The Problem with Rapid E-Learning
By Joe Fournier

There are three key areas practitioners measure when they discuss learning solutions: time, cost, and quality. Indeed, each supplier website claims to have a solution that saves time, reduces costs, and increases quality. But from the practitioner’s perspective, tools are only part of the solution. For example, you can buy the fastest car, but it’s only a dangerous toy if you don’t drive properly.

In response to the article, Rapid E-Learning Grows Up, Bob Duthie of Nashville-based Duthie Associates wrote “I am yet to be convinced that one person can possess all the skills it takes to produce the multimedia content that is required.” And that, Bob, is exactly the rub.

Discovering opportunities, uncovering problems

At the heart of the rapid e-learning problem, there is a training issue. Many people fail to understand the potential of the tools. And even when opportunities are clearly identified, the ability to capitalize on them may be misaligned with the developer’s own competencies. Duthie cites the desktop publishing metaphor—when desktop publishing tools hit the scene, people were able to produce “terrible looking documents because they didn’t know principles of good graphic design and visual communication.”

Jennifer DeVries agrees. “It’s like web publishing. You can design a bad web page just as easily as you can hire someone to design a really good one.” She adds, “If you look at the web as a whole, probably 50 percent of the websites are poorly done. I would say that the rapid e-learning field would probably be very similar. I think one of the keys to making this work is to help people understand the value that a professional brings—just as we understand the value that a web professional brings to a professional-looking website.”

When workplace learning and performance professionals develop instruction, there are perhaps even more opportunities for problems than there are in flat content, such as print or static web pages. In addition to manipulating fonts, colors, audio, video, graphics, and photos, learning designers must consider sequencing, cognitive load, assessments, the value of learning metrics, compliance, and a myriad of other issues.

But learning designers should keep our role in perspective. What we’re really doing is facilitating the opportunity for the learner to learn. More important, learners will, despite our greatest efforts, learn what they need to know to do their job anyway—because they want to succeed, perform, survive, and get paid. As Dr. Malcolm Knowles taught, adults arrive as motivated learners.

According to DeVries, “A lot of times, as professional instructional designers, we may over-engineer. We insist on getting to that practical application level, yet the guy who wins just gets the content out because, in some cases, that’s all a company wants. And the quicker it can get out, the happier they are. If the content is too late and it’s irrelevant, it doesn’t matter.”

The SME problem

When Bersin & Associates actively promoted the concept of rapid e-learning in 2004, it stated that the key to using rapid e-learning tools effectively was to develop instructionally sound templates for subject matter experts to quickly author content. At that time, the standard model for rapid e-learning focused on the lowest common denominator: promoting rapid e-learning for informational delta training. However, rapid e-learning is being used currently to produce new hire orientation, competency training, dynamically branching skills assessments, and so forth.

Because of the extended training areas, it’s simply not reasonable to expect SMEs who aren’t trained in both the tools and instructional strategy to leverage rapid e-learning for these types of solutions. In addition SMEs may not have the time to develop learning content, even if they have the competency. Other problems may also emerge:

• SMEs may think that every learner needs to understand the material as well as they do.
• SMEs may be resistant to having others involved because they believe they know how to solve learning problems.
• SMEs may be unwilling participants in sharing their expertise.  

If SMEs who lack a strong background in instructional design or information sequencing are going to produce learning content, it’s important to set them up for success. Therefore, because many agree that effective training is based on internal processes, standards, and approaches, be sure to establish quality standards and document how to achieve those when using a rapid e-learning tool.

In addition, make certain someone in the organization (or an outsourced partner) is available to provide guidance and tips to help them overcome hurdles. Explain to SMEs that not everything they know is required for most learners. Let SMEs know that they need to produce solutions that sequence content with practice lessons, exercises, and opportunities for trial runs that result in measurable outcomes aligned. SMEs without a background in instructional design or information development may need help to create this sort of experience.

Increasingly, learning architects tasked with the challenge of bringing SMEs onboard are using frameworks to guide the selection and successful adoption of rapid e-learning strategies. Frameworks encompass more than basic templates—they are the sum of the tools, templates, sequences, and approaches all wrapped up together and documented in a roadmap. Each framework is selected, and in some cases modified or enhanced based on the particular learning problem being addressed or the ogroup tasked with resolving the problem.

The stakeholder problem

Traditional e-learning and rapid e-learning share the same Achilles heel that interferes with and facilitates the resolution of nearly every business problem: people. To be exact: Every stakeholder has the opportunity to short circuit success. With rapid e-learning, however, there are opportunities to safeguard against stakeholder interference.

Allen Interactions uses a rapid prototyping process to help establish expectations and solidify stakeholder buy-in early on. According to published accounts, Allen insists that the highest level problem owner attends the initial prototyping session. While it can be difficult to secure executive attendance at a prototyping session, you will find greater success if stakeholders with decision-level authority help sketch out ideas. If your interactions aren’t overly complex, this can be done virtually through an online conference. In fact, some organizations may prefer conducting these sessions virtually so that various team members can focus on different aspects of the solution, driving rapid results during the working session.

If you’re not able to get high-level stakeholders involved in the prototyping session, try to schedule a follow-up demo session with them before you spend time implementing a final solution. As materials produced with rapid e-learning tools become more complex, the cost of rework escalates—just as it does for any project. Getting buy-in early can provide you with the project champion you’ll need regardless of the scope of your project. More importantly, it sets expectations for deliverables.

Another aspect of the Allen approach is insisting that prototypes be disposable. This keeps developers focused on producing conceptual solution mock-ups. Occasionally, what developers produce as a rapid e-learning prototype is ideal and there’s no point in tossing it, but it’s better to enter the process with the focus on producing effective mock-ups rather than get mired in the details.

Don’t discount the use of rapid e-learning as the prototyping environment. A well-planned graphics library can offer large flexibility in illustrating solution concepts, and rapid e-learning tools can supply enough horsepower for designers to produce innovative mock-ups that developers can later implement on more extensive authoring platform.

Another key benefit is that producing a rapid prototype lets you better scope the appropriate solution through a low-cost, collaborative approach before committing major funds. According to Allen, “If you’re spending 60 percent of what you need to spend for an effective solution, you’re going to waste almost 100 percent of that 60 percent because it isn’t going to work.” You need to plan projects to meet the need; not simply match them to an arbitrary budget. Rapid e-learning as a prototyping platform can help you brainstorm and come to agreement on what that budget should be.

Closing the gap

So, how do workplace learning and performance professionals shorten the time-to-learner, drive down the cost, and improve the quality of learning solutions? There is no magic pill, but in the context of rapid e-learning, there are some fine options.

• We can leverage frameworks to situate standards, processes, and templates that are used in the context of specific toolsets to solve precise learning problems. This requires a disciplined approach over time.
   
• We can work as teams, each focusing on our own areas of expertise, while leveraging tools to shorten timeframes and facilitate communication of ideas and transfer of knowledge. This approach is successful when key stakeholders are supportive.

• We can augment traditional approaches by using rapid e-learning tools as powerful design tools, making designers more capable of expressing ideas to developers and stakeholders.

• We can ensure proper training and support for those responsible for using rapid e-learning tools to develop learning experiences.

Published: February 2006