Chief Learning Officer - January 2008 - (Page 34)

tactics in practice: Applying CRM Concepts to E-Learning As its usage has grown exponentially in the past decade and a half, the Internet has notably changed people’s lives in at least two ways: in terms of how they learn and how they shop. In the latter instance, an entire industry — customer relationship management (CRM) — has sprung up around managing every aspect of customers’ virtual interactions with businesses, from initial interest to point of sale. Although learning leaders might not think CRM would apply to their own online development and performance support programs, the truth is that many of its concepts can work in these initiatives just as well. After all, in the parlance of corporate education, learners are considered to be “customers.” Here are just a few ways in which CRM can and should align to e-learning. • User-Friendly: Most CRM systems emphasize a very aesthetically pleasing and easy-to-comprehend interface. Things such as color scheme and dynamic pages take on new significance in this sphere. Perhaps the most important aspect of being user-friendly, though, is accessibility. Quick navigability is the key here: Instructional designers with Web proficiency should build sites in such a way that the most essential data points should either be on the home page or have prominently displayed links or menu options there. Also, a search function can be very useful. The idea is to make data as easy to find as possible and keep the number of clicks needed to access information to a minimum. • Analytical: Almost every touch point where there is interaction between learners and a development program represents some form of opportunity to gather data on their experience. By gathering information about their needs, wants, issues and complaints, you can make sure that e-learning is a conduit to critical information instead of a barrier to it. Also, when tracking the user experience, many varieties of information are gathered. Skilled CRM professionals can perform customer data interchange (CDI) to blend these different streams of information. This allows them to better understand exactly what affects users’ decisions and to make improvements to retain current customers as well as attract new ones. • Modular: In online retail — especially in the current “long tail” market — there are more things to sell than ever before. These cover all kinds of categories, from old baseball cards to designer clothing and high-end electronics. And in some cases, the commercial activity involves millions of buyers and sellers. For these Web sites to work, each item bought and sold must have its own easy-to-find page that can be created and taken down in a timely fashion. Similarly, there are so many things knowledge workers need to know within their area of expertise — as well as many areas of expertise — and the nature of these can change rapidly. Because of this, online offerings must be similarly modular in nature. This means having a dynamic e-learning system that can be quickly changed to roll out numerous amounts of new courses and discontinue outdated ones. • Integrated: Despite CRM’s extreme modularity in design, all of the elements should conform to certain standards to ensure consistent experiences for the user. Companies seek to integrate touch points, processes and any other forms of contact for the purposes of customer experience management (CEM), which is aimed at influencing their opinion of the system. That, in turn, affects their action and behavior in the marketplace. By positively influencing learners’ interactions with online systems, you can get them engaged with the content and encourage them to return frequently for important information and performance support. In this way, the solution will be set up to have a real impact. — Brian Summerfield, bsummerfield@clomedia.com While the courses may have been cheap and fast from a development standpoint, they wound up costing the company much more due to their poor adoption by employees and millions of dollars in opportunity costs lost for the company. As the industry struggled with learner retention, new terms like “course stickiness” and “butts in seats” became popular. Questions such as “If you build it, will they come?” and “If they come, will they stay?” became common. The e-learning industry found solutions to knowledge retention by openly discussing topics like better interactivity and user interface. Meanwhile, companies relied on flashy graphics, and seminars and conferences were filled with breakout sessions on what needed to be done to improve e-learning effectiveness. Sadly, most companies missed the point. Instead of focusing on the real problem — the need for a new model of learning design effectiveness — the industry spent most of its time on how much more Las Vegas-like the courses could become, with neon lights and razzledazzle to suck in the unsuspecting learner. Let’s shift the focus momentarily from e-learning vendors to the buyers of e-learning design in corporations. Training managers invested millions in e-learning content and infrastructure because they saw everyone else doing the same thing. It was a gold rush of learning, and the Web was the promised land. The sheer excitement of all the new technology could make one shiver. Catch-phrase abbreviations became the language of communications. If you were a training professional and wanted to be perceived as competent, you needed to know what LMS, LCMS, CMS, WBT, CBT, TBT, VCT, ILT and KMS meant. Unfortunately, all the focus remained on the software and technology, and little was directed toward real learner outcomes. E-learning strategies were largely based on cost-driven ROI models, and this was frequently the core reason for implementing e-learning in a corporation. Comparisons were made endlessly to the cost of classroom training, with its hotel room, travel, trainer, meal and a host of other expenses. Furthermore, e-learning infrastructure was purchased by IT personnel who had little to no understanding of learner needs from an instructional perspective. When learning management systems did not work for the learner, blame games often started between the training departments and the IT staff within companies. Executives who made the January 2008 I www.clomedia.com I Chief Learning Officer 34 http://www.clomedia.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Chief Learning Officer - January 2008

Chief Learning Officer - January 2008 Editor’s Letter Table of Contents Imperatives Selling up, Selling Down Strategies Take Five Environment Sips of Knowledge at E. & J. Gallo Winery CLO Profile Productivity UST Global: Opening Employees’ Eyes to New Learning Tactics Applying CRM Concepts to E-Learning Human Capital Capital One: Experiences in Innovation Learning Solutions Macy’s: Using Feedback to Develop One Leader at a Time Case Study Business Intelligence Advertisers’ Index Editorial Resources In Conclusion

Chief Learning Officer - January 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.