A Tale of Two Organizations
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•541 views
A Tale of Two Organizations
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (16)
Similar to A Tale of Two Organizations
Similar to A Tale of Two Organizations (20)
More from Information Development World
More from Information Development World (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
A Tale of Two Organizations
- 1. eLearning 3.0 How Learning Content Management and Single Sourcing Support a New Generation of Learning Elizabeth Fiting, Training and eLearning Manager © Copyright 2014 Author-it Software Corporation. All rights reserved.
- 2. A tale of two organizations… © Copyright 2014 Author-it Software Corporation. All rights reserved.
- 3. © Copyright 2014 Author-it Software Corporation. All rights reserved. • LMS with “typical” functionality • Content must be updated annually • Training development is reactive • LMS value not very strong …Company A
- 4. Wants to • Manage and track learning content rather than training courses • Make learning proactive OR “intelligently reactive” • Create learning content is reusable, searchable, and easy to identify ….and much, MUCH more! © Copyright 2014 Author-it Software Corporation. All rights reserved. … and Company B
- 5. Four themes • Understand and link to organization objectives • Reuse is about the learner • Engagement, trust and constant improvement • Choose a future-proof LCMS © Copyright 2014 Author-it Software Corporation. All rights reserved.
- 6. 1. Understand and Link to Organization Objectives • Establish organizational objectives • Learning developers understand business objectives • Leadership must understand training goals and expectations An IOA can… • Identifies business objectives and support requirements • Identifies “current state” • Identifies desired “future state” • Creates a plan to move from current to future state © Copyright 2014 Author-it Software Corporation. All rights reserved.
- 7. 2. Reuse is about the Learner Traditional Training • Focused on training goal • Content is fragmented • Training is scheduled • Takes a “kitchen sink” approach Inconsistent, confusing, boring, disengaging… © Copyright 2014 Author-it Software Corporation. All rights reserved. 3.0 Training • Targeted to the learner • Content is cohesive • Training occurs anywhere • Training is relevant, shorter, and more efficient Consistent, cohesive, relevant, engaging…
- 8. 2. Reuse is about the Learner • Shareable Content Objects (SCO)’s • Launchable learning object (resource) • Currently the lowest level of granularity that an LMS can track • Reusable and independent of learning context Smart SCOs allow training to be assembled and deployed to so that it’s tailored to each learner. © Copyright 2014 Author-it Software Corporation. All rights reserved.
- 9. 3. Engagement, Trust, and Constant Improvement Engagement Barriers • Lack of scaffolding • Too much scaffolding • Irrelevant content • Poor content delivery Single-Source • Targeted to skill level • Multiple delivery platforms © Copyright 2014 Author-it Software Corporation. All rights reserved. Trust Barriers • Too much content • Not the right content Single-Source • Consistent training information • Only receive content that is in-line with learners’ need • When content is trustworthy, trust in both content and in people increases at the organizational level Improvement Barriers • Fragmented content • Lack of coordination • Long review times • Undefined or ill-defined maintenance Single-Source • Content is centrally located • Reviews are easy to coordinate and quick to perform • Maintenance scheduling becomes obsolete
- 10. 4. Choose a future-proof LCMS Reuse Refinement Integration • Small, flexible content chunks • Smarter and smaller • Adapt to different delivery methods • Adapt to changing learning styles © Copyright 2014 Author-it Software Corporation. All rights reserved. • Work with other business applications • Integrate into existing workflows • Does it have an API? As technology changes and expands, your LCMS must change and expand to meet new demands.
- 11. A Good LCMS Visibility, control, management © Copyright 2014 Author-it Software Corporation. All rights reserved. A platform that facilitates change and improvement Makes content accessible and collaborative
- 12. Wrap Up • Questions? © Copyright 2014 Author-it Software Corporation. All rights reserved.
- 13. Thank you! Come talk to us if you have any questions! © Copyright 2014 Author-it Software Corporation. All rights reserved.
Editor's Notes
- Introduction: Joined the Author-it team this year, but have 10 years in the learning design and technology field Worked with a variety of clients and industries, such as life sciences, financial institutions, universities, restaurants, and utilities Here to help our clients use Author-it to position themselves at the forefront of Organizational Performance Who here is familiar with the work of Stephen Downes? Stephen Downes’, an instructional technology innovator, developed the concept of eLearning 2.0. For those unfamiliar with the concept, Downes’ pulled together a lot of ideas that were rattling around at the time, including the idea of digital natives, connectivism, distance learning, and social media in it’s infancy—this was when LiveJournal and Friendster were at the forefront of online social interaction. But Downes wrote that article in 2005, almost 10 years ago, and technology has—as technology does—changed to an extent that it demands a new model. The new buzzword you may have just started hearing is eLearning 3.0. What is eLearning 3.0? Distributed computing Extended smart mobile technology Collaborative intelligent filtering 3D visualization and interaction eLearning 3.0 goes beyond traditional ideas of blended learning, scheduled curricula, and a silo-ed learning experience. Learning becomes personalized, both in the way content is delivered and exactly what content is delivered. Learning becomes mobile, smarter, and more truly collaborative as we explore learning in both traditional and non-traditional contexts. Questions to the audience: Is anyone here currently using Author-it? Is anyone here currently using Author-it to develop training? Who here is interested in using Author-it to develop training?
