Technology–Based Training: State of the Art Report 14:8

information.

Invited Papers

Outline

Chapter 1: Off-the-shelf courseware: key issues in 1986

Chapter 2: Using specialist services

Chapter 3: Managing technology-based training development projects

Chapter 4: Training psychology and TBT

Chapter 5: The impact of training in enlightened countries

Chapter 6: Evaluating computer-based training tools

Chapter 7: Technology-based training and interactive video

Chapter 8: Presenting the case for technology-based training

Chapter 9: Managing computer-based training projects

Chapter 10: A union response to change

Chapter 11: The application of expert systems principles to teaching and training

Chapter 12: Selecting the right application/media

Chapter 13: The role of human resource development in commercial success

Chapter 14: Standards—the key to success

Chapter 15: Technology-based training and simulation

Chapter 16: Training developers of technology-based training

Chapter 17: Training as a profit centre

1

Off-the-shelf courseware: key issues in 1986

A Bhugra,     Education Technology Group Ltd, Cranfield, Bedfordshire, UK

Publisher Summary

This chapter discusses the off-the-shelf courseware and the relationship between the industry and its marketplace. It also describes some of the key features and dynamics that may determine the future of off-the-shelf courseware. The definition of a courseware industry varies according to who one asks. The major players are producers, distributors, and users. Commissioning agents and dealers could also be included. The four key stages in the courseware product cycle are (1) selecting courseware topics, (2) designing and producing courseware products, (3) marketing and distribution, and (4) support and evaluation. The major players are not exclusively associated with particular activities. There are some producers, distributors, and users engaged in each of these four activities.

A casual observer at this year’s ‘New Technologies in Training’ exhibition might have concluded that 1986 was the first successful year for the UK courseware industry. However, one cannot assume, simply because there appears to be a greater appreciation of technology-based training courseware and an increase in the number of home-grown products on the market, that people are using those products successfully or even using them at all. Nor is a single exhibition a reliable barometer of an industry’s success. This paper looks more closely at off-the-shelf courseware and at the relationship between the ‘industry’ and its marketplace. It also describes some of the key features and dynamics which may determine the future of off-the-shelf courseware.

Aruna Bhugra is Managing Consultant with Education Technology Group Ltd and was formerly Manager of the Cranfield Education Technology Unit. After studying psychology at Southampton and then at London University, she joined Control Data Ltd, where she was involved in the design and implementation of computer-based training. She has conducted several evaluations of computer-based training and managed the development of major technology-based training programmes. In her current post her responsibilities include courseware production, trainer training and consultancy services.

Introduction

At this year’s ‘New Technologies in Training’ exhibition, the author was surprised both by the number of new exhibitors and by the number of stands displaying off-the-shelf courseware. It also seemed that more people attended the exhibition than in the previous year. Certainly, those who visited Education Technology Group Ltd’s stand displayed a much greater level of awareness about Technology-based Training (TBT) in general than at the first exhibition two years ago. Also, a closer investigation revealed that, although the catalogues were still dominated by US materials, a significant percentage of the off-the-shelf courseware had been produced in the UK. A casual observer might have concluded that 1986 was the first successful year for the UK courseware industry.

Of course, one cannot assume, simply because there appears to be a greater appreciation of TBT courseware and a greater number of home-grown products on the market, that people are using them successfully or even that people are using them at all. Nor is a single exhibition a reliable barometer of an industry’s success. It can, however, provide an indication or impression of what is happening.

This paper looks more closely at off-the-shelf courseware and at the relationship between the ‘industry’ and its marketplace. It also describes some of the key features and dynamics which may determine the future of off-the-shelf courseware.

A growth in awareness

When Control Data Corporation (CDC) launched its first off-the-shelf Computer-based Training (CBT) course in the UK, five years ago, it had considerable difficulty in getting organisations to use it. The problem did not lie so much with the product as with the general lack of awareness amongst the target market about CBT and courseware, and with CDC’s inappropriate selection of the PLATO delivery workstation.

When the corporation launched its generic PLATO courses in the UK, they ran exclusively on dedicated CDC hardware. There was a very small installed PLATO user base and the terminals were prohibitively expensive for organisations to purchase solely for delivering generic courses. The major outlet for PLATO courseware became CDC’s learning centres and with this constraint many of the benefits associated with CBT (for example flexible scheduling and convenience of location) were lost. The policy to deliver courseware exclusively on CDC hardware was a major reason for the poor sales performance of CDC’s generic courses. Today, the courseware runs on the IBM PC range and has a healthy sales profile.

