First, I'd like to have a discussion on the economics of elearning, in a different thread. I just got off the phone with a client whose customers have said they are basically eliminating instructor-led training; the travel costs are too high. One other client is hesitant to do elearning -- the development cost is too high. I think the contrast is worth discussing.

BUT, wrt the current discussion: what specific skills are you trying to impart? Have you evaluated the long-term costs to ensure that in-house informal videos, for example, are more expensive to produce? I often see the buy-it/build-it analysis that only considers high-end solutions. Informal solutions work particularly well with "Gen Y" and "millenials", it seems.

travelerjjm - To make it a little clearer so you see it from my POV, I'm running the product training group (field services) for the company and am not integrated w/HR. I'll be generating a revenue stream through this LMS, so other comments about content/simulation development costs are noted but already considered (thanks). However, it's irresponsible not to offer this delivery methodology up to HR, not only because HR should be using this (at least for the hard skills/computer/software training), but because I can then spread the cost of the system out over the entire company rather than eating it on my own.

There's a push on here to take a more proactive apporach in the career development of the managerial staff, so the basic managerial soft skills is the type of information I'm looking to have available on Day 1 of the LMS going live. We will deliver, via ILT, various group activities (case studies, panels, etc) to those on a managerial track, and we'll provide those either organically or through a consultant. If there's an immediate perceived value to the LMS at go-live, then buy-in is easy. If there's a sham of a skills library for people to tap into, then people won't use it and the perception will be that the LMS is just another toy.

Bob
rbritton@as-e.com

Great idea - would love to discuss the economical side - particularly since I'm currently in the throws of a course for my masters that covers financial decision making for managers. If a company is going to invest anything in providing professional development for its employees, they should focus on making sure that learners actually learn something and use it. If a learner doesn't engage in the learning opportunity that's offered (regardless of the delivery mode) is anything really gained?? I'll look forward to joining in a separate thread. We now return you to your typical "which is better" discussion that typically never really leads anywhere.

(Aren't we supposed to be advocates for the learners?)