- Scenario: A Tale of Two Training Organizations
- Scenario: A Tale of Two Training Organizations Elizabeth Company A looks pretty familiar—it’s trying to be a eLearning 2.0 organization Offers blended learning solutions LMS that tracks who does what training, delivers training, and reports functionality Annual maintenance schedule Lots of content, but no global view of training assets Training developed in silos Training department is typically reactive This is where most companies are now. They didn’t plan to be here, but the investments in processes and technology were probably made over a decade ago. Understanding of how people learn, how to deliver learning, and how to link learning to the business’ requirements have changed rapidly over the last 5 years, leaving them out of date.
- Scenario: A Tale of Two Training Organizations Elizabeth Company B: Thinks about their learners and their learner’s various needs Thinks about context for learning content, including delivering learning proactively regardless of channel Understands their learning content assets, and wants to be more and more efficient (for business reasons and to improve learner outcomes) DOESN’T WANT TO BE THE OTHER TYPE OF ORGANIZATION
- Four themes of this presentation.
- Elizabeth How do you become a 3.0 eLearning organization? You have to change how you think about training. The first step to achieving this goal is to not only [1] establish organizational objectives, but to ensure that everyone understands them. It’s not enough for leadership to “declare” a set of objectives. [2] At the organizational level, learning developers and students need to understand what the organization is trying to accomplish and how learning relates to those objectives. [3] Meanwhile, at the leadership level, you must reassess your goals and expectations for training. The goal should not be for learners to simply ‘attend the training’ or to ‘pass the test’ – the goal is to get them perform their jobs better and more effectively. Once all of the key players understand what the organization is trying to achieve and how learning supports those achievements, you really start to see the value of a 3.0 eLearning solution. [4] All Author-it projects being with an Information Optimization Assessment, or IOA, in which we work with our clients to [5] identify the business objectives and what tools, training, and change management efforts need to be put in place to support those objectives. [6] Through the IOA, we also identify the current state of the business. [7] The IOA also clarifies the business’ desired future state – where does your organization want to be and what metrics will you be using to judge whether the future state has benefited the business? [8] Finally, the IOA creates a plan to get move between the current state and the desired future state. This plan clearly links the actions to the business goals, including why and how your content plays a role in the organization’s business objectives and the tasks required.
- Elizabeth If you design training, or work with others who do, you know that every instructional designer wants their training to be a beautiful, unique snowflake and every learner wants to be treated like a very special unicorn. So at a glance, you might think that that this theme does not support snowflakes and unicorns. But again, we need to change the conversation. To do that, let’s first consider traditional training. [1] Traditional Training: [2] Focused on a training goal: A problem is identified and training is created to “solve” the problem. [3] Instructional content is often fragmented because it’s developed by different instructional designers using different content channels or sets of SMEs. [4] Training must be “scheduled”– because we often take an, “everything but the kitchen sink” approach to training, it is often long and cumbersome, with multiple modules or classes required, which need to be fitted in to a learners day-to-day job [5] This “kitchen sink” approach usually means training is very contextual, with less practical application of knowledge. It’s not until learners are back on the job that they truly have an opportunity to apply what they’ve learned. [6] This approach can lead to inconsistent messaging and application of the skill. It can also create confusion, boredom, and disengagement among the learners. [7] In an eLearning 3.0 environment utilizes single-sourced training: [8] Learning is targeted to the learner. Rather than solving an organizational problem, you are providing an individual learner with the information he or she needs to do their job. [9] Instructional source content is no longer fragmented—it is all in one searchable location, it’s clearly marked with release state information, and any instructional designer using that content knows exactly how stable it is. [10] Training can occur on-demand, in any location, and delivered when it’s needed. Learners don’t have to wait for training; nor do they have to burn large chunks of productive time in training classes. [11] Because only relevant training is pushed to learners, training becomes shorter and more efficient. This also means that the time between gaining the knowledge and applying it on the job shrinks, or even disappears altogether. [12] This approach leads to training that is consistent, cohesive, relevant, and engaging.
