprises) opting for this model?
Is leveraging the in-house IT capabilities and integration with org’s business processes, the reason; or perhaps a long-term view towards IT consolidation? Or, is it the lack of confidence in shifting the sensitive assets like PII (Personally Identifiable Information) outside the company’s firewall; or perhaps the fact that most Learning Management implementations are complex enough to require customizations that are beyond the scope of what configurable, On-Demand instances can support? Of course, there’s no one-size-fits-all reasoning, and a lot depends on organization’s priorities and readiness, but are there any which you would call as the primary drivers?And, what kind of shift, if any, do you foresee in the trend (especially for (global) enterprises) going forward?
]]>]]> Ok, I know I am dating myself here, but my first management job was with IBM in 1987. I was immediately shipped off to a one week new manager class where we were drilled on everything from "how to keep the monkey off our back" (or how to properly delegate) to "how to deal with inappropriate employe behavior/attire" (my practice case was to talk to a male employee who was wearing pants that were too tight), to "how to create and give performance appraisals". We came home with a huge manager's manual that addressed all kinds of policy and personnel issues.
IBM knew then (and now) that first line managers drive the organization. Most employees quit, not because of a company, but because of a manager. Most lawsuits from employees are due to misconduct by the first line manager. Yet, in the last few years, many companies have dropped formal new management training programs and assume that new managers know:
Unfortunatly, they are wrong! Bersin says, "In 2010, organizations must rethink their leadership development investments--and take the time, money, and resources to re-build first-line management programs".
All I can say is, "hear, hear!"
Karen
]]>