Chief Learning Officer - November 2007 - (Page 37)

tactics My guess is that many individuals and organizations have made significant contributions to early learning management technology. From these simple beginnings, the LMS has evolved into an enterprisewide presence that many consider essential to corporate success. So, how did the learning management system evolve to its current role in business? A few years ago, we were shopping for a new car, and the one we liked had a feature I had never seen. It was called a “keyless door lock,” a number pad on which you enter a passcode to lock or unlock your car without using your key. Handy, I suppose, if you didn’t have or want to use your traditional key. We were not particularly interested in the keyless door lock, but we did like the car and ended up buying it. The keyless door lock remained unused for months after we brought the car home, and I didn’t even think about it except when I unlocked my car the traditional way and saw the keypad. One day, I had a little extra time and decided to program the keyless door lock. After using it for a while, I began to leave my key hidden inside the car and rely on the keyless door lock to get in and out of my car. Finally, I began bragging to my friends about this great feature and making it a “requirement” on my next car. As we all know, the keyless door lock eventually was replaced with the wireless, remote keyless door lock, and the keyless door lock went the way of the buggy whip. I was heartbroken to see it go. Why do I tell this story? What could automobiles and the LMS possibly have in common? I tell this story because features such as the keyless door lock don’t become standard equipment on automobiles through some organic evolutionary process. Rather, they find their way onto the car though a well-thought-out strategy and course of action. The same process is true of the LMS — the wide variety of features and capabilities the LMS offers today are the outcome of a subtle interplay of manufacturers responding to client needs and manufacturers introducing features that no one knew they wanted but soon became “requirements.” These additional features usually are identified and implemented in one of three ways: 1. Learning professionals want a product function, and manufacturers respond. Good companies do a lot of market research to determine just what features learning professionals would buy if they were available to them. This is a foundation of our free-enter- prise economic system. It is building a better mousetrap. The good news is products get better and offer features that become requirements. The bad news is products become more complicated, confusing and difficult to implement and use. 2. Manufacturers want to differentiate their products and add features they think learning professionals would use if they were available, but learning professionals don’t yet realize they need the feature. The keyless door lock falls into this category. It is a “build it, and they will come” strategy. 3. Features are introduced when manufacturers respond to their important customers. If General Motors tells its LMS vendor that it would like it to print diplomas in a variety of colors and styles, you can bet that functionality will be in the next release of the product. This is the fuel that drives the increased capability and impact of the modern LMS. As businesses strive to perform more effectively in our increasingly competitive and accelerating business environment, how can we not look for ways to increase the efficiency and impact of learning management? The increased visibility, influence and accountability of learning and individual performance in relation to corporate goals, objectives and industry-standard efficiencies make this evaluation a necessity. But has the LMS become too complex and strayed too far from its origins? The LMS has evolved on many levels. It has experienced significant increases in functionality and its ability to administer learning, which was the LMS’ initial purview. It has remained its core competency over the years. It is an important competency, but to focus on just this limits our thinking to that “shootout” mentality or that gigantic table we all use to compare different vendors’ capabilities against our requirements. For our discussion today, I suggest we look at not only basic capabilities but also at four categories of more-advanced functions: 1. LMS functionality and availability has evolved to meet business’ increased pace and competitiveness. We all have seen the increasing automation of basic business functions — from inventory control to enterprisewide resource planning, from human resources to travel. Learning management is no exception. Functions that used to be performed on paper or in spreadsheets with a high tolerance for error now must be quantified and precise. The integration of courses, instructors, course facilities and locations has been automated, allowing I www.clomedia.com I Chief Learning Officer 37 November 2007 The wide variety of features and capabilities the LMS offers today are the outcome of a subtle interplay of manufacturers responding to client needs and manufacturers introducing features that no one knew they wanted but soon became “requirements.” http://www.clomedia.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Chief Learning Officer - November 2007

Chief Learning Officer - November 2007 Editor's Letter Table of Contents Imperatives Selling Up, Selling Down Strategies Take Five Rediscovering the Essence of Learning Cornell University Maintains Productivity While Pursuing Higher Education CLO Profile How Loyalty and Employee Engagement Add Up to Corporate Profits A Strategic Foundation The Evolution of the LMS Ariba: Growing Sales Skills in Conjunction with LMS Technology Leveraging Change to Build Productivity Equinox Fitness: Leveraging Change to Build Productivity Tangibles or Intangibles: Where’s Your Value? Raising the Stakes: The Strategic Role of the CLO Case Study Business Intelligence Case Study Advertisers' Index Editorial Resources In Conclusion

Chief Learning Officer - November 2007

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.