- How do we achieve a 3.0 Learning environment? [1] By using Sharable Content Object (SCO)’s that are smart enough to adapt to the user. SCOs are already in use—it’s the S-C-O in SCORM. The key words here are “smart enough to adapt,” meaning making SCOs self-aware. Why are these “self-aware” content chunks important to you as you’re developing training? Imagine a piece of content changes, and you *think* it’s been used in 9 different trainings? An eLearning course about compliance uses that chunk. An ILT about safety also uses it. You write something once and it’s independent of the output—you don’t need several tools Written once, used for several outputs—so when it’s updated, those updates automatically trickle down to any training course that is using that content Change in one place - affect all deliverables [2] With very little effort, training can be assembled and deployed to meets every unicorn’s specific needs.
- The next points to consider are engagement, trust, and constant improvement. Again, to understand how you change the way your organization thinks about training, we’ll first look at the current barriers to each idea, and then look at how single-sourcing can positively effect your learning development organization and your learners. Engagement Barriers to engagement: Lack of scaffolding: Training is often delivered without learners having the necessary entry or prerequisite skills to understand the material Conversely, there is too much scaffolding: We talked about this on the previous slide—there is too much contextual information and not enough practical application Irrelevant content: Content that is not applicable to the learner is a barrier to their ability to immediately complete a task Poor content delivery leads to lack of learner “buy-in”: learners are bored in, mistrustful of, and reluctant to participate in training Using the single-sourced method, learners: Are delivered targeted training that is specific to their needs, getting them proficient faster and with less time “in training.” We’re not retraining skills that they already have. This earns student goodwill and helps promote buy-in. We have the ability to create small, nimble training modules that are available on multiple devices. For example, we can deliver training on a mobile device for Millennials to access, while the same training can be delivered through more traditional channels for learners who are more comfortable with ILT or traditional eLearning channels. By addressing issues around content quality and delivering learning in digestible pieces using relevant channels, you increase learner engagement with the material and change their attitudes around the usefulness and necessity of training. Trust My earlier tale of two organizations give us an idea of where the current state erodes learner trust. Barriers to trust: Too much content Not the right content Poor content curation leads to an increasing volume of files, courses, assessments, simulations, and other assets that may be out of date, inconsistent, or poorly labelled. This jungle of training material creates a huge amount of risk and inefficiencies, and increases learner reluctance to trust the content they do find. Using the single-sourced method, learners: Receive consistent training information no matter what delivery mechanism is selected or who the facilitator is. Content is always up-to-date and in-line with the latest processes, procedures, and legal language. See they only get training content that directly relates to them, in their role, and their need If content is known to be ‘good’ to the wider organization, trust in those team members will grow. This improves the confidence at both a content and a performance level. Constant Improvement Barriers to improvement: Fragmented content: Content comes from multiple content channels, often with slightly different wording or messaging Lack of coordination between groups that author and/or share content Long review times: Coordination between SMEs, legal departments, regulatory committees, and anyone else who needs to review can be long, cumbersome, and difficult to manage Undefined or ill-defined maintenance schedules: Training is created and then goes out into the ether—it’s only updated when there are major organizational changes, the content is invalidated, or critical issues with the training are identified. Using the single-source method: Content is in a central, easily accessible location Author-it helps close the review times-gap, meaning less time to market Content Maintenance schedules become obsolete— lifecycle channels are content/component-based, rather than curriculum-based. Updated content is pushed to all materials using that information; therefore, each time training is published within Author-it, it is always the most up-to-date version.
- When we talk about “future proof,” we must consider three things: [1] Reuse, [2] Refinement, and [3] Integration. [4] We’ve already talked about reuse quite a bit already, so I’m not going to belabor the point. Let’s all agree that smaller content chunks that have the flexibility to be reused freely across different curricula and output channels is a primary factor in “future-proofing” your content. Your LCMS should also let you constantly refine – becoming [5] smarter and smaller in your reuse at the same time as the audience for your content grows. [6] You may need to change your delivery methodology as technology changes and [7] learning styles adapt. And you want to be this nimble without having to rewrite your entire curricula every time Apple comes out with a new phone! Finally, the LCMS must [8] play nicely with the other critical business applications. [9] Can the LCMS be easily integrated into existing workflows, for content and control? You may want to tie your curricula into HR competencies. You may need to map your curricula to state or federal regulations. [10] A future-proof LSMC must have an API—which is the technical ability for different platforms to communicate and also for third parties to create their own ways to access and distribute the content. This helps to ensure that as technology changes and expands, your LCMS can change and expand to meet new demands.
- [1] A good learning content management system brings the visibility and control, workflow, metadata management and other enterprise content management disciplines to the training group. [2] It gives them a platform to make serious change to the way they operate, speeding their delivery times, improving quality, and more rapidly responding to changing needs of their clients or the wider organization. [3] An LCMS makes learning content accessible to the enterprise using expected enterprise CMS capabilities, and supports a collaborative effort to content creation.
- Questions: Answer questions about strategy How to use Author-it at their organization