Learning Technologies


supporting learning in new ways: an excellent, if unintentional, result of the implementation.


Type 3 implementations – aiming for better learning – are less common.Whereas efficiency-focused implementations can usually be justified on the basis of contribution to the bottom line, it is usually harder to prove that better learning has any impact on performance.


Donald H Taylor, chair, Learning and Performance Institute


Four types of Learning Technology Implementation


Throughoutmy career, I’ve readmany learning technology case studies, and have noticed they all share the same, structure. First, a problemis identified, then a technology solution is sought, and finally the issue is conquered. In reality, implementations are done formany reasons. Only after the event are they squeezed into this traditional, three-act story. In this article, I will suggest that there are four types of learning technology implementation, each with a different aim. Some fit the idealised tale of technology-as- solutionmore easily than others. In order of increasing strategic consideration, the four are:


Type 1. Organisational infrastructure – part of business as usual Type 2. More efficient L&D delivery – doing existing L&D activity better Type 3. More effective learning – doing new L&D activity well Type 4. Part of organisational change – shifting the entire enterprise


Themajority of implementations are probably Type 2, focused on doing existing work better. Typicalmeasures of value include cost savings, reduced administration and shorter times to course production. Type 2 implementations do not aimto change how we learn. For example, webinarsmay be introduced tomigrate courses online and employeesmay discover they can use this technology to runmeetings. Spreading this information among themeeting participants, and curating it for future reference are excellent ways of


26


One area in which L&D departments canmake a good case for these implementations is where they ensure faster speed to competence and/or better retention, both of which are measurable and can be linked to performance. A classic example of this is Duolingo, the free language-learning app, which provides short daily bursts of learning content and activity. Learning, being reminded of, and practicing the use of, key information over time in this way is farmore effective than the traditional approach of receiving a large lump of new information all at once. The growth of systems like Duolingo is based on a proven record of enabling employees to learn better, faster andmore cost-effectively. For a distributed ormobile workforce it is possible tomake a strong case for a Type 3 implementation using this approach, even if that case uses the cost-cutting efficiency language of a Type 2.


If it is difficult to argue for a learning technology implementation that improves learning, it is almost impossible to do it for the fourth type – those aimed at supporting a wider change in the organisation, usually a cultural change. Typically, these implementations are only approved after the board have agreed to the overall change programme. Here,members of the executive suite already believe learning can support organisational change. They are not looking for any hard measures of success, because while these do exist in organisational transformation, somuch happens in amajor change programme that it is impossible to isolate behavioural impact to any single component such as learning.


What about the first type of learning technology implementation? Carrying out business as usualmay seemdull. There is little exciting about risk avoidance and ensuring compliance, and usually in choosing technologies and approaches for this, organisations just follow other, similar organisations.When there is an establishedmarket, with known products, the crowd has usually already determined what a good solution looks like and howmuch it should cost.


However, when amarket is new, and surrounded by a wave of hype, the crowd is not your friend. Many companies followed the crowd in the late 1990s and early 2000s and implemented newly-emerged Learning Management Systems. Seduced by the promise of huge savings, they bought into over-priced systems with long-termcontracts but failed to implement them well. This, then, is the danger in Type 1 implementations.


Showing value remains a crucial consideration formost organisations considering a learning technology, and in the next article in this series, we will consider how to show value for each of the different types of implementation.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32