Training Reference - training, learning and development news

Browse topics

Home > Topics > Software (LMS, LCMS etc.) >

Managing a management system

There are many management systems on the market but buyers should be driving the process of defining what they want these systems to do, rather than buying what the vendors want to sell.

Speaking at a recent meeting of the eLearning Network, Trainer1's Neil Lasher began by revealing that he had been working within the 'e-learning' industry for some 25 years. He observed: "These days, we're using a range of systems - and acronyms - in order to manage.

"It's important to answer the 'chicken and the egg' question: which comes first: the system or the content?" he continued. "An LMS without learning content is like having air traffic control without aeroplanes, filing cabinets without paper, bookshelves without books or a fully fitted kitchen without any knowledge of how to cook. Is an LMS the central point of any learning strategy? Until you have learning content and people using it to learn things, there is no point in trying to manage it.

"Trainer1 has a customer - a bank with some 35,000 staff - which has commissioned Trainer1 to produce an anti-money laundering course in several languages. Usage of these learning materials is written to a central database via simple script and is accessed via a few, basic reports. This bank will not buy an LMS because it has the information it needs without one. It will only need an LMS when things escalate. This illustrates that it is important to know when to decide to 'put your toe' into the LMS 'water'.

"Who says that you need a management system?" Lasher asked. "Is the process of acquiring a management system driven by vendors - or by you? Or even by the system's users?

"And, having bought a management system, how do you decide whether it was money well spent? Do you evaluate this in terms of the cost per user or the cost per lesson? How do you measure the ROI? And do you merely want the system to 'break even' in terms of an ROI or to do more?

"Maybe you should look at the number of learning events in the system rather than the number of users? If you have, say, 500 users doing 20 learning events a day, you can manage this without having recourse to a 'system' - but 500 users doing thousands of learning events each day will be unmanageable without a system.

"There are only three ways to make money," he observed. "You can buy it for less; sell it for more, or steal it.

"So, is learning content ever going to give us an ROI? Does 'management' produce an ROI? Is there even a break even point for 'management'? Management is indivisible and a fixed cost of operating, rather like buildings. Its costs cannot be fairly apportioned to different aspects of the business, such as learning."

Examining the typical decision process to acquire a management system, he said: "You have the evaluation of the requirement, a request for information (RFI) and a request for a quotation (RFQ). You go to shows, get brochures and, generally, do some research.

"If you ask vendors - and everyone is a 'leader in the field' - they will say that you should buy their product. But vendors are really saying, 'buy my product because it's the only one I have', rather than 'buy my product because it's the best'. And any LMS is the best there is if it fits exactly with what you want it to do!" he smiled.

"You should go to the market with an RFI, yet many buyers make the mistake of going for an RFQ first," Lasher continued. "Once you have the information, you need to match it to your requirements and then - once you have found a product that matches your requirements - go for an RFQ.

"The question is, which vendor do you trust?" he said. "There are four types of vendor in this market: those which are product-led; consultancy-led; 'manufacturer-offered' and 'independent-offered'. Each will have a different 'angle' and it's worth bearing that angle in mind when dealing with each of them.

"You could make your buying decision on how many industry awards these vendors have won. However, you need to remember that, in this field, industry awards go to those who propose themselves for them - and other 'league tables', such as the IT Training Top 50, are based on revenue. This means that the most expensive companies are at the top! Moreover, one of the companies that has been at the top of the IT Training Top 50 for some years is not now in business. So would - should - you trust these companies?

"Are the most expensive companies necessarily the best? Is the best instructional designer the one with the most colours in the box?" he wondered.

Lasher outlined the top ten purchasing mistakes in this sector:

  • Skirting senior management until it is too late (and so failing to get management 'buy in' to the project)
  • Failing to spell out exactly what you need the management system to do
  • Comparing 'apples' and 'oranges'
  • Excluding the in-house IT department until it is too late
  • Focusing on price rather than value - the ROI focuses on price, whereas you should be asking what value is attached to the project and assess the value return, not the return on price
  • Overlooking scalability
  • Ignoring LMS interoperability - figures from the USA indicate that many organisations have more than one LMS and these LMSs do not communicate with each other, thus reducing the value of having these LMSs. In addition, the words 'SCORM conformant' or 'SCORM compliant' should mean that the LMS can deliver any piece of learning content. 'SCORM' should mean 'plug and play' - but, at present, this does not appear to be the case. The person who can change this current state of affairs is the buyer. If buyers stopped buying non-conformant LMSs, things would soon change, said Lasher.
  • The vendor's track record - you should ask to speak to a vendor's dissatisfied customers as well as their satisfied ones
  • Automating dated business processes - you need to understand whether you are merely automating what already exists or are introducing a system that will enable the organisation to make progress
  • Customisation instead of configurability - 'customisation' means that it will be expensive and, probably, be difficult or impossible to upgrade, while configurability means that the system can be upgraded at the 'flick of a switch'

"How do you decide what you want - and need - a system to do for you?" asked Lasher, whose firm regularly helps buyers to decide the answer to this question. His checklist for getting the 'right' management system for your organisation is:

  • Decide what is available to you
  • Involve everyone
  • Learn the industry jargon
  • Speak to those who have implemented other systems and find out what benefit they expected - and what they really got
  • Design your own RFI - ask yourself: 'does this system already do what I want or does it have to be created? If it has to be created, you are at 'version 1.0' again and you would be right to become cautious
  • Compare like with like
  • Create your own RFQ
  • Speak to the clients (those who will actually be using the system)
  • Re-evaluate from the top down - then ask yourself, 'is this the right thing for us?' If it is, sign the cheque

Back to Top   

© 2004 Trainer1. Reproduced with permission. Any opinions or views contained in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Training Reference.

More from Training Reference

Visit the Training Reference Directory to view supplier details for a wide range of courses, products and services. Related categories for this section include:

Sponsored links

Back to top   

Source suppliers

Visit the Training Reference Directory to source suppliers for a wide range of training courses, products & services.

Newsletter

Receive our FREE newsletter and keep up-to-date with the latest information. Click here to subscribe

Sponsored links

Training Reference accepts no liability or responsibility for any direct, indirect or consequential loss or damage caused by the user's reliance on any information, material or advice published on, or accessed from, this website. Users of this website are encouraged to verify information received with other sources. E&OE. All trademarks acknowledged. © Copyright Training Reference 2003 - 2007