Lack of market awareness about CBT was another major reason for poor sales performance. This problem does not exist today. This is partly due to the Open Tech Programme, which has served as an effective publicity mechanism for open and distance learning, in general, and has encouraged many organisations to explore the possibilities offered by TBT. It is partly due, also, to the energetic efforts of hardware and software manufacturers to bring their wares to the attention of their market.

As more individuals and organisations become familiar with the concepts of off-the-shelf courseware, more new companies or ventures are launched to create packaged courseware. In fact, CBT was included for the first time this year in the annual awards of the Institute of Training and Development, in recognition of the growth in the production of CBT and of the emergence of a courseware industry.

What do we mean by a courseware industry?

The definition of a courseware industry will vary according to who you ask. A simple description will therefore be provided for the purpose of this paper, which hopefully will be useful in describing the current state of the courseware industry and for identifying trends and possible future developments.

The major players are as follows:

• Producers

• Distributors

• Users.

This list is not comprehensive. For example, it could include commissioning agents and dealers. The description can be expanded by proposing the following sequence of four key stages in the courseware product cycle:

1. Selecting courseware topics.

2. Designing and producing courseware products.

3. Marketing and distribution.

4. Support and evaluation.

The major players are not exclusively associated with particular activities. There are some producers, distributors and users engaged in each of these four activities.

However, despite the impression that everyone is ‘having a go’ at producing and selling courseware, the courseware industry now seems to be emerging as a fairly structured and organised entity, comprising specialist and semi-specialist components. The following discussion considers this development by examining each of the key activities. It also argues that although, historically, sales forecasts from courseware publishers and distributors have been over-optimistic, a healthy marketplace for off-the-shelf courseware does exist and should continue to grow.

Selecting courseware topics

Regardless of quality, if courses are produced which do not meet an identified need, they are unlikely to sell in sufficient numbers to qualify as successful ventures. Existing courseware products cover a wide range of subject areas, from computer awareness and DP subjects through management training and general business skills. Datasolve, which has recently formed a courseware distribution activity reports that, predictably, sales of computer appreciation and DP courses are the highest. However, the company claims that there is a growing demand for products in more traditional areas such as general business and management skills training.

It is interesting to note that, whereas US courseware in DP subjects is well received, few organisations outside the country accept its management training courseware. The demand for these courses seems to have lessened in the US itself and two of the major American producers of management training are now considering pulling out of the market.

An initiative to develop courseware in areas beyond computer training topics has been adopted by some of the major courseware production houses. IIS is an example. It conducts research to determine the number of courses being offered (in any medium) against subject area. The assumption is that if there are a large number of courses available on ‘telephone techniques’, for example, there must be a large demand for training in this area. ‘Telephone techniques’ was, therefore, seen to be a potential topic for a generic Interactive Video (IV) course (in fact IIS has developed this course). Unlike some other organisations, IIS believes that innovation should be restricted to the medium and not extend to the subject area. The organisation points to its success over the last 12 months in support of this strategy.

A similar ‘reduced risk’ strategy has been adopted by Education Technology Group Ltd, who teamed with an industry specialist to produce the XENIX Tutor. Using the specialist’s in-depth knowledge of the XENIX market, it was able to define the requirement for a courseware product and to describe the potential user market. The specialist’s experience of running courses on XENIX was also invaluable in designing the product. (More of design issues later.)

Other organisations use more conventional methods in an attempt to select suitable subject areas. The Open University and Henley Distance Learning Ltd conduct market research before embarking on the development of packaged courses. Identifying a need for generic training is only one of the research objectives. Data can also be collected on pricing, probable usage and other related dimensions. Despite the general growth in awareness about open and distance learning, conducting market research for courseware products presents problems. Professor Aldwyn Cooper, Managing Director of Henley Distance Learning Ltd, describes the difficulties of asking respondees to conceptualise a product of which they have no experience and then to decide whether they would use the product and what they would pay for it. He concludes that market research can still only provide guidelines for courseware producers.

Selecting appropriate delivery media is as critical to the success of a product as selecting an appropriate subject. It is sound business sense to select a delivery medium which already has a large installed user base, of which the target population is a part. For this reason, the IBM PC range has become a prime delivery vehicle for business courseware.

Falling hardware prices have meant that more organisations are willing to purchase kit solely for delivering training. The appearance of ‘look-alikes’ has opened up the market to those whose authoring systems can be run on IBM compatibles. The emergence of the IBM PC as a virtual hardware standard has lessened the problems of compatibility where courseware produced for one machine would not run on any other. Similarly, more sophisticated authoring software can cope with some, if not all, upgrades and advancements in hardware. Producers must still decide whether to design for the minimal configuration or whether to include features such as colour and graphics in their courseware. (Although within five years these features will probably be standard.) It is the producer’s decision as to whether the chosen hardware will present design opportunities or design constraints.

The rapid rise in the number of installed PCs has led some producers to ignore the primary criteria for media selection, namely the requirements set by the training objectives. Many CBT courses currently on the marketplace would be more effective if they had used text, video, tape/slide or other ‘conventional’ media. In reality a strategic decision to use CBT often precedes selection of the subject matter and is maintained, regardless of the subject matter. Occasionally other supporting media are included but this is becoming increasingly rare.

Marketing and distribution

It is probable that some products fail because they do not meet an identified need but it is likely that many more suffer because of poor marketing and distribution. IIS Chief Executive, Patrick Friesner, insists that marketing should not be a problem: ‘You must allocate resources to do it’. He argues that effective marketing is critical if courseware is to sell and that not enough people pay sufficient attention to it: ‘The investment, which can be substantial, is essential’. Effective distribution channels must also be established to provide a convenient way for users to obtain the product and get information and support. Needless to say, distribution is another source of many problems for the courseware industry and its market. Despite organisations such as MARIS, potential buyers currently complain that they cannot easily discover what products are available or get appropriate information about them.

Patrick Friesner describes the particular problems that distributors pose for the IV courseware industry. He argues that for IV, courseware and hardware distribution must be linked (based on the assumption that people will not buy hardware if there is no courseware and vice versa). To support both elements effectively requires a mix of skills which is not present in established distribution channels. Computer dealers, for example, can support computer hardware and are becoming increasingly familiar with general training issues. However, they cannot support a prospective client who wants specialist advice about using IV. Audio-visual dealers, on the other hand, can support the audio-visual hardware but have little knowledge of training or computers. Distributors of conventional training materials tend to shy away from the medium. ‘They are understandably apprehensive of it’, Friesner claims.

Although some of these issues are specifically associated with IV courses, other producers have found distribution a major problem. Many excellent Open Tech courses, for example, have failed to reach their potential markets due to inadequate marketing and poor distribution outlets. The logical solution to these problems is to take marketing and distribution out of the hands of the amateurs and give them to professional organisations geared to sell courseware. Producers will then need to acquire skills to select, motivate and manage the distribution channels.

Professional distributors have been in evidence in the US for some years now and are beginning to show signs of success in the UK. Organisations such as Deltak, ASI and, more recently, Datasolve have the appropriate structure and human resources to reach potential purchasers. Because they are close to the users they can identify opportunities and trends, and adapt their marketing strategies accordingly.

Handing over marketing and distribution to these organisations offers several advantages to courseware producers. For example, there is some evidence to show that more courses are bought from large catalogues than from single-product vendors. Eighteen months ago Datasolve carried only nine courses. Its catalogue now contains over 60 products and the organisation believes that the increase in choice and variety has been a key factor in growing sales.

Professional distributors should provide a service which is founded on basic marketing principles. This means that they should be thoroughly conversant both with individual products and the general area of individualised and distanced learning. It is also their task to ensure that appropriate literature is created and that packaging is attractive and durable. Flexibility is essential if products are to reach a potentially large market with varied needs. Many distributors now offer a purchase lease or licence option on courseware and some can also provide hardware.

Different distributors ‘package’ their products and services in different ways. ASI, for example, allows organisations to select any number of packages from the catalogue up to the value of a prepaid contract. The principle is to allow trainers to call off training when it is needed and so plan for and integrate packages into their training strategies.

Despite imaginative and flexible marketing, large- and medium-size organisations still form the bulk of the regular client bases. New strategies are being developed to access small businesses and to service one-off training requirements. Alfred Marks, for example, is piloting the concept of High Street ‘Learning Shops’. This is a collaborative venture with ASI and IIS, who are involved in the production of generic IV courseware. Alfred Marks already has a significant High Street presence. The scheme is aimed to capture the lucrative local customer base. Clients will be able to purchase training by the hour, in a convenient, fully-resourced facility. The Learning Shops are similar in concept to Control Data’s Learning Centres, which were opened in major UK cities in the early 1980s. The move should complement similar initiatives to teach small businesses by organisations such as the National Computing Centre (NCC), which has commissioned several modules of off-the-shelf courseware designed specifically to meet their particular requirements.

Effective use of courseware

The operations and activities of the professional distributor described so far could, understandably, make producers and trainers feel uneasy. After all, selling courseware and ensuring that training is successful do not necessarily follow from each other. Fortunately, producers, distributors and, particularly, users are becoming increasingly aware of the need for ‘managing’ off-the-shelf courseware. To be really effective, courseware needs to be integrated into an overall learning strategy. Very few packages can really stand on their own and most will work much better if they are supported within the organisation. A recent case study produced by the Anglian Water Authority illustrates the point (BHU1).

The Authority initiated a management training programme using a package created at Henley. The aim was to allow managers to work their way through the programme, scheduling study hours in free periods during the day and in their leisure time. Despite an enthusiastic reception from course participants, only 10 per cent actually completed the course. The rest were unable to find study time during the day and were apparently unwilling to sacrifice time in the evenings and at weekends. Fortunately, the personnel staff did not conclude that the method of learning itself was a failure nor that the materials were to blame. The experience had shown that the method of implementing the package was inadequate and they duly went about revising their approach.

With the help of external consultants, they developed a new programme which still used the Henley package as its core but now also included practical assignments and tutor support and assessment. Schedules of study periods were prepared for course participants who were now divided into two groups. A pattern of activities was devised so that managers had plenty of opportunity to apply the theory they were learning to practical problems in their everyday work. They had a 100 per cent success rate with the revised programme, compared with 90 per cent failure with the original scheme.

It is important to underline some of the main points illustrated by this case study. First, the user must appreciate that additional time and resources will be needed to maximise results from off-the-shelf courseware. Off-the-shelf courseware still represents an unfamiliar way of learning for most people and can be a disorientating experience for those who have done most of their learning in more traditional ways. It is essential, therefore, to provide support and feedback systems to maintain learner motivation and to offer assistance during learning. Trainers who complain that people do not like or do not finish TBT packages because they are poorly designed may be right—but they may also find that they will get better results if they provide some assistance to the learner. Another common complaint can also be traced back to methods of implementation.

An off-the-shelf course is, by definition, general in nature and many trainers feel that it cannot therefore meet their specific needs. They argue that much of the value of the training is lost. Certainly, it has been shown that by increasing the relevance of training, learning and transfer to the workplace are improved. However, this does not mean that generic packages are redundant. On the contrary, by developing their own exercises and assignments, users can ‘customise’ courses to meet their specific requirements. Such added-value strategies represent a cost-effective way to provide training. Anglian Water Authority estimated that the equivalent training at a top management college (three weeks residential) would have cost them three times as much as their own scheme.

Fortunately, more distributors and producers are recognising that users often require assistance in making the best use of off-the-shelf courses and are using specialist consultants to help the users add value to generic products by integrating them into their training strategies. Both ASI and Deltak, for example, consider this to be a key activity in ensuring that their products have maximum effect. Due to their increased awareness, trainers are now less likely to perceive courseware as a threat to their positions and so are more willing to invite assistance in using courseware effectively. Alan Bellinger, Marketing Director of ASI, is one of many in direct contact with users. He sees the practice of ‘adding value’ to generic courses as a major trend in courseware usage. Organisations can also ask for the core programme to be customised to meet their specific requirements. We have certainly noted a significant increase in the number of requests to customise our own generic products. These may arise after piloting the product over a period of time or may be part of the client’s initial purchasing requirements. John Heaford, Technical Director at Deltak, estimates that there has been a 20-fold increase in the requests for customisation of courseware products over the last 12 months.

Clearly the increased demand for customisation of generic courses has implications for course designers. Education Technology, for example, is currently pioneering the concept of ‘ragged courseware’—materials which have been deliberately constructed to allow users to easily insert specific elements, to create customised courseware. Resistance from organisations which believe that their ‘unique’ requirements can never be satisfied by ‘finished generic courseware’ may be reduced by developments such as ‘ragged courseware’, by customisation and by added-value management of products.

It is important to be clear about the distinction between bespoke courseware and the customisation of generic courses. Bespoke courseware should reflect the client’s precise requirements and should result from detailed analysis of the target population, available resources etc and from a precise definition of desired learning outcomes. Customised courseware, on the other hand, cannot provide this level of ‘fit’. It represents a compromise, in cost and specific relevance, between bespoke and generic courseware.

Quality

Effective marketing and distribution, added-value management and customisation are all wasted if the product in question is of poor quality. Quality is also a major concern for users and courseware distributors. Despite a massive increase in the number of products submitted to them, ASI and Datasolve reject 60 per cent on the basis of poor quality. Deltak reports a 10-fold increase in the number of packages submitted in the last year but argues that while the volume has increased the quality generally has dropped. Despite the quality control exercised by these organisations, many users are still unhappy with the quality of many courseware products.

Producers cannot be complacent about the quality of their courseware. The new user appreciates the potential benefits and constraints of off-the-shelf courseware and is confident about defining the quality of products expected. Talking to a sample of users, the author found quality was high on their list of concerns. With some experience of interactive packages behind them, users were generally able to specify precisely what they meant by ‘poor quality’. Lack of interaction, inappropriate feedback, poor screen design and unsophisticated answer judging were quoted as major failings. Poor construction is another typical problem. Many courses suffer from basic design problems. They are not designed with the learner in mind and are therefore difficult to use. Some courses are not sufficiently modular to allow learners flexibility in scheduling convenient study periods. Others contain insufficient operating instructions, leaving the learner unsure what to do next.

The problem of quality is related in part to the increased volume of courseware being produced and to the changing profile of the producers. Whereas two years ago professional courseware houses were responsible for the majority of products on the market, today small entrepreneurial software houses are turning their hand to courseware and many user organisations, in an attempt to recoup their own development costs, are putting their courseware on the open market.

Aldwyn Cooper of Henley Distance Learning Ltd explains the trend by reference to the ‘gifted amateur’. He sees the ‘poverty’ of appropriate skills as a major constraint to the growth of a successful courseware industry. John Heaford of Deltak, on the other hand, attributes the problem to the emergence of unsophisticated authoring systems which increase the speed of development at the expense of quality. The fact is that cutting corners will rarely result in good courseware. Courseware development is a long and expensive process. It is also iterative, as the prototype course may go through several evaluation and modification cycles before it is ready for release to its target audience. In short, you can only get quality by design.

Although principles for producing good generic and good bespoke courseware are largely the same, some differences do exist. For example, it is more difficult to define key characteristics of the target population for generic courseware. Typically a design team will have to make certain assumptions about the learners and then collect data from the target population to test the assumptions. If possible, the design team should include or have access to a subject matter expert who not only knows the content but who also has first-hand experience of the target learners.

Because the design team is not working directly with the target group or with the client organisation, it is recommended that all courses are accompanied by detailed supporting data, including who the course is aimed at, what they will achieve, what prerequisites (if any) are required and additional tools or resources that may be needed. In this way the designer can ensure that the users (individuals or organisations) receive any essential information which will help them use the course more effectively. It also reduces the producers reliance on effective support or consultancy during marketing/distribution to ensure that their original intentions are represented accurately to users.

By and large, however, the same principles for producing effective individualised learning programmes apply to bespoke and to generic courses. One must, therefore, assume that some producers either cannot apply these principles or that they believe the lengthy and rigorous process of instructional design can be bypassed in the creation of generic products. Poor courseware probably results from a combination of both factors. In our experience, training departments embarking on their own development of CBT for the first time will tend to request programming courses in preference to instructional design courses. They firmly resist the principle that significant differences exist in the preparation and production of materials for group-based instruction and the practices required to develop individualised training.

Couple with this an (understandable) desire to produce materials at a minimum cost and essential stages in the design and development process are omitted. It does not seem helpful to embark on a discussion of cost in this paper. Those involved in TBT production will know the number of variables which determine cost and thus the problems of discussing it in general terms. Suffice to say that, as in many instances, you get what you pay for. Courseware which costs £3000 an hour to produce will be less sophisticated than courseware which costs £10 000 per hour (assuming roughly equal proportions of the same media).

Quality is not achieved by inspiration at the keyboard; it comes from careful planning and preparation. It is evident, when looking at some courseware, that not only initial analysis, but much of the detailed design process, has been omitted. Generic courses are often not validated (in fact, many organisations neither validate nor evaluate their bespoke courseware) and essential modifications and adjustments are, therefore, not made. These are false economies. The resulting courseware will be poor and will be rejected by astute users and distributors.

