Learning Technologies


and successful, move towards cultural transformation. Success was measured in terms of, amongst other things, employee engagement and perceived improvement of care delivery. (It is important to note, though, that learning is only a contributor these metrics. Management, coaching and other factors also played a role in improving them. It would be impossible to isolate learning’s particular role in the shift.)


TYPE Type 1 Type 2 Type 3


Donald H Taylor, Chair, Learning and Performance Institute


The aims and value of learning technology implementations?


In the previous article in this series, I defined four types of learning technology implementation, each with a different aim, which I have witnessed in over 35 years in this profession. 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


Looking at the very different drivers for these implementations, one thing is clear: there is no single, simple formula that will measure the Return on Investment (ROI) across all of them. However, it is not necessary to force an external measure onto any implementation. Each of them – if properly defined and conducted – contains its own, built-in, measure of success.


The measure for a Type 1 implementation is always about the basics of the business, rather than around learning. Typically, if the implementation reduces the risk of doing business as usual, then it has succeeded.


A Type 2 implementation, focused on the efficiency of L&D, by definition has clear measures of success: If it makes existing L&D practice better, it has succeeded. A Type 3 implementation that seeks to improve the effectiveness of learning can also use existing metrics, such as reduced time to competence.


Although its overall aim is a strategic, cultural shift, it is possible to attach measures to a Type 4 implementation. When UK homecare group HC-One implemented a comprehensive blended learning approach in 2012, it was part of an ambitious,


26 AIM


Organisational infrastructure


More efficient L&D delivery


More effective learning


Type 4 Part of organisational change


EXAMPLE METRICS


Effective business-as- usual, risk avoidance, compliance


Cost savings in L&D, reduced administration, faster delivery


Faster time to competence, better retention


Defined by the sponsors of change


Typical metrics for learning technology implementations


In each of the four types of implementation, the aim will be different, as will its measure. Whatever the aim and measure, however, they should be clear and determined in advance, and there should be a clear baseline that the implementation is starting from. Without these, there is no way of knowing whether the implementation has succeeded.


The aim is a destination point. The measure associated with it lets everyone involved in the project know how it is progressing, and whether the destination has been successfully reached. For example, if the aim is to improve retail sales by helping the sales staff learn better using spaced learning delivered over mobile devices, then the metric is clearly: did sales improve more than they might have done anyway given the time of year and background trends?


However, not all success can be precisely measured. Sometimes there is real value in achieving something through learning which cannot easily be measured.


This lack of a metric need not matter, provided that this non- measurable value is something thought to be important by the people responsible for the organisation’s success and provided its effects can be seen. Suppose line managers have noticed that live online training seems to suffer because the trainers are culturally insensitive to employees from certain geographies, an online course to help the trainers be more culturally aware may well make the delivery more efficient. The impact of this would be difficult to measure but would be palpable in the reaction of those being trained. If the line managers concerned are satisfied with this improved reaction, then that is an adequate measure of success. The same is true for the advantages of providing more background reading material online for a cadre of professional workers. The long-term impact of this is impossible to isolate, but if those workers’ managers believe it to be useful, then it is almost certainly worth doing.


L&D professionals are often tempted to focus only on measurable value as the metric of success, and to want to express it in monetary terms. While useful, finding the financial value of learning is no simple matter, something we will explore in the final part of this three-part series.


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