E-Learning: Apples and Oranges http://www.learningcircuits.org/2003/jan2003/cross.

htm

E-Learning: Apples and Oranges Jay Cross is co-author of

Implementing E-Learning and
By Jay Cross
principal of the Internet
Currently, there’s a fundamental split between e-learning for HR and e-learning for Time Group.
individual business units.

E-learning for HR. Most corporate e-learning initiatives are developed within the HR
function. These e-learning projects typically make HR processes more efficient: virtual
meetings to cut travel costs, tracking systems to ensure that employees complete
compliance training, and Webcasts that extend the reach and timeliness of corporate
communications. The main goal of these efforts is to perform traditional training
functions faster, better, and cheaper.

E-learning for business units. A different sort of e-learning develops within individual
business units. In these instances, the goal is to meet or exceed business objectives.
Another difference is that e-learning may occur anywhere along the value
chain--internally or externally, staff or clients. For example, e-learning can be used to
inform prospects of new offerings or teach customers how to use newly purchased
products. In another example, e-learning can be used to jumpstart product launches,
reducing the time that it takes to get new products into the marketplace.

Here's a basic breakdown of the differences between training for HR and training that's
built for individual lines of business.

E-learning for HR E-learning for business

units

Driver Improve HR and training Improve business

processes performance

• Savings in resources
• Improved sales
• Certifications
Metrics • Faster service
• LMS output
• Reduced error rates
• Learner satisfaction

Benchmark Previous internal HR Position vis-à-vis firms in

efforts the same industry

• Employees
• Partners
Learners Employees
• Suppliers
• Customers

Focus Internal No boundaries

Limiting Budget is based on how Confidence in the ability

factors much fat you take out of of e-learning to deliver on
the system. its promise

Impact Bottom line Top line

So what?

Rather than target specific types of prospects, most suppliers lump everything
together, which leads to a muddled set of benefits, including

decreasing time and travel costs

1 of 2 3/9/08 1:55 PM
E-Learning: Apples and Oranges http://www.learningcircuits.org/2003/jan2003/cross.htm

increasing sales
transforming organization culture
developing faster, better ways to learn
improving customer service
delivering just enough, just-in-time learning.

Unfortunately, customers rarely are concerned with everything on the list. Atraining
manager is concerned with curtailing travel costs and a sales manager wants to
increase sales. But few situations are ever black and white. Case in point: HR often
manages e-learning efforts within the business units. This blurring of boundaries raises
the question, Does an organization need a single or several e-learning approaches?

Until quite recently, I was an ardent advocate of a single enterprise e-learning

approach. I believed that it was more cost-effective for an organization to put all of its
e-learning and knowledge management activities under one umbrella. In doing so, the
company would gain consistency and economies of scale; provide a single,
personalized portal for every employee; and avoid projects that asked developers to
reinvent the e-wheel. Indeed, I thought that HR’s cost-cutting efforts were the first
step in e-learning’s evolution, which would eventually grow into e-learning programs
that solved individual business problems.

However, I’m starting to explore the idea of decentralized e-learning. More often, it
seems to make sense to diversify risk by spreading e-learning dollars among
competing players. The reasons are plenty. First, the e-learning supplier market is
unsteady, with suppliers that seem to come and go. Second, while still not quite
plug-and-play, content is becoming more portable with the advent of standards.

For example, a recent consulting project centered around helping a company

conceptualize its approach to customer-focused e-learning. Because the company’s
internal e-learning was running smoothly, we used it as a natural starting point for the
discussion. Not long into the project, we realized that customers had entirely different
needs than employees. Customers also differed in scale, motivation, cultural diversity,
and tracking needs. Considering customer e-learning as an extension of HR-based
e-learning was restraining our thinking, so we removed existing e-learning efforts from
the table. Unhitched from the constraints of an in-house LMS and other baggage in
HR’s approach, our ideas quickly multiplied. We even went one step further and
banned the term e-learning from our conversation, which let us focus on results rather
than activities.

Now what?

Perhaps corporations should consider how small an e-learning application can be and
still get the job done rather than try to create monster centralized e-learning systems.
In doing so, would companies lose economies of scale? Maybe. But consider this: As
many as half of all grandiose, enterprise software initiatives fail to live up to
expectations. Many simply fail. Enterprise-wide e-learning efforts can run the risk of
obeying the Law of Raspberry Jam, coined by Gerald Weinberg, “The more you spread
it, the thinner it gets.”

Published: January 20, 2003

2 of 2 3/9/08 1:55 PM