Specialist skills for the development of off-the-shelf courseware

The design and specification of good-quality courseware must be based on solid training principles. Without a professional analysis of the performance problem and a clear specification of the training solutions in terms of behavioural objectives, the rest of the task is worthless. It is not the intention for this paper to elaborate on the process of design and development. The process and techniques are well documented in several excellent texts. A selection of these are listed at the end of the paper.

Creative skills are less often discussed in print yet they also make an important contribution to quality. CBT courses, particularly, have suffered from a lack of creative skills. Effective instruction presupposes effective communication. In order to produce high-quality training materials, it is necessary to recognise and work within the intrinsic constraints of communicating via the computer. In fact, these constraints can become opportunities if specialist skills are brought to bear.

The limited display area is one of the most obvious constraints. Many developers choose to overcome the limitation of space by using successive screens to display text. This results in the commonly criticised ‘electronic page-turner’. A language specialist, however, recognising the constraint, can distil the message to fit the display limitations. The result is a sharper, ‘punchier’ instructional narrative. The editing skills of a ‘wordsmith’ are also invaluable in ensuring that grammar, spelling and punctuation are correct in the final drafts (an obvious requirement but often overlooked).

‘A picture is worth a thousand words.’ With increasingly sophisticated hardware, the ability to create detailed graphics and dramatic computer images is an opportunity which should be exploited. Knowing how to use a graphics editor does not make someone an artist. The impact of a professional graphic designer on the appearance of our courseware has been dramatic. There are obvious non-instructional areas, such as title screens and logos, where his skills are displayed to great effect. High-quality technical diagrams and animations are often an integral requirement for high-quality courseware.

There are other, less obvious, applications of graphics skills which have helped to improve the effectiveness of our courses. For example, every screen display benefits from an artist’s attention to layout and colour. Using a professional graphics training, an artist can create new typefaces which improve legibility and thus the learner/computer interface.

At the other end of the scale, graphics skills can maximise the potential of the most basic configuration. A black and white text screen can offer a wealth of opportunities to someone trained to use available materials in a creative and innovative way.

Producers of IV tend to have experience in the production of linear video; if they do not, they will probably subcontract to a professional. The result is a more polished product. Where IV is prone to suffer is in its design and in the instructional use of video and CBT.

Unfortunately, the common view that CBT represents the convergence of computer and training technologies leads producers into believing that development teams comprising trainers and programmers will possess the essential CBT skills. In training departments, CBT is often viewed as a marginal activity, so the development teams are usually given relatively modest budgets and staffed exclusively from within the organisation. There are usually one or two trainers who can be assigned to a CBT development project. Only if DP departments are unable to supply programming staff, or if ‘computer buffs’ cannot be found within training departments, will organisations look to courseware houses to supplement their own resources with technical/programming skills.

Relatively few organisations import creative skills in the shape of new personnel. Even if the organisation decides to embark on major courseware development and appoint new personnel, the skill profile of CBT teams tends to remain the same. The belief persists that technical and, occasionally, consultancy skills are the only major areas of expertise which fall outside the trainer’s/programmer’s skill base. Courseware houses tend to have the same team profiles. However, if computer experts are the driving force, authoring systems and coding issues may dominate over training and design considerations. In both cases an essential set of skills is missing, namely skills of creative communication.

Realising the potential of off-the-shelf courseware

Producers, distributors and users all claim that individualisation is one of the key benefits of TBT courseware. Romiszowksi (BHU2) defines the concept of individualisation as frequent ‘adaptive, student-centred, on-line decisions, taken during the process of instruction’. So, individualised courseware should be an adaptive system of instruction which is sensitive to the individual needs and learning difficulties of students.

Designers should, therefore, aim to individualise multiple dimensions or ‘characteristics’ of training such as pace, materials, media and methods. Content and objectives should also be varied according to learner requirements. How many technology-based courseware products currently on the market can really claim to comply with this definition of individualisation? The author would hazard a guess and say none. Although claiming to be experts, very few people are actually realising the true potential of TBT because it is still in its infancy. Developments such as the application of artificial intelligence to training and new high-level authoring systems will make a major impact on TBT. It is only when these advances are coupled with competent designers that the complexity and sophistication demanded by truly individualised training can be