I'm confused. If the learning needs are essentially static and the media is not particularly robust or non-existent, then yes - I can see how it would be cheaper. For many projects, though, I see these generic assertions that taking the learning and slapping it online will somehow be more effective and efficient. I can't figure out where that's coming from.

Do people expect software to just program, test and maintain itself?

quote:

Originally posted by LoveLearning:
I'm confused. If the learning needs are essentially static and the media is not particularly robust or non-existent, then yes - I can see how it would be cheaper. For many projects, though, I see these generic assertions that taking the learning and slapping it online will somehow be more effective and efficient. I can't figure out where that's coming from.

Do people expect software to just program, test and maintain itself?

Well, I think your first statement is a big part of it. Duration may be a factor, too: one hour courses can be inexpensive; four day ones are much harder to maintain. I think that in some environments, people think they are considering TCO. I have found, however, a strangeness with that. If an organization is physically distributed, and significant travel is required, there is a perception that travel will be much more expensive than it actually is.

Also, I believe that many organizations don't, won't or are incapable of evaluating the TCO of elearning. I worked on a project some years ago where the maintenance plan was made with no look to the huge price tag it would require.

Finally, I think part of the issue is that people read how easy and cheap online learning is, so they want to do it. I think it can be done on the cheap (as I've suggested before), but that is not the norm by any stretch of the imagination.

LoveLearning,
Please forgive the incompleteness of my previous answer: I was assuming a question about traditional online learning. I was assuming synch and asynch learning along the lines of a formal course.

If I had considered e-Learning 2.0 technologies including wikis, email, blogs, virtual labs, m-learning, podcasts, social networking, and such, my answer would have been different.

In some cases (many cases?) online can be chapter than ILT, especially in terms of TCO. Keeping a wiki current is likely way less expensive than re-recording an instructor in a formal asynch session, for example. Rolling out changes to an m-learning system may be much more cost effective than training several instructors for ILT events. I'd love to see some genuine research.

ILT will not go away. Informal learning and in-person mentoring and tutoring will not go away. E-learning 2.0 will continue to grow in popularity, though. It will only be truly successful if we modify our design processes to meet these new delivery schemes. If we do so, I think we can save money with online delivery.

quote:

If I had considered e-Learning 2.0 technologies including wikis, email, blogs, virtual labs, m-learning, podcasts, social networking, and such, my answer would have been different.

What is your confidence regarding 1) designers knowledge, skill and ability to design good learning using these options and 2) a company's buy-in to the use of these options?

So far, even this far into the "e-learning" "revolution" -- I'm still seeing over-done multi-media programs whose shelf-life is less than a year (and very expensive) and glorified click-and-read powerpoint slides.

I'm still not seeing vast improvements in engagement, retention and application of the learning itself.

quote:

Originally posted by LoveLearning:
What is your confidence regarding 1) designers knowledge, skill and ability to design good learning using these options and 2) a company's buy-in to the use of these options?

First, part of the point is that much or at least some of the content will be user-generated. Designers need to change the way they do things to support this concept. While most of them are clearly not there yet, many will likely join the stampede or be crushed.

Agile companies will join in or have already done so. Less agile companies will adopt slowly. I recently saw some research on this, but I cannot find it just now.

quote:

So far, even this far into the "e-learning" "revolution" -- I'm still seeing over-done multi-media programs whose shelf-life is less than a year (and very expensive) and glorified click-and-read powerpoint slides.

I'm still not seeing vast improvements in engagement, retention and application of the learning itself.

I am in violent agreement with you. Keeping elearning current is really, really expensive unless it uses a "bargain basement" approach as I alluded to earlier in a post about "quality".
"The times they are a-changin'."

Your observations show why e-learning adoption is still not as great as it could be. Sure, there is adoption for convenience or when volume is very high, but ILT still rules the roost.

Maybe it will change soon with the "current economic situation." Maybe not. Some of us are trying to encourage change, but until a good business case can be made, there cannot and will not be change. And that is the way